Hacker News Reader

We've never let them have free reign to screens, whether computer or TV or phone, because there's a whole host of other problems that come from that. So it's not like we're taking internet away from them and that they're used to it. We've been teaching each one, the other they get, how to use computers and the internet responsibly, and we've always supervised to make sure they're not accidentally running into something. But a search for some Magic the Gathering cards on eBay is what started this, when he accidentally saw an image of a nude woman in the results, and decided to google it behind our backs on the family computer (while my wife and the younger were in the same room!) and since he broke that level of trust with us, and showed a complete lack of understanding of the gravity of his actions, we had to take stronger measures against this disease in his mind that led him to put his younger siblings in danger of seeing something far more confusing and graphic than they're ready to at their ages.

No one knows how to better parent your kids than childless millenial software developers :)

Haha! I mean, fair. Obviously OP has the most information, so ultimately is probably best placed to make appropriate choices. I don't dispute that.

Childless millennial software developers (or otherwise generally technical) are in a better position to understand puberty in the modern internet driven landscape than someone who went through it 30 years ago, though. That's a relevant perspective here. . .no? The whole idea is to provide alternative perspectives, so that we can have the most information and thus (in theory) make the best choices, right?

> Childless millennial software developers (or otherwise generally technical) are in a better position to understand puberty in the modern internet driven landscape than someone who went through it 30 years ago, though. That's a relevant perspective here. . .no?

I'm a millennial software developer who went through this exact thing 15 years ago. So we're in the same boat, the only difference being I have kids. And poker is a whole different game when you're not playing for keeps.

Thank you for explaining further, that helps narrow down the situation.

"we had to take stronger measures against this disease in his mind that led him to put his younger siblings in danger of seeing something far more confusing and graphic than they're ready to at their ages."

This is what leaves me unconvinced (and I don't have expectation of changing your mind either - you operate with the most information here so that's probably a good thing). Certainly, what he did was inappropriate, but. . .a boy in puberty looking for porn on the internet is not a "disease". Even offensive porn. There's not something wrong with your boy. He did a bad thing (or a few bad things). He's a teen. Doesn't mean he should be let off the hook, but. . .diseased? Nah.

It does sound like you're having some conversations about this (and importantly, providing the idea that there's something better out there), though, so that's good.

> I feel like there's better ways to solve that than "no internet for you, and internet you do have is Being Watched".

What are those ways?

That's a good question, and I'm not sure. I think the. . .popular mentality is that you model proper behavior/approaches, but I don't think that really works here as well. The idea is that you have someone wiser than you who you can compare experiences with, and they can help guide you away from damaging choices - e.g. violent rape porn is probably a bad choice because X, Y, and Z. But I don't know what to generically recommend for reaching that place.

How about slip him a Playboy?

Play a little good cop / bad cop: you know mom is sensitive to stuff like that, but guys can have a little fun. And it's better when you don't have to see the naked dude.

Maybe in a week reinforce healthy arousal: this one's my favorite, look at this curve.

Talk about how you'll "know what to do" when the time comes, but it's important to work on just noticing details, women like that, and to be in control of your emotions and the situation.

Yes, not wanting your children to develop sexual relationships with computer screens is draconian.

It's the outright ban on wifi that feels draconian. How would you handle it?

I read an article a while ago about how a lot of silicon valley people disallow their kids internet access. It makes sense to me.

Does it? These kids are going into a world saturated by the Internet. Does it make sense to disallow Internet access and prevent them from participating in culture, education, entertainment, and pretty much everything else in life while their peers are getting ahead and they're left behind? This is one way to prepare kids for almost certain failure in our increasingly technology-based society.

Neither of us have any data here, but I really doubt this is true. I suspect that any deficiency in technical skills at, say, age 12, can quickly be overcome. But the downsides in terms of problems with social, emotional, and behavioral development from being exposed to technology 24/7 from a young age seems like it might be much more difficult to overcome.

My position is that moderate and supervised technology use from a young age probably is the best path, but if the choice was between two extremes of “unrestricted access from 0-10 years old” and “no access from 0-10”, I think the latter is the choice that I’d make. I highly doubt my kids would be at a long-term disadvantage.

All of this stuff is accessible in real life, and in a fuller way. I don't think missing out on 1000s of hours of Instagram consumption is a particular disadvantage, especially if those 1000s of hours were spent actually hanging out with friends or playing sports etc.

Not quite what I was saying. Not wanting anyone you care about to "develop sexual relationships with computer screens" is normal, I'd think.

Mandating all levels of access to computer screens because of that desire is what's draconian, not the intent behind the mandate.

It's clearly not a response to the desire but a response to the action.

I was responding to reader5000, who said ". . .not wanting your children. . ." (emphasis mine)

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html