I still don't understand why the simplest approach isn't used: ban kids from using the Internet unsupervised. There's really no good reason why a six year old should have internet access.
I dunno if I agree but I think that's the thrust of it.
Think about it, how many kids will get a gun just because some of the kids have access to guns through their negligent parents? If it's banned the path to getting it won't be straightforward.
Sure, your parents can give you access, but your parents could also give you booze, porn and guns if they feel so inclined.
i see your other comment about guns, so just to preempt that a little bit: the internet is far more ubiquitously available than guns are.
Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned.
im mostly on board with that.
>Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky
alcohol bans are way easier to enforce.
the internet is invisibly broadcast everywhere. most of my downtown & surrounding area has free wifi access. devices that can connect to the internet are also everywhere. phones, tablets, tvs, fridges, etc.
on the other hand, alcohol comes from licensed stores and requires a physical transaction to take place.
There are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol now. They haven't been there since the invention of alcohol, though.