Kids need access to the internet at a super young age these days for school. If you don’t have some sort of filter in place when they are in single digits or tweens you are just negligent. The internet has some dark corners.
thats not the kid, thats the parent, how do I know? My parents used filter Software when i was younger. And if i was myself, i wouldnt want any of my kids to have raw unfiltered access to the Internet and thats coming me; a teenager. A teen can very easily develop a porn addiction, sorry if I’m a religous zealot and I’m a horrible being for going to church. but I also check your post history and I think you need a therapist or something. Your not ok in the head
Wow. A straw man fallacy, red herring and ad hominem in the same reply… haven’t seen that one before. And yes, I do need a therapist. I’m autistic, and was emotionally abused by my mother. I’m sorry if you don’t " believe in" emotional abuse.
My background aside, I am perfectly capable of holding a logical, civilised discussion and assume you are too.
Firstly,
Never at any time did I argue in favor of unrestricted internet access. We are in agreement on the topic of filters and their necessity.
Secondly,
I stated clearly that the issue here is not the use of filters, but the use of surveillance, that is, recieving reports on internet activity in addition to filters.
My thesis statement is simply that filters are enough, and there is no benefit to using surveillance that justifies the disadvantages. Namely:
A) The child feeling distrusted by the parents, and
B) The child losing any feeling of autonomy, which is very important for development during the teenage years.
I apologise for my lack of clarity earlier, as well as my inflamatory language and ad hominem. I did not make my point clear, and should not have escalated in that manner. I respect your opinion as well, even if you no longer wish to continue with this discussion. I forgive you for the ad hominem as well - it was only fare given my earlier rash behaviour.
I’m sorry if my way of talking seems vague or offensive, I have Asperger’s Syndrome so I tend to write an essay when I want to talk… sorry.
And to clarify farther, I am in no way in favour of teens being able to access porn or other inappropriate material. As I said, I agree that filters are necessary.
If the kid is old enough to purposely bypass the security, they’re probably around the right age to find some of the stuff on the other side. But you don’t want them accidentally stumbling into it because they searched something seemingly innocent.
I just wanted to look up blueberry waffles but I was derping hard and couldn’t remember the word for blueberries… I was an adult at that point but just imagine a kid doing that on accident iykyk 💀
If the kids old enough to figure out VPNs, dual booting, and all the other pretty simple workarounds then it is what it is. You can’t control everything. I am talking about the little guys. And this dudes kid is googling how to teach crabs to talk. If someone is searching that they probably aren’t ready to get completely unrestricted access because they are probably pretty young. Like I said, single digits or tweens.
If the parents still try to restrict, which most unreasonably will, then the kid will simply grow better at this
This leads to the kid growing up with confiding in random people more than their family(this might lead to said friends being a bad influence on them, since they didn’t learn how to differentiate good and bad people)
That or a general sense of distrust and surveillance
Parents can literally get sued by the state for letting their children watch inappropriate stuff (at least where I live). You are obligated as a parent to restrict the access of your children to inappropriate media.
There’s a HUGE difference between restrictions via blockers and surveillance. I can assure you that no one here is arguing in favour of letting kids watch porn…
And the proper way is to teach your kids about it and stop treating kids like super fragile glass beings.
Your city probably has some dark corners too, but you don’t set up geofenced tracking beacons to be alarmed if they stumble slightly off the path you intended them to go.
Children should feel comfortable enough to talk to you about bad stuff they encounter, not feel frightened, that they broke a rule.
I’m 17, and at least on my windows PC, every search I make is reported. Every setting I touch is reported. Every app I use, and how long, is reported. Every startup and shutdown is reported. Games with chat features are banned. Online games are banned. And every week on Sunday, an email with all this goes to my parents, and my dad forwards it to me as a kind of intimidation that “we know all”…
And yes, they use geofenced tracking too.
But I’m a geek, so my Linux laptop and phone are no longer bugged (my only access to other people).
Still have to turn the tracker on so they don’t ask why the location pings stopped though.
17… this kind of obsessive control ought to be illegal. I propose privacy rights at age 16, enforcible by fines, with a safe hotline for those with obsessive parents. They’re emotionally abusive too, control by external restrictions is often only part of the story in cases like mine.
I’m all for safety filters, but parental controls that can be classified as spyware have no place in a parent-child relationship after the age of 16…
If you use these trackers and barge in “hey I saw what you did on the internet, you’re in trouble.” then you’re doing it wrong. Kids need guidance. If you were negligent enough to let your kid roam the city without supervision, you SHOULD have a tracker on them. We’re talking about little kids not 16+. Many young kids get themselves killed or groomed or into some kind of cult online. When that happens to young kids, parents are negligent. When 12 year olds get addicted to porn, negligence. You can guide your children without being an asshole. I know a lot of us grew up either completely neglected or completely terrified to make a mistake, but there is an in-between.
Not every state in the US is the same so your comment is mostly based on smug ignorance anyway. It’s not paranoia if you live in a city with a lot of crime etc. You just wanted to try and feel superior. Giving me reddit vibes tbh.
The thing is, parents can get sued for not restricting access of their children to inappropriate media. When you think just talking to your children “the right way” and they will suddenly act wise and smart and good all the time you are incredibly naive.
Kids need access to the internet at a super young age these days for school. If you don’t have some sort of filter in place when they are in single digits or tweens you are just negligent. The internet has some dark corners.
I don’t mind just filters, but reporting it to the parent doesn’t sit right with me. It probably depends on the parent though
Its to make sure the kid isnt searching those topics
Yeah can you imagine a world where crabs could read?
deleted by creator
thats not the kid, thats the parent, how do I know? My parents used filter Software when i was younger. And if i was myself, i wouldnt want any of my kids to have raw unfiltered access to the Internet and thats coming me; a teenager. A teen can very easily develop a porn addiction, sorry if I’m a religous zealot and I’m a horrible being for going to church. but I also check your post history and I think you need a therapist or something. Your not ok in the head
My comnent:
“Filters are necessary…”
Wow. A straw man fallacy, red herring and ad hominem in the same reply… haven’t seen that one before. And yes, I do need a therapist. I’m autistic, and was emotionally abused by my mother. I’m sorry if you don’t " believe in" emotional abuse.
My background aside, I am perfectly capable of holding a logical, civilised discussion and assume you are too.
Firstly, Never at any time did I argue in favor of unrestricted internet access. We are in agreement on the topic of filters and their necessity.
Secondly, I stated clearly that the issue here is not the use of filters, but the use of surveillance, that is, recieving reports on internet activity in addition to filters.
My thesis statement is simply that filters are enough, and there is no benefit to using surveillance that justifies the disadvantages. Namely:
A) The child feeling distrusted by the parents, and
B) The child losing any feeling of autonomy, which is very important for development during the teenage years.
I apologise for my lack of clarity earlier, as well as my inflamatory language and ad hominem. I did not make my point clear, and should not have escalated in that manner. I respect your opinion as well, even if you no longer wish to continue with this discussion. I forgive you for the ad hominem as well - it was only fare given my earlier rash behaviour.
I’m sorry if my way of talking seems vague or offensive, I have Asperger’s Syndrome so I tend to write an essay when I want to talk… sorry.
And to clarify farther, I am in no way in favour of teens being able to access porn or other inappropriate material. As I said, I agree that filters are necessary.
Harder the surveillance, harder the kid works to bypass them
Kids are smart, good on OOP to teach their kids to use a VPN, about dual booting, and more
If the kid is old enough to purposely bypass the security, they’re probably around the right age to find some of the stuff on the other side. But you don’t want them accidentally stumbling into it because they searched something seemingly innocent.
This brought a memory rushing back of me and a family friend in the mid 90s using the family computer to find funny websites.
Us: “Let’s search butt.com!”
My godfather: “NOOOOO!!!”
I just wanted to look up blueberry waffles but I was derping hard and couldn’t remember the word for blueberries… I was an adult at that point but just imagine a kid doing that on accident iykyk 💀
😭
If the kids old enough to figure out VPNs, dual booting, and all the other pretty simple workarounds then it is what it is. You can’t control everything. I am talking about the little guys. And this dudes kid is googling how to teach crabs to talk. If someone is searching that they probably aren’t ready to get completely unrestricted access because they are probably pretty young. Like I said, single digits or tweens.
It is what it is
If the parents still try to restrict, which most unreasonably will, then the kid will simply grow better at this
This leads to the kid growing up with confiding in random people more than their family(this might lead to said friends being a bad influence on them, since they didn’t learn how to differentiate good and bad people)
That or a general sense of distrust and surveillance
Parents can literally get sued by the state for letting their children watch inappropriate stuff (at least where I live). You are obligated as a parent to restrict the access of your children to inappropriate media.
There’s a HUGE difference between restrictions via blockers and surveillance. I can assure you that no one here is arguing in favour of letting kids watch porn…
So many privacy zealots here with absolutely zero clue what it means to raise a kid.
Bold of you to assume us privacy zealots aren’t successfully raising kids
It’s possible to block without spying on though.
thinking about my p history and that one video
Wasn’t quite different back then, it is easier now, and full of advertisements and stuff that make the happy chemicals go brrrr
And the proper way is to teach your kids about it and stop treating kids like super fragile glass beings.
Your city probably has some dark corners too, but you don’t set up geofenced tracking beacons to be alarmed if they stumble slightly off the path you intended them to go.
Children should feel comfortable enough to talk to you about bad stuff they encounter, not feel frightened, that they broke a rule.
I’m 17, and at least on my windows PC, every search I make is reported. Every setting I touch is reported. Every app I use, and how long, is reported. Every startup and shutdown is reported. Games with chat features are banned. Online games are banned. And every week on Sunday, an email with all this goes to my parents, and my dad forwards it to me as a kind of intimidation that “we know all”…
And yes, they use geofenced tracking too.
But I’m a geek, so my Linux laptop and phone are no longer bugged (my only access to other people).
Still have to turn the tracker on so they don’t ask why the location pings stopped though.
17… this kind of obsessive control ought to be illegal. I propose privacy rights at age 16, enforcible by fines, with a safe hotline for those with obsessive parents. They’re emotionally abusive too, control by external restrictions is often only part of the story in cases like mine.
I’m all for safety filters, but parental controls that can be classified as spyware have no place in a parent-child relationship after the age of 16…
If you use these trackers and barge in “hey I saw what you did on the internet, you’re in trouble.” then you’re doing it wrong. Kids need guidance. If you were negligent enough to let your kid roam the city without supervision, you SHOULD have a tracker on them. We’re talking about little kids not 16+. Many young kids get themselves killed or groomed or into some kind of cult online. When that happens to young kids, parents are negligent. When 12 year olds get addicted to porn, negligence. You can guide your children without being an asshole. I know a lot of us grew up either completely neglected or completely terrified to make a mistake, but there is an in-between.
When I look outside, there are 5 year olds playing without supervision. They get along just fine.
Not every country is a paranoid dystopia.
Not every state in the US is the same so your comment is mostly based on smug ignorance anyway. It’s not paranoia if you live in a city with a lot of crime etc. You just wanted to try and feel superior. Giving me reddit vibes tbh.
The thing is, parents can get sued for not restricting access of their children to inappropriate media. When you think just talking to your children “the right way” and they will suddenly act wise and smart and good all the time you are incredibly naive.