• FairycorePhoebe@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I don’t understand how this is a controversial opinion, but maybe parents should actually parent their children instead of expecting the Internet or the government to decide what their kids should see for them? Maybe talk to your kid about safe and ethical sex, the dangers of porn addiction, and not to take anything away from pornographic content instead? Maybe we shouldn’t be giving children smartphones and tablets with unfettered internet access in the first place instead of spending time with them? Wild concepts I know.

    • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      105
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      because these laws aren’t about protecting children they’re about elimination of access to things the government doesn’t like… like queer spaces

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        12 hours ago

        And giving them sweeping ability to track everybody via their identity papers, to see what websites and services they’re using, what all their online identities are, etc.

        They claim the info isn’t being saved or passed on to the government to form a big surveillance database to one day use against people - sure, it’s legal to, say, be gay or a socialist or of a particular religion today, but societies and regimes change, and the info they collect on you today may become ammunition against you in 10, 20, 40 years time.

        But I don’t for a moment believe their obvious lies.

        This is nothing but authoritarian police state monitoring and control. It’s extremely obvious. Yet, who are we to vote for in the next election? Not Labour, thanks to this (and a few other big reasons perhaps), not the Tories because, well, you’ve seen what they’re like.

        It’s not impossible for a third party to be elected of course, not as impossible as places like the USA that have a very worryingly solidified two party system, it’s just very unlikely.

        Knowing the British people and their seeming apathy and poor judgement at scale these days I wouldn’t be surprised if they elect the racist bigots at Reform - who ironically would be even more authoritarian and evil than what we have now.

        As usual, there’s no hope for the future and no possibility of good outcomes.

        Humanity is doomed to repeat it’s failures for all of history again and again, and we’re just along for the miserable ride.

        • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The general apathy and disdain for noncomformity (the hatred protestors get is absurd) really does let their government stomp all over them. IIRC BBC goes out of their way to not cover protests in their own back yard, or anything that may be critical of the crown

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        This, right here. It’s like Nixon’s “war on drugs” that went on, and on, and on… The goal was not drugs, per-se, but to use drugs as a pretense to police people of color.

      • redwattlebird@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Not the government per se, but the powerful lobby groups that want a new world order. Usually linked to religion. Looking at you, Collective Shout.

    • Schlemmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Don’t give your children unrestricted acces to a smartphone until they’ve proven they can use it wisely. No smartphone before age twelve. Limited use until age 15. And ffs. Ban smartphones at school.

      Teach your kids about the internet. It’s part of sexual education.

      And don’t leave it up to private companies to identify me and collect sensitive data on me. Fuck that. If you really want age verification. Deliver the framework.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’ve been saying this a couple places recently, but why not pass legislation requiring every site to provide a content rating. Then parents can choose if they want to restrict content by ratings or not. Yeah, you could have malicious actors, but it makes it easier and simpler for everyone to work than having ID laws.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        14 hours ago

        But that would actually solve the problem and not enable massive government overreach. We can’t have that.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      My 5 year old son does have access to an android tablet, but i restrict, selectively, what he can do on it and time limit his usage so it locks down after a few hours. I curate his youtube and frequently spend time watching kids content to decide if i want him watching it. If its good and educational i will share it to his kids youtube account. He cant browse the web, he cant buy things on the play stores. He has to get me to approve any app install and i will always install first and play to ensure it safe.

      Its hard work, but its worth it to protect him online. And this has lead to it just being another one of his toys, it doesnt absorb his whole existence. He can take it or leave it. Which i am chuffed about.

      When he is older and i can help him understand for himself how to be safe, i will help him however i can. Rather than restric, i will help him understand what the internet is, the good the bad and the ugly.

    • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That requires effort, which most parents are unwilling to do, and newspapers will still want it banned and governments would still want to ban it so they can ban other things too.