Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

> IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety.

The hyperbole is getting a little out of control.

> - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

I don't understand how anyone can think that keeping kids entirely away from internet-connected devices through age 17 is possible or a good idea. These aren't serious comments or suggestions.

View on HN

Not only that but like, if your child touches the screen in your car have you committed a crime? Using a smart fridge is verboten- speaking to the house's Alexa? Straight to jail.

If a web client (fridge, infotainment system, alexa, etc...) can access the internet then it must be updated to look for RTA/adult headers and prompt for an admin password for parental controls to approve access to the site.

The internet is more than the www

Indeed. My focus is on protecting families, small children and small children are primarily using tablets and phones. It's not perfect but it is a valid starting point. Grabbing everyone's PII and leaking it is a non starter. We can knock down the other goal posts once we fix this piece.

Another option of course is to force all these companies and their age/ID vendors to be under something much stricter than PCI DSS and Fedramp for their entire data-centers as a starting point if we must allow storing PII data of children and their parents.

The concept is straight forward:

1. Eliminate all the false flag attempts by governments and their supporters to use "danger to children" to require government ID for every adult to get online.

2. If the internet is so dangerous as to require ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners.

If one existed, it will probably be like: children under 18 using the internet without parent permission, but then that doesn't do much. They are not guns which you might not ever use. Many people use it daily.

To be fair with the way politicians are treating the internet and social media, it is the equivalent of giving them a loaded gun. Because otherwise how can they justify these laws? Politicians are the ones claiming kids are being irrevocably harmed by the internet.

The internet as a whole is not a loaded gun, just social media and adult content. Wikipedia, educational sites, school websites and such are fine.

Giving a kid Instagram and tiktok is like handing them over to a junkie on the street to try meth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com