Not all. As a kid, I was taught that information wasn't dangerous.
Your shallow sanctimony excludes a gigantic middle between "let your kids do whatever they want" and "keep your kids in a padded room lined with Bible verses."
So what?
"Kid does something, figures out it was a bad idea" isn't a tragedy. Definitely doesn't rise to the level of justifying censorship. It's being a kid. It's learning.
Seriously, human beings are going to choose (partially) negative experiences sometimes and you should let them. It's part of being a person. Use of (physical|emotional|technological) force to prevent this is both disturbing and ultimately futile.
Warnings are one thing, but you still have the right to ignore them and find out for yourself why they were given.
O.o
Have you, like, seen children? My roommate's one-year-old regularly chooses to throw himself headfirst off the couch. She uses physical force to prevent him. Disturbing and futile, apparently!
Or, if we assume an exception for physical injury, I would certainly have chosen to spend my childhood indoors playing video games if my parents hadn't used emotional force to get me to go to school. I suppose you can try to derail onto the failings of public education if you like, but I wasn't interested in alternative education either; I just wanted to play video games, which would probably have resulted in me still living at home at 35 instead of having a degree and a satisfying, well-paying job. Clearly they should have just "warned" me that I was going to ruin my entire life, then stood aside and let me learn, eh?
The feature is called "supervised users" not "locked in a tower users". So information can flow however the supervisor wishes. It could be simply a "monitor & discuss" role where seeing the user's browser history gives the supervisor information about what the user has been reading and they initiate a conversation about it. It doesn't have to lead to blocking and restriction. It can be another tool for parents to use to teach their children.
Surveillance has a chilling effect and parent-child surveillance is no different.
If I had to do this, I would have just avoided the internet as much as possible. I suspect most kids beyond age 9/10 are roughly the same.
I would never have learned to program, never have started reading HN, never have browsed Wikipedia except for specific queries. I would never have acquired the information or communication and technical skills I currently possess. I'd be a completely different and vastly inferior person looking at a much less interesting future.
> It doesn't have to lead to blocking and restriction
"Monitor and supervise" is orders of magnitude worse than content filtering. This approach forces children to block themselves from having any sort of individual experience. If your child is even slightly introverted and is old enough not to not want to share every second with you, "monitor and supervise internet activity" is equal to "learn about and engage with the world around you as little as possible." It sends a message that by default, information is bad - any time you do seek information, you know you'll have to justify your curiosity. This doesn't just apply to objectionable content, it applies to everything.
I was happy to show my parents my finished projects and even wrote a few specifically for family. If I were getting interrogated, incompetently, about every intermediate step ("Why did you install django-south? What's a database? What's a schema? What's a query? What's a function? Oh, is that like a ___? No, mom, go away.") I would have just watched mindless TV instead.
Could you imagine knowing that you will have to discuss every link you follow and every Google search you enter with anyone, let alone your parents? That's horrifying.
There is a difference between the government-citizen surveillance and parent-child surveillance.
In both cases, a figure of authority (legitimate authority!) spys on you, pro[poradly for your own good. (Maybe even really for your own good! Just because the NSA's spying hasn't actually successfully foiled any terrorist plots yet doesn't mean that all spying programs of that sort are ineffectual...)
The one difference that I can see (and it's not an unimportant one) is that a good parent is open about what they are doing, and talks to the kid, gets the kids opinions. While organizations like the NSA try their hardest to make sure the citizenry don't even know that they're being spied on. This is a way in which a parent's spying might be not quite as bad.
However, remember that at least in theory the USA is a democracy, while a family is best described as a dictatorship. In the ideal world where the US government actually listened to its citizens and engaged in discourse with them, the USG would have by far the moral high ground over parents, even over parents who run a benevolent dictatorship where they actually listen the kid and make family policy accordingly, as a benevolent dictatorship still has certain problems when compared to a true democracy.
As parents ourselves this gets us into the cycle of being protective around our own children and it is definitely needed to minimize the encounters and be there to safely catch them when they fall
A bird pushes its fledgling off a ledge to make it fly but also hurries to take it under its wings when it senses a predator about. Guess this is basically the dilemma of every parent (every child that becomes the parent)
Which happens in many families I know, so before anyone says that’s impossible because of the „teenage rebellion”: too bad all the kids that can assert their independence while still talking to their parents about pretty much everything exist.