7/6/2026 at 6:32:48 PM
This doesn't surprise me at all. I don't think we should be letting kids under 16 use social media, and the issue is a collective action problem that is best solved collectively (i.e. with government regulation).But, I understand concerns raised by many, for example the EFF, that legislation banning children will have negative implications for online privacy. How do we "protect the kids", while also maintaining online privacy, which has been a fundamental part of the internet for a long time?
by eigencoder
7/6/2026 at 7:37:35 PM
This is an incredible parental competence, awareness, and knowledge failure.If you know a child in public school, ask them about what other kids watch on their phones at school.
It's a literal felony if you were to hand a kid a porno, gore/death videos, etc, but handing a kid a phone with unrestricted internet is completely fine for > 50% of parents [1]. And, the children of these failed parents go around the schools showing other children "shock" videos to get their reactions, like (an example I know) another child being murdered, on a gore website.
Seems like something has to change. Or, for those who think nothing has to change, should we stop pretending, and remove/lessen the existing laws around giving children access to inappropriate material? Maybe lower 18+ content to 10+, as it currently is with > 50% of the children accessing the internet?
I've talked to some of these parents, and they use the same justification as they do for letting their elementary school children watch rated R horror movies, "I don't want to shelter them".
[1] https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/press-release/abc-online...
by nomel
7/6/2026 at 7:50:45 PM
The internet shock sites existed back when I was a teenager. I was exposed to those things. It didn't damage me any, as far as I can tell. Not to mention there were always things like faces of death which I found to be far more disturbing than any internet shock content that I ran into in the 90s.by 20after4
7/6/2026 at 9:14:37 PM
Neat anecdote, but it would be interesting to look at studies on how it impacts broader society when the majority of the population is exposed to this, and porn, starting pre-teen (see stats).by nomel
7/6/2026 at 7:07:25 PM
You have to pay an ISP which knows where you live to get internet. I think any potential age attestation stuff should happen at that level, with websites being able to query ISPs on whether a given ip address belongs to a child or not, and ISPs allowing customers to opt in to child-labeled ip addresses.by overboard2
7/6/2026 at 7:20:33 PM
A wired connection to a house in the US usually only supports a single IP to be shared by everyone in the house. Kids also access the internet from more than their home (e.g. libraries), so this also runs into overlap elsewhere too.by zamadatix
7/6/2026 at 7:43:20 PM
not with ipv6by nancyminusone
7/6/2026 at 10:23:05 PM
That's the unusual part (for wired connections in the US at least) and it's story isn't much better, it just didn't make much sense to detail its "why"s when the usual part (IPv4) already doesn't work for much simpler reasons.by zamadatix