alt Hacker NewsIn general, I argue for less state control on anything. But your argument seems flawed from its core. If someone is a bad parent, should we simply ignore it and let the children turn out idiots as well? And the line is often blurry, so that's why we designed schools that should compensate even for dumb parents.
And, just to be clear on this topic, I think these age restriction laws are mostly bullshit, but I'm deeply against the concept of putting all the responsabiliy of raising children onto the parents.
Replies
You make a good point that society may be responsible as well, however we are arguing over trying to use technology to solve meatland problems and this one never should be automated into tech, ever. It's putting burden on artists and engineers to solve things they aren't causing or really responsible for.
If not parents then the school or the local council - you can’t parent from the government down
> should we simply ignore it and let the children turn out idiots as well?
Just because you're an idiot at 18 doesn't mean you are one for life.
> so that's why we designed schools that should compensate even for dumb parents.
Does that actually work?
> against the concept of putting all the responsabiliy of raising children onto the parents.
Then how do you feel about parents requiring a license before they have a child? If you wish to invite yourself into their responsibilities shouldn't you also invite yourself into their bedroom first?
It’s compelled speech. A transmission of expression required by law. The argument settled in 1791. The First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person’s speech just because the government believes the expression thereof furthers that person’s interests.
I assume you live in the free world. Some socialist states in history, such as East Germany, pushed child-rearing and early education much further into the hands of the state through extensive state-run childcare and kindergarten systems. That model is gone, and for good reason.
Even with schools in place, the basic responsibility for raising children still belongs to the parents. Schools can support, educate, and compensate to some extent, but they cannot replace parental responsibility.
I also see far too much awful news — in my country, Korea, for example — about terrible parents harassing school teachers because their children are out of control.
To be fair if the the parent is garbage there isn't anything the state today can do to truly prevent the child from being corrupted short of taking the child. We ensure that vaccine laws are difficult to enforce, we ensure that the child cannot have any privacy from the parent codified at school. At every stage we gave parents essentially absolute authority over there children with exception to maybe physical abuse. And I say maybe because even in physically abusive parent, it can be difficult for the child to advocate and escape. They can ask to be emencipated but the odds are stacked against you that you can proof you can support yourself financially.
All this to say is while I think the OP is mean about it they but are not wrong. The law argues heavily the parent is supreme at least in the US. But this specific law push the responsiblity of being the supreme authority off of parents. I know you don't like that concept but I think it is very easy to argue that any other model is going to be unacceptable to a pluraity of parents. Thats not to be confused with a parent is responsible for everything there child does because thats not true. But the consquence of that thinking is that children ultimately have some responsiblity in the things they do over the parent, which I think the authors of this law would be sweating at such a statement.
Personally I think the biggest issue for children is impulse control around social media and to be frank I don't think Adults are necessiarly able to deal with the onslaught of endless feed short form video content either. I don't think our brains are built against it very well. I don't know what the solution is but I think what made youtube without shorts different from tiktok is the endless scroll nature. The added friction actually protected peoples conscious and something to add a minimal friction to interactions would actually be massively beneficial to society at large
Lmao you are a bad parent if you decide to have kids and then expect the world to take care of them for you
> we simply ignore it and let the children turn out idiots as well
There is not a lot of safeguarding against this in the real world tbh. At the very least I think the OS or internet age verification is not the place to start improving this.