Hacker News Reader

Comment by lII1lIlI11ll | Hacker News Reader

> This is not "offloading parenting of your child to the government" it is acknowledging that a certain action can be far easier to take (getting a child off social media) if the government puts in laws to support those actions.

Compromising my privacy in order to allow you to omit having some tough but needed conversations with your child (i.e. _parenting_) regarding harms of social media is not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Homer Simpson was supposed to be a parody on a bad father, not a role model with his "You're the government's problem now!".

> Are laws against violence a way of off-loading physical protection to the government?

Of course they are! I support government protecting me from violence in some capacity, although I don't support "chat control"-like laws since the cost/benefit doesn't seem to be favorable.

View on HN

> to allow you to omit having some tough but needed conversations with your child regarding harms of social media

As any parent knows, if you tell your kids that something is harmful, they will stop immediately. No questions asked. I've never met a child who did something their parents told them not to do, have you?

> I support government protecting me from violence in some capacity

So, you do like big government telling people what they can and can't do, as long as you feel it directly helps you. That said, laws against violence don't protect you from violence, the laws kick in after the fact.

> I don't support "chat control"-like laws since the cost/benefit doesn't seem to be favorable.

Possibly because you don't have kids and thus maybe not a full understanding of the cost/benefit? Perhaps, instead of lecturing actual parents about what parenting is like, you could ask questions about the cost/benefit you claim to be interested in.

> As any parent knows, if you tell your kids that something is harmful, they will stop immediately. No questions asked. I've never met a child who did something their parents told them not to do, have you?

You can configure parental controls or take away the phone.

> So, you do like big government telling people what they can and can't do, as long as you feel it directly helps you.

Yes, of course!

> That said, laws against violence don't protect you from violence, the laws kick in after the fact.

They protect me by discouraging other people from committing violence on me, obviously.

> Possibly because you don't have kids and thus maybe not a full understanding of the cost/benefit? Perhaps, instead of lecturing actual parents about what parenting is like, you could ask questions about the cost/benefit you claim to be interested in.

Cost/benefit for me, not for Homer Simpson-esque dads. You already took responsibility on yourself by becoming a parent, now please do the hard part (the parenting).

> You can configure parental controls or take away the phone.

Your first suggestion was silly, so now you have pivoted to telling me another way to parent. All the while have zero experience of your own. Did you know that social media is accessible on devices other than personal phones? Kids use computers and tablets at school (as early as 1st grade) with access to the internet.

> Yes, of course!

Which is my entire point. Parents, on the other hand, have to worry about people other than themselves.

> They protect me by discouraging other people from committing violence on me, obviously.

Now you are outsourcing your personal protection to the government. I have to pay extra because you can't defend yourself. You took on the responsibility of protecting yourself by being born.

> Cost/benefit for me

We get it, you don't care about anyone else. Things that help you are good, things that inconvenience you are a product of other people's errors. Nothing more really needs to be said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com