Why do parents feel the need to control what their children do online? I had unrestricted internet access as a child and turned out fine.
Although I must say, a DNS based approach is more benign than some of the horrendously invasive alternatives.
Although I must say, a DNS based approach is more benign than some of the horrendously invasive alternatives.
> "Horrendously invasive"
Children do not have a right to privacy from their parents. Privacy (from parents) is a privileged that is earned and can be taken away. If you found your child off {insert worst thing you can think of} would you crack down on their privacy? Most parents would.
Parents also have the right to decide for themselves what really is "bad", and then try to raise their child according to those beliefs.
Don't confuse privacy from parents as privacy overall--children absolutely have a right to privacy from companies/3rd parties.
Simply because the internet doesn't physically harm you in an immediately noticeable way doesn't mean it's not dangerous or that harm isn't being done. It's good for parents to be aware of potential dangers (of which there are plenty) and to help their child navigate them.
Also, as other's have pointed out, the internet from decades ago is much different than the internet of today.
They do everywhere outside the US, under article 16 of Unicef's convention on rights of the child. Of course this right is not absolute and many will say that the right to a child's safety comes before the right of a child's privacy, but children do inherently have a right to privacy. The convention does not exclude parents from this right for good reason.
There are parents who will demand their 17 year old child to hand over their private conversations, search history, you name it, and there are those that give 3 year olds unrestricted access to the internet. Neither extremes are healthy for children, but this "guidance" for the internet can last into children's late teens for certain parents.
The US signed the convention but did not ratify it, so you're correct that children don't have this right specifically in America. Legally speaking, the UN convention should ensure the right in all other recognised countries, though.
> There are parents who will demand their 17 year old child to hand over their private conversations, search history, you name it
Under certain circumstance this is justified, even according to unisef and the resources they link to.
"Governments, companies and others should support parents with appropriate guidance and tools, including how to respond to and, if needed, report harmful contacts, conduct and content." [1] -> "guidance and tools" links to [2], which explicitly states parents can "Monitor a teen’s social media sites, apps, and browsing history, if you have concerns that cyberbullying may be occurring" as well as "Know your child’s user names and passwords for email and social media" and "Establish rules about appropriate digital behavior, content, and apps".
I'd also add that unicef has called out pornography as potentially harmful for children [3], as that's likely a topic many children may debate. And that parents may use parental controls [1] (point #4) to help them make online platforms safe for children.
[1] https://www.unicef.org/media/67396/file/COVID-19%20and%20Its...
[2] https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/digital-awareness...
No, they really don't thankfully.
We have to teach our children to be good people, and how to process the world, and what we've already managed to process out of what we've seen throughout our own lives. If your strategy depends on censorship to provide a healthy path, I don't think it's going to be that healthy of an outcome.
I see nothing wrong with blocking access to certain sites by default - protects us as well - if anyone of them have a problem with it, they can come and ask why it is blocked. Simples.
The statistical power of an n=1 study applied to a population many orders of magnitude larger is not very strong.
That aside, many, if not most children below a certain age lack the requisite ability to discern danger/non-danger with a fidelity that would satisfy their parents who have moral and legal responsibility in that domain. I admit there's a tension between privacy and the duty to protect.
Also, with respect, you could also have made the point that my experience might not be the experience of everyone without dressing it up in statistical speak. I can assure you that I understand basic statistical principles.
I'm pretty sure I don't want my kids around 4chan and/or kiwifarm till they're much older .....
Zero parenting experience here, but making something the "forbidden fruit" is probably how kids learn to change the DNS on their device.
As far as I can remember, the only real-world consequence was someone applying Bengay where it should not be applied.
Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Google/Bing image search etc all have adult content easily within reach and DNS can't do anything about that.
It doesn't make sense on a technical level so it doesn't even matter if it makes sense on a philosophical level.
Those sorts of "accidents."
We figured it would be better to train and guide them around the "search for pussy pictures" results than to let them grow up in a sheltered internet at home and get confronted with the "less desirable results" when connected to the open networks of friends & neighbours.
Are you telling us this for some reason other than to make yourself feel better about yourself? Because it comes off as sanctimonious and self-serving.
Different parents. Different families. Different cultures. They will all make different decisions. Your choice for your children is likely not the right choice for other people and their children. So I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to brag about.