Parents won't parent without a change in incentives.
That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
That's great messaging, but what exactly are you materially proposing that's different?
If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.
And that's fine. I'm pretty sure my nephew's high school friends will all quit Facebook for once and move to a decentralized platform or even install their own servers. The teenagers can go pretty far and learn advanced stuff if they want to. I bet their minecraft home is more complex.
And I already know their opinion on the age restrictions.
Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.
I don't know, if the biggest companies in the world were setting up outside schools and in cul-de-sacs and aggressively selling colorful heroin with cartoon mascots my first reaction wouldn't be to blame parents for failing to prevent the childhood heroin addiction epidemic and call for arresting them.
I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.
Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm very skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents.
And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.
If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?
[dupe] Discussion on associated blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48706560
Thanks! Macro-expanded:
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48706560 - 15 hours ago, 298 comments
Parents won't parent without a change in incentives.
That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens.
Your proposal to punish parents does the same.
How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
Bingo. And now GP should go look who is behind age verification and ponder why they'd be pushing for this if it didn't benefit them.
That's great messaging, but what exactly are you materially proposing that's different?
If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.
And that's fine. I'm pretty sure my nephew's high school friends will all quit Facebook for once and move to a decentralized platform or even install their own servers. The teenagers can go pretty far and learn advanced stuff if they want to. I bet their minecraft home is more complex.
And I already know their opinion on the age restrictions.
I am specifically not proposing any material solution.
It seems like it’s been easy for every corporate-backed actor to come up with solutions that burden everyday citizens.
Now we’re yet again burdened to solve a problem corporations created.
Because corporations don't have children?
Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.
Certainly a lot of people do need to approach parenting better.
However, I simultaneously think that a lot of “personal responsibility” culture is very convenient ideology for corporations.
Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is a failing of personal obligation, agency, and responsibility.
A whole bunch of things that make good parenting so difficult are directly the fault of corporations.
There is zero mandatory paid parental leave in the United States. I wonder how much corporate money goes into maintaining that status quo?
I don't know, if the biggest companies in the world were setting up outside schools and in cul-de-sacs and aggressively selling colorful heroin with cartoon mascots my first reaction wouldn't be to blame parents for failing to prevent the childhood heroin addiction epidemic and call for arresting them.
I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.
Because there are bad parents, all people must give up all anonymity?
You are asking for society to bear the burdens of the people you want to change. That is bad policy.
I hope someone punishes your parents for letting you on here.
Comparing Social Media to Heroin seems quite hyperbolic to me as someone who has had people in my life die of opioid addiction.
Social Media isn't even as bad as Tobacco I'd say let alone Heroin.
Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm very skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents.
And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.
If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?
Isnt this your position? Why dont you defend it?