6 ms·

I appreciate the wealth of technical solutions that don't violate privacy, but isn't this overlooking an important point: that children don't need to be connect

I appreciate the wealth of technical solutions that don't violate privacy, but isn't this overlooking an important point: that children don't need to be connected to the Internet at all times from such an early age? Many internet and cell phone providers seem to take it for granted that children must be online, which is already a net loss for their privacy as they mature.

jszymborski 3mo ago
I mean its only a hope and a skip away from having to validate ones age to turn on the router.
hasteg 3mo ago
I agree, I think kids should have limited access to the internet. I pretty much did and it worked out for me but I have seen so many reports about it causing harm in schools and personal life. (Specifically I think LLMs should not be used in education also, but different point) However, I think the main problem people have with this "think of the children" narrative is that it will force EVERYONE to give up their credentials to access the internet, not just kids. And the general consensus is that we as adults do not want to and should not have to prove our identity to access the internet.
- mossTechnician 3mo ago
  I am wholeheartedly against identity verification, especially when it comes to giving up privacy. And I hope these "think of the children" arguments can be pushed back at from multiple angles. If the danger is real, then by the time a child is online, 4 out of 5 in them in Australia can apparently access social media anyway. So even if everyone's privacy was somehow an acceptable price to pay, these requirements do nothing.
  - hasteg 3mo ago
    Lol yeah exactly, if kids want to go on social media they will 100% find a way around it.... putting in these identity requirements will literally do nothing except require us as adults to give over more information. I'm sure everything will pass through congress fine though because "someone think of the children!!!!".
  - HerbManic 3mo ago
    Unfortunately, they are looking to expand the eCommmisioners powers to try and close that door a bit tighter now. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-25/australia-will-strengthen-social-media-ban-children-safety/106842724 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-25/australia-will-streng...
Aurornis 3mo ago
That's their parents' decision to make, not yours.
- wolvesechoes 3mo ago
  What is "parents' decision" is up to debate. This is how the society always worked.
- drooby 3mo ago
  Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? We draw the line somewhere because these things that "are the parents' decision" have consequences on broader society. They have consequences that impact you and me. And we also have a say. You can make the argument that it's just the parents' decision. But you have to say why.
  - jolmg 3mo ago
    > Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? Not on the first 2 because they're illegal for minors. Yes on the last 2. A parent can e.g. forbid their minor from being employed if it's hindering their studies. They also have a say on their romantic partner and how they interact. If rules are not followed, they can e.g. be grounded.
    - drawfloat 3mo ago
      ...yes on the last? Might be in a minority on that one.
      - u8080 3mo ago
        Maybe depends on country/culture and what we threat as minor. I.e. I have completed first year of university at 16
  - pibaker 3mo ago
    The idea that browsing the internet is remotely comparable to smoking is utterly retarded.
biophysboy 3mo ago
Its a tragedy of the commons situation. The benefits of being offline are dampened by the kid being out of the loop
- jjulius 3mo ago
  This whole FOMO thing isn't as real, nor as detrimental, for kids as people try and paint it. That's not to say there's not an impact, but kids survive just fine - everyone misses out on this and that, even adults who opt out. Nobody ever keeps up or is involved with everything everyone's doing. Learning that that's okay, and how to handle that, at a younger age pays dividends as an adult. Besides, there are many ways to still keep your kids connected to their friends without feeding the beast. And I say this as a parent.
  - biophysboy 3mo ago
    I agree with this (I want to be a parent very soon). I think I'm trying to articulate that while its possible to make a quiet place for your kid at home, they still live in a very internet-driven world. I actually am curious about your experience on this. Basically, I'm worried that I'll try to make restrictions in the future, and it'll just be a war of attrition that I lose, since internet platforms touch so many parts of social life, especially for the young. Maybe things will be different in a decade.
- xandrius 3mo ago
  What internet loop does a kid to be in before the age of 14?
  - biophysboy 3mo ago
    In my opinion, none, but many parents disagree. Also, its more about the secondary effects, where all of their friends at school are talking about internet things they are unfamiliar with.
    - b40d-48b2-979e 3mo ago
port11 3mo ago
This isn’t about children, mate. It’s about controlling the population’s access to content. The children are fine. Many countries no longer allow smartphones at school, which lowers the peer-pressure factor to be online. Parents are doing their best to steer kids. But these pesky adults, goshdarnit, they access whatever content they want without approval from The State, potentially reading dissident materials, borrowing 1984 from libraries… politicians don’t like that.

jszymborski 3mo ago

I mean its only a hope and a skip away from having to validate ones age to turn on the router.

hasteg 3mo ago

I agree, I think kids should have limited access to the internet. I pretty much did and it worked out for me but I have seen so many reports about it causing harm in schools and personal life. (Specifically I think LLMs should not be used in education also, but different point) However, I think the main problem people have with this "think of the children" narrative is that it will force EVERYONE to give up their credentials to access the internet, not just kids. And the general consensus is that we as adults do not want to and should not have to prove our identity to access the internet.

mossTechnician 3mo ago
I am wholeheartedly against identity verification, especially when it comes to giving up privacy. And I hope these "think of the children" arguments can be pushed back at from multiple angles. If the danger is real, then by the time a child is online, 4 out of 5 in them in Australia can apparently access social media anyway. So even if everyone's privacy was somehow an acceptable price to pay, these requirements do nothing.
- hasteg 3mo ago
  Lol yeah exactly, if kids want to go on social media they will 100% find a way around it.... putting in these identity requirements will literally do nothing except require us as adults to give over more information. I'm sure everything will pass through congress fine though because "someone think of the children!!!!".
- HerbManic 3mo ago
  Unfortunately, they are looking to expand the eCommmisioners powers to try and close that door a bit tighter now. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-25/australia-will-strengthen-social-media-ban-children-safety/106842724 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-25/australia-will-streng...

Aurornis 3mo ago

That's their parents' decision to make, not yours.

wolvesechoes 3mo ago
What is "parents' decision" is up to debate. This is how the society always worked.
drooby 3mo ago
Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? We draw the line somewhere because these things that "are the parents' decision" have consequences on broader society. They have consequences that impact you and me. And we also have a say. You can make the argument that it's just the parents' decision. But you have to say why.
- jolmg 3mo ago
  > Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? Not on the first 2 because they're illegal for minors. Yes on the last 2. A parent can e.g. forbid their minor from being employed if it's hindering their studies. They also have a say on their romantic partner and how they interact. If rules are not followed, they can e.g. be grounded.
  - drawfloat 3mo ago
    ...yes on the last? Might be in a minority on that one.
    - u8080 3mo ago
      Maybe depends on country/culture and what we threat as minor. I.e. I have completed first year of university at 16
- pibaker 3mo ago
  The idea that browsing the internet is remotely comparable to smoking is utterly retarded.

biophysboy 3mo ago

Its a tragedy of the commons situation. The benefits of being offline are dampened by the kid being out of the loop

jjulius 3mo ago
This whole FOMO thing isn't as real, nor as detrimental, for kids as people try and paint it. That's not to say there's not an impact, but kids survive just fine - everyone misses out on this and that, even adults who opt out. Nobody ever keeps up or is involved with everything everyone's doing. Learning that that's okay, and how to handle that, at a younger age pays dividends as an adult. Besides, there are many ways to still keep your kids connected to their friends without feeding the beast. And I say this as a parent.
- biophysboy 3mo ago
  I agree with this (I want to be a parent very soon). I think I'm trying to articulate that while its possible to make a quiet place for your kid at home, they still live in a very internet-driven world. I actually am curious about your experience on this. Basically, I'm worried that I'll try to make restrictions in the future, and it'll just be a war of attrition that I lose, since internet platforms touch so many parts of social life, especially for the young. Maybe things will be different in a decade.
xandrius 3mo ago
What internet loop does a kid to be in before the age of 14?
- biophysboy 3mo ago
  In my opinion, none, but many parents disagree. Also, its more about the secondary effects, where all of their friends at school are talking about internet things they are unfamiliar with.
  - b40d-48b2-979e 3mo ago

port11 3mo ago

This isn’t about children, mate. It’s about controlling the population’s access to content. The children are fine. Many countries no longer allow smartphones at school, which lowers the peer-pressure factor to be online. Parents are doing their best to steer kids. But these pesky adults, goshdarnit, they access whatever content they want without approval from The State, potentially reading dissident materials, borrowing 1984 from libraries… politicians don’t like that.