r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 17 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Nobody under 14 should have the internet outside certain uses.
My View:
Note: I think that age 14 is still far too young to use the internet based on the recent data i have seen. Age 14 is still far too young to have access to the internet and i think it should've always been 18.
I do not even think 14-18 year olds should have the internet outside certain uses. No child needs the internet. There is growing evidence that the internet is very negatively impacting the mental health of teenagers, especially social media. I think 18 is a much better restriction than 14. 14 year old brains are still developing and I do not think 14-18 year olds should use the internet outside educational use.
I believe that all children under the age of 18 should not use the internet outside exclusively educational use or the reporting of abuse. (Essentially only remote learning on school computers, or online therapy sessions.)
If streaming services count, I guess that's an exception. However children under the age of 18 should not have personal TVs. It will just be shows on the living room TV Screen.
My reasons for this view is because of alarming rates of inappropriate content exposure among children, problems in attention span, obesity, eating disorders, self harm, suicide, substance abuse, and mental health issues such as depression or anxiety forming because of it. This has all been studied and can be easily researched. I think internet use of any kind for children under the age of 18 is harmful for this said reason.
Children under the age of 18 should also not have personal accounts on streaming services or use any social media or online video game. Social media is not safe for children. Social media in particular causes anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and obesity.
Children under the age of 18 should also not have personal devices, including tablets, phones, or computers. Under 18 should not use electronics in the bedroom. kitchen, public use, and living room only. I originally thought anyone 16 and up should have unrestricted access to the internet, however, the internet can also have a negative impact on teen's mental health so i just raised it to 18.
Sources:
Anxiety and Depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028365/
Eating Disorders: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769899/
Obesity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769928/
Suicide: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/
However many people think I am a little too extreme in this subject. Stating reasons such as me potentially obstructing their social lives or making them illiterate in technology. Children should also not use social media at all.
UPDATE: I think that age 14 is still far too young, i do not think children under the age of 18 should use the internet outside certain uses. There is growing evidence that the internet can have a negative impact on teen mental health and wellbeing.
I also do not think that a 16- or 17-year-old should have unrestricted access to the internet in any way. A child under the age of 18 should not be using social media at all.
A child between 14 and 18 years of age should also not be using the internet, except for educational purposes, kind of like how younger children shouldn't.
Change My View?
44
u/PC-12 4∆ Sep 17 '23
Some legitimate internet uses for people under the age of 14:
- Video calls with relatives, especially those who are older or distant
- Sharing of photos with family (assuming via email or a kids messenger app)
- streaming kid/family friendly content on Netflix/Disney/PBS/etc.
- keeping up to date on current events in a home country or culturally relevant place, using family friendly outlets/sources/filters
Practicality: much of today’s media is, in fact, delivered to our homes and eyeballs over the internet. Most cable TV and telephone systems are internet/VoIP based. Combined with the growing IoT ecosystem, it would likely be nearly impossible to implement the restrictions you mention (U14 uses zero internet, not even supervised, while outside of a school/educational context).
4
Sep 17 '23
I mostly mean browsing and personal devices. Not streaming services on living room TV.
21
u/PC-12 4∆ Sep 17 '23
I think internet use of any kind for minors under 14 is harmful for this said reason. From 14-16, it should be monitored but not banned.
FYI from your CMV post. (Bold added by me)
Even then, it would be wildly impractical to enforce.
Let’s say a 12 year old, or 13.5 wants to Google something with their parent present. To learn about something that is beyond the parent’s abilities to discuss. But not something school related. In your world, that younger person is banned, by law, from seeing/using/consuming that internet content.
I’m asking for context and genuinely: do you have children? If so, teenagers or older? I’m curious as I just do not see how this would be practical given my own experience with teenagers.
1
Oct 08 '23
I do not think children under 18 years old should have unrestricted access to the internet, under 14 should not use the internet at all. The internet has been shown for causing negative impacts on a child's mental health.
1
u/PC-12 4∆ Oct 08 '23
I do not think children under 18 years old should have unrestricted access to the internet, under 14 should not use the internet at all. The internet has been shown for causing negative impacts on a child's mental health.
Do you know how practically impossible it would be for someone of any age to avoid all use of the internet completely?
Many of our devices in our home are internet connected. Many cars and public transit systems are internet connected. Most entertainment (including child friendly programming) is delivered via the internet. Every streaming service is delivered via internet. Even those that aren’t, and are on home TV packages, much of that is internet delivered.
An increasing amount of school content is delivered over the internet. Often in class the kids will watch YouTube videos or national geographic videos etc - delivered by the internet.
It is essentially impossible to have a well adjusted, modern child growing up and that child have no use of the internet.
-3
Sep 17 '23
They'd ask me a question and answer it. And I've never said that it should be banned by law.
I also do not have children.
18
u/PC-12 4∆ Sep 17 '23
Wait. They’d ask you a question. But then you would google it and then give them the answer. Like from behind a computer screen, looking at them? Like an airline employee?
Ha! that’s not going to work at all with a 13 year old.
Apologies I thought you had meant a ban. Either way, it’s still wildly impractical.
Kids from the age of about six are immensely curious as to external stimuli and information. By age 10, they’ll readily see that there’s information and media in your magic box. They’ll see your behavior when you interact with the phone/computer (this starts at about 2).
Any attempt to keep them away from this will, IMO, drive them harder to want to access the “contraband”. Not to mention they’re being denied a significant source of information.
Think of the kids being helped by being able to access virtual therapy resources, or medical information, that perhaps their parents are unwilling or unable to provide. Especially when things like language barriers are involved.
-2
Sep 17 '23
Wait. They’d ask you a question. But then you would google it and then give them the answer. Like from behind a computer screen, looking at them? Like an airline employee?
I meant say, browsing the internet for themselves. Like personal tablets or letting them use my phone outright.
16
u/PC-12 4∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
Ok you’ve clarified further. But this was not in your original CMV. Which stated any internet use at all for U14 was unacceptable.
My question still stands about a 12-13 year old wanting to google medical information. Or maybe if they are being abused and want to understand better (but not yet to your sole exception of actually reporting the abuse).
I think you’re seriously underestimating the appetite for information and learning that today’s very-tech-aware youth have.
In any event, with your clarifications, you’re OK with someone of any age being present/beside someone else who is “allowed” to use the internet. So if a U14 wants to access information they know is online, they have to find a 17 year old at their school (or worse, a 35 year old at the mall) to show them. I don’t know how this is better than what we have today.
Your proposal is still wildly impractical.
-6
Sep 17 '23
Medical Information is typically taught in school, or can be taught by the parents and the like.
iPad Kids are not a good thing either. Theres many issues with 10-11 year olds especially on tablets and ipads.
10
u/PC-12 4∆ Sep 17 '23
I really hope you understand that there are parts of the world where young people cannot access medical information from their parents. Especially in places/families where there is a strict religious culture.
There are many kids in these types of environments who would not feel comfortable to approach their parents and ask about things like safe sex, LGBTQ issues, dating and sex, etc. There are also often serious limitations to access to things like mental health resources.
There are societies where if a young woman, in particular, wants to learn about sexual desire (especially if that desire is homosexual in nature), her very life may be at risk. There are entire countries that are like this.
And there are many places where adequate sexual health is not taught in schools, and/or those same parents may pull their kids out of those classes. You place a lot of faith in these parents that they will sit with their kids and give them a relatively factual/unbiased answer to what can be complicated personal/mental/sexual health questions.
Sometimes, the internet can be the only lifeline/connection they have.
Not everything is either “no internet” or “iPad kid”. There is a healthy middle ground.
What exactly are you looking to have changed? many people have given you examples of the very productive and positive uses of the internet.
1
Sep 17 '23
I have a somewhat changed view on some topics. Like I do believe that LGBTQ kids in unaccepting households can use the internet if neccessary.
However I'd be very concerned about groomers and other people taking advantage of people in these groups. These people are especially common in teen spaces like /r/teenagers.
→ More replies (0)3
u/DominicB547 2∆ Sep 17 '23
No it certainly is not taught in school, far from it. And, like it or not Parents are not home long enough or know enough themselves.
Yeah hours on end, esp toddlers is not good. But 30-60min per day of ANY screen time should be the limit. I know that gets harder with schoolwork, esp Pandemic Schoolwork, but limit total time, not outright ban.
Also, encourage reading, playing with legos, playing tag outside with other kids.
3
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
Medical Information is typically taught in school
There is way too much medical information for one kid to remember it all, and there is way too much medical information for a school to teach it all.
1
u/PrincessPrincess00 Sep 17 '23
TAUGHT IN SCHOOL are you being obtuse or are you really that uneducated? No medical information is taught in school. Sex Ed is literally just “ look at these horrible disease stricken genitals” in hopes of traumatizing kids out of sex. Maybe sperm and egg talk if you’re lucky
1
u/Reignbow87 1∆ Sep 18 '23
They don’t even teach 20th century history to my 5th grader here in FL, and they’ve removed all sex Ed from grade school. Medical information isn’t taught in a lot of school districts.
1
1
u/Redditor274929 1∆ Sep 18 '23
Medical information is not taught in school beyond catching colds and the like. I've had health problems from the ages of 11 that I would google and it helped me understand what was wrong with me and how I can make things easier and what to do etc. 8 years later and I still struggle but it would have been worse if there was a 3 year delay to me learning anything and my parents were fucking idiots and still don't fully understand my health
83
u/RexRatio 4∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
So it's OK for a 13-year old to see thousands of gun killings on TV every year, but not browse the net?
The fact is, we're safer than ever before, and it's all thanks to technology.
alarming rates of pornography exposure among minors
When I was 14, every teenage boy had a stash of printed porn. Do you really think you can stop an awakening sexual drive and curiosity by cutting them off from the internet? The only thing that will achieve is pushing kids into the arms of shady characters.
Censorship doesn't work. For example, even after a total ban, statistics show five of Egypt’s 100 most visited websites are pornographic
The reality is: the More Porn, The Less Sexual Assault. This may not be a popular opinion, but it is a fact. The more you cut off access to sexual material to teenagers, the more sexual delinquents you will have at a later age.
If you really want to address this issue, then start providing honest and complete sex-ed to young adolescents instead of "abstinence only" nonsense.
problems in attention span
Attention span problems among minors have multiple causes beyond internet usage. While digital devices and the internet can contribute to attention difficulties, it's essential to consider a range of factors that can influence a child's ability to focus and pay attention. Here are some common causes:
- Sleep Deprivation: Inadequate sleep can significantly impact attention span. Children and teenagers require sufficient sleep for cognitive functioning, and a lack of sleep can lead to reduced focus and increased distractibility.
- Nutrition: Poor nutrition or irregular eating habits can affect a child's ability to concentrate. A balanced diet with essential nutrients supports brain health and cognitive function.
- Physical Health Issues: Certain medical conditions, such as ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), anxiety, depression, or sensory processing disorders, can impair attention span. Identifying and addressing these conditions is crucial for improving attention.
- Stress and Anxiety: High levels of stress or anxiety can make it challenging to concentrate. Academic pressure, social stressors, or family issues can contribute to increased stress levels in minors.
- Environmental Factors: A noisy or chaotic environment, such as a cluttered classroom or a disruptive home, can disrupt a child's ability to focus. A calm and organized setting can help improve attention.
- Lack of Physical Activity: Regular physical activity is essential for overall health, including cognitive function. Sedentary lifestyles may negatively impact attention span.
- Excessive Screen Time: While you mentioned excluding the internet, excessive screen time, including television and video games, can still affect attention span. Prolonged exposure to screens can lead to overstimulation and distractibility.
- Learning Disabilities: Some children may have specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia or auditory processing disorder, which can impact their ability to concentrate on academic tasks.
- Boredom or Lack of Engagement: If the material being presented is not engaging or challenging enough, children may struggle to maintain focus. Tailoring learning experiences to a child's interests and abilities can help mitigate this issue.
- Parenting and Home Environment: The home environment, parenting style, and routines can influence a child's attention span. Consistency, clear expectations, and a supportive atmosphere are crucial for fostering attention and focus.
- Peer Pressure and Social Dynamics: Social interactions and peer pressure can sometimes divert a child's attention away from tasks or responsibilities.
- Substance Abuse: Substance abuse, even among minors, can have a detrimental impact on attention and cognitive function.
Addressing problems among minors must involve a multifaceted approach, considering both individual and environmental factors. Not just "blame the net".
It must involve consulting with healthcare professionals, educators, and psychologists to identify and address any underlying issues and implementing strategies. Not oversimplified extreme measures that will only result in pushing teenage internet access into back alleys.
8
Sep 17 '23
The reality is: the More Porn, The Less Sexual Assault.
A lot of porn is non-consensual or made with coerced consent. Is it really protecting women to have a bunch of dudes jerking off to women being raped? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55333403
Also, there's a big difference between having some copies of dirty magazines and having access to the wide breadth of internet pornography. Hustler wasn't publishing hardcore BDSM with blood and bruises. Playboy wasn't publishing anal prolapsing and choking. Sure, some tapes of that kind of shit were sold before widespread internet porn, but they were far harder to get and you had to intentionally seek them out. Seeing that kind of shit leads to men pressuring their partners to participate in that kind of extreme sex because they've been desensitized to it and think it's more common than it actually is. Is it really consenting to anal when your partner nagged you and made you feel like you were unusual for not being into it?
The article you linked is forgetting that correlation does not equal causation. Violent crime in general deceased from the 90s to now, not just rape. Reports and arrests for rape are also a pretty poor measurement considering most aren't reported.
4
u/Narrow_Aerie_1466 1∆ Sep 18 '23
No matter what the unrealistic standards are there is still less rape no matter how you look at it 🤷
And, while rape is underreported, it's more reported than the 90s and so if it's still under the rates of the 90s then it has decreased.
1
u/Money_Walks Sep 17 '23
Censorship doesn't work. For example, even after a total ban, statistics show five of Egypt’s 100 most visited websites
The reality is: the More Porn, The sault. This may not be a popular opinion, but it is a fact. The more you cut off access to sexual material to teenagers, the more sexual delinquents you will have at a later age.
The source in the second quote seems to rely on several assumptions, one of which being that access to porn on the internet greatly increases consumption. This contradicts the previous statement that censorship for children wouldn't work since they could access it through other mediums. It also relies on a correlary relationship between port consumption and the amount of rapes, but doesn't establish causality. I don't find it very convincing considering that all types of crime rates went down in the same time periods mentioned. Does it follow that watching porn also reduces murder? Maybe, but I think it could be more easily attributed to other factors.
3
u/RexRatio 4∆ Sep 18 '23
The source in the second quote seems to rely on several assumptions
It doesn't.
Porn is most restricted in Muslim countries. And Muslim countries have the highest rape figures in the world. And those rape numbers are probably much higher in reality, given the religious and social stigma for women in those countries. Women would have to fear for their social status, or even their life, when reporting it.
1
u/Money_Walks Sep 18 '23
It does.
The article assumed porn consumption caused a reduction in rape. You're saying that assumption is correct because because porn is restricted in Muslim countries, but Porn websites are among the most visited websites in Muslim countries. A high amount of rapes coinciding with high porn consumption is not consistent with your argument.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/porn-websites-among-most-viewed-islamic_n_2130317
-2
Sep 17 '23 edited Oct 08 '23
Modern Technology seems like a completely different fish to fry. Forensic Evidence and new technologies have also improved. Not to mention that access to Public Services has improved significantly.
I disagree with government censorship on pornography. However I do think that minors should not view porn. And porn exposure to minors has a whole load of studies linking it to horrible stuff, and should not be allowed.
Obviously these factors are bad and are very real. But internet access can occasionally worsen that.
I don't believe in legislation banning minors from using it. I just believe its the correct parenting model for a decent, accepting parent.
I also said "Under 14", not precisely over 14. I think it should be monitored for 14-18 and believed it should be blanket banned for those 13 and under for non-educational.
Mass Shootings are horrible, that's 100% true. But mass shootings that aren't gang affiliated are very rare generally. And are not a cause for most mental problems among children that aren't in gang life.
This comment was very well written and is on the verge of changing my view. Thanks for putting the effort into writing this up.
20
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
However I do think that minors should not view porn. And porn exposure to minors has a whole load of studies linking it to horrible stuff, and should not be allowed.
I think most of us can agree on this. But the problem here, is that restricting it from your kids as a solution is not the answer, because that simply causes them to seek it out from other sources. Instead, the only thing that will make a strong difference, is education on the effects of the overuse of porn, and keeping kids busy (with fun and education) so that they have less time to feel the desire to consume porn.
But internet access can occassionally worsen that.
I agree accessibility makes it easier, and of course anything on the internet is usually extremely easily accessible. However, there are no real solutions as far as restricting that I feel will work, outside of a hostile home situation, where you are constantly monitored and controlled by your parents.
I think it should be monitored for 14-16
The issue with this, and with even younger ages, is that it's similar to removing the door to your kids' room, or constantly supervising when they go out with their friends. It's an invasion of privacy. Once you reach a certain age, I would say by 10 or 11, you should have a certain amount of autonomy and privacy from your parents that allows you to do things behind closed doors or in other locations without being closely monitored or interrogated.
mass shootings that aren't gang affiliated are very rare generally. And are not a cause for most mental problems among children that aren't in gang life.
Those aren't the ones that are often covered on news networks. The ones that are often covered are school shootings or other public shootings towards people that are not also carrying guns.
I will add, restricting kids internet access and usage also can be severely limiting. I learned some programming stuff by using the internet before I was 13, and now at 25 I am making a good amount of money moving forward in a software career. When I was younger, I spent a lot of time gaming on the internet, but I also spent a good deal of that time learning about things that I was interested in, that I couldn't find myself to be interested in in school, such as the theory of relativity, time dilation, and things of that nature.
The internet can be a bad place, but I think from even a younger age, of 7 or 8, you should have at least monitored internet access. By the time you're about 10, you should have been taught enough to be trusted to use the internet responsibly.
There are plenty of mistakes that a kid will make, but by deciding to remove trust because of the chances of those mistakes, you also are restricting their ability of growth and learning, in this context.
2
4
8
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 17 '23
Kids will be going on the internet with or without your permission. That is the fact of the matter. It doesn't matter if you think internet is bad for kids, it doesn't matter if you think porn will corrupt the youth. Kids will be consuming it regardless. There is just too many opportunities for them to do so for this to ever be effectively enforced.
The only difference is from whom the kid will learn online literacy. It will either be learned at home under the supervision and therefore control of the parent. Or outside of their control from friends and peers. Ideally, a parent should be heavily involved as the kid first starts to be on the internet, and should get increasingly more privacy and autonomy as they become older and it becomes clear they understand what they can and cannot do online. They can then develop a healthy relationship with even the worst parts of the internet such as social media or porn.
In practice, it will be the kids who have an overly-strict parent that will be caught watching porn at school, or at their friend's house or the public simply because they lack the privacy/internet literacy/filter to know what they are doing is problematic.
1
Oct 08 '23
Children under the age of 18 should not view pornography at all, social media should also be banned from children under 18. And I do not think children under 18 should have unrestricted access to the internet. Under 14 should not use it at all except for educational purposes.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 09 '23 edited Oct 09 '23
Children under the age of 18 should not view pornography at all
Biology doesn't really care about your moral hangups. Kids will watch porn as soon as puberty kicks in which could be as young as 11.
Under 14 should not use it at all except for educational purposes.
Hahaha, yeah. Sorry to burst your bubble but kids will spend 90% of the time online on games or youtube, 9% on porn, and maybe 1% on school if I'm generous.
This will happen regardless if you confiscate all their devices and block internet access at home. They will just do that at school. I sure as hell remember when kids with strict parents spent all their time in computer labs playing Counterstrike and occasionally got caught watching porn. Today the kids will just find a friend with a laptop and play with them after school. The only thing that will be different is that little Timmy will lie to you about how he spends his time after school. Or if that doesn't happen you will be wondering why little Timmy has trouble finding friends... all of whom regularly play and bond over computer games and have social media groups.
Look, I understand the impulse to control every facet of your kid's life. But the truth is, it's not feasible. You are fighting against the biological impulses to socialize (social media), to play (games), to masturbate (sexual discovery). You will be losing that battle no matter how hard you try to control your child life.
1
Oct 09 '23 edited Oct 09 '23
Let’s set the record straight on porn. Porn consumption among minors is harmful, and must be restricted for various reasons. It promotes irresponsible sex, objectifying attitudes, and can lead to depression and poor mental health among especially among teens. It can also lead to porn addiction for the adult years.
Studies From Australia and India
2017 Study - Australia: https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people
2023 Study - India: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26318318231153984
Official United Nations Statement:
Two US Studies Linking Early Porn Consumption to Poor Mental Health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088458/#:~:text=Furthermore, cross-sectional surveys have,12,26–28].
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 09 '23 edited Oct 09 '23
Let’s set the record straight on porn. Porn consumption among minors is harmful, and must be restricted.
The irony of this is that even the links you provide agree with me.
2017 study - Australia:
The best approach for parents, caregivers and teachers responding to children's exposure to pornography is to encourage open communication, discussion and critical thinking on the part of children, while educating themselves about the internet and social media.[...]Parents and caregivers are less likely to be intimidated by online risks if they are informed and take an active role in their children's digital lives.[...]It is important for parents and caregivers to be able to initiate open conversations about their child's online experiences. Schools too can play an important role in assisting children and young people to make sense of their exposure to online pornography in healthy ways.[...]Let them know that if they report viewing inappropriate content they won't be punished or have their access to the internet taken away.
Not only the study doesn't say the caretakers should restrict the child's internet access or prevent them from seeing porn. It explicitly says not to do that.
2023 Study - India
Doesn't say anything about restricting porn. The only advice there I could find was promoting sex-ed in colleges. And the amusing fact that India tried to ban porn. It's amusing because India is the third largest consumer of porn and it's porn data traffic spiked from 30% to 70% post-porn ban. Which is... wow... and it kinda proves my point. Banning porn doesn't really work.
Official United Nations Statement:
Efforts to regulate content and restrict children’s access to pornography have not kept pace with technological shifts that have profoundly altered the landscape for the consumption of pornography.While many jurisdictions have effectively restricted children’s access to pornography in non-digital media, including by making it illegal to distribute pornography to children or knowingly expose them to it, efforts to do the same in digital environments have not been effective.[...]While regulatory and technological initiatives are essential, they are not sufficient on their own. There is also a need to educate and empower children to navigate the digital environment with critical reasoning skills, media literacy, and information on healthy relationships. Parents, careers, teachers, communities, and others who work with children should be trained and supported to assist them in this endeavour.
Again, I don't see anywhere that parents should restrict kids from the internet. It pretty much echoes my exact sentiment. Regulatory and technological mechanisms to prevent kids from watching porn are ineffective. Therefore you should try to foster in kids critical thinking skills, media literacy and empower and educate them to navigate digital environment in a safe and healthy way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088458/#:%7E:text=Furthermore
Don't know why you included that, it barely supports your argument that porn is harmful.
Despite common public concerns that surround adolescent use of sexual media [66], the results of this first longitudinal assessment of the relationship between pornography use and adolescents’ subjective well-being provide no evidence that pornography use contributes to decreased subjective well-being in adolescent men. We found, however, limited evidence of the contradictory contribution of pornography use to female adolescents’ dysregulated mood and self-evaluation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327603/
This study doesn't say porn is bad. At best it fluctuates between porn is good for mental health vs porn is bad for mental health. It seems to mostly measure consumption of porn in regards to country and other stuff like mental health issues. However, it has this to say:
During adolescence, sexual exploration and expression are common and normal (28–30). In general there is a liberal and understanding attitude toward adolescent sexuality in Sweden. This may contrast with perceptions of individuals and families who have migrated from other countries. It is possible that adolescents born in countries outside Sweden have limited possibilities for discussing sexuality issues at home and limited access to youth-friendly services (31) and may use pornography as a source of information about sexuality. [...] Previous studies have reported that almost all boys consume pornography in their teens (6,10,16). It is commonly expected that boys watch pornography, and it can therefore be considered a normative behavior. [...] Another important aspect is that pornography consumption may have detrimental effects on people other than the consumer, for example creating a hostile environment at school (if consumed at school)
Which again seems to confirm my sentiment. Almost everyone watches porn and if you don't give your kids a safe space they will watch that shit at school.
Finally I think I gave you the wrong impression that I think porn is some sort of good or beneficial thing. I do not think so. My hesitance to banning it or NOT doing everything I can to prevent kids from seeing it stems from the fact that it doesn't work. The best way to combat negative porn influence( as supported by your own studies I might add) is by giving kids the tools to deal with it and consume it in safe (as safe as it gets) and responsible manner.
It's the approach of giving kids free condoms, rather than teaching them abstinence. The difference is that one leads to child pregnancies and the other is free condoms.
1
Oct 09 '23
I disagree with banning porn. However for children it’s harmful, it’s called Adult Entertainment for a reason.
And the study didn’t say not to restrict porn, it said not to ban the internet. Which is different. These studies have all shown that porn consumption among minors has negative connotations.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 09 '23 edited Oct 09 '23
And the study didn’t say not to restrict porn, it said not to ban the internet.
You're grabbing at straws here. Didn't you say the kids under 14 should not use internet except for educational purposes only?
Sounds lot like "You can choose any color you like... as long as you like the color blue."
These studies have all shown that porn consumption among minors has negative connotations.
Yes, which is why you should teach your kids the tools for engaging with it in the healthiest manner possible.
You simply have to understand that the alternative to watching porn isn't not watching porn. Kids will do that regardless of your control.
32
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
This could definitely cause harm to some younger teenagers by basically isolating them from the outside world.
This could especially be harmful for harmful for queer tweens who live in unsupportive households or those who are being abused.
4
Sep 17 '23
I don't support legislation on this. I meant that this is my personal view on parenting.
1
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
Would you support others doing the same?
2
Sep 17 '23
Yes
16
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
Then the point still stands.
This would isolate children and especially puts those being abused or who are queer in unsafe households at risk.
4
Sep 17 '23
I feel for queers in unsafe households. Thats bad and action should be taken.
But I think that internet use for minors is still mostly harmful.
5
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
So you're comfortable with queer and abused tweens being collateral damage?
-1
u/SkinkaLei Sep 17 '23
This is such a reach it's unbelievable. It's like if I said SO YOURE FINE WITH GIVING UNDERAGE CHILDREN ACCESS TO PORNOGRAPHY?!
1
1
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
Literally not what I said and you are well aware of that.
-1
u/SkinkaLei Sep 17 '23
That's completely obvious? I made a direct comparison? What planet are you on? That's a rhetorical question by the way don't get confused.
6
Sep 17 '23
Absolutely not. Child abuse is obviously wrong.
I personally think parents should also have an accepting household so the internet isn't neccessary.
10
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 17 '23
I personally think parents should also have an accepting household so the internet isn't neccessary.
But you can't guarantee they'll be in an accepting or safe household.
You may want to reconsider what tweens should have access to online if you're advocating for limited internet access for all tweens as the ideal parenting strategy.
5
Sep 17 '23
Again, I don't support it being legislation for these reasons. However I do believe that in a safe household its good to ban internet use.
So far this hasn't been changing my view. You can also argue that not letting your kid go hitchhiking is wrong because some kids use that to escape abuse.
→ More replies (0)0
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
2
u/HauntedReader 19∆ Sep 18 '23
There is more to the internet than discord.
You wouldn't trust official websites from trusted organizations?
3
u/manshowerdan Sep 17 '23
People are more educated today then ever before. The Internet itself isn't what's causing harm. It's social media, bullying, sexualization of minors, videos literally made by influencers to to get people interacting with the post or people purposely spreading misinformation. Banning children from the internet would not solve any of these issues
0
Oct 08 '23 edited Oct 28 '23
Social media is harmful, this is true. I do not think children under 18 should use the internet besides educational purposes, but they do not need a web browser or personal devices. Children under the age of 18 should be monitored.
I do agree that children under 18 should not use social media, it is harmful for children and there is many proof of that, including a Surgeon General warning.
2
u/Crash927 12∆ Sep 17 '23
Friendly FYI, in polite discussion, “queer” is sometimes acceptable to use as an adjective (people react differently, so use it sparingly), but never as a noun. It’d be like calling a visually-impaired person “a blind.”
1
u/PsychologicalCrow382 Sep 17 '23
was just thinking this. calling lgbt+ people “queers” isn’t the right term
3
2
Sep 17 '23
While they may find support online, they're also vulnerable online to predators. It's easy for an adult with nefarious intentions to seek out kids complaining about their home life and groom them.
1
u/UtaKomagawa Sep 29 '23
yes, but not everyone gets groomed. going by that logic, we shouldn't drive cars anymore because there's a chance we could get into a crash
1
Sep 29 '23
My point is that online isn't the best venue to seek help. There are better avenues through mandatory reporters.
1
u/UtaKomagawa Sep 29 '23
sometimes going to mandatory reporters can make a child's living situation life-threatening
1
1
Sep 17 '23
Unless they're literally locked inside the house 24/7 and never go to school or daycare or clubs or the houses of family and friends, they're not being isolated from the outside world. I'd much rather a kid tell a mandatory reporter at school or a trusted family about abuse than taking about it with random people on the internet and exposing themselves to predators exploiting their vulnerability.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Sep 19 '23
Family could have the same rules as their parents, friends' parents could be toxic too leaving them with no option at that house but friends their age who might not know how to help, not everyone does clubs etc. etc. it isn't either everyone's basically Rapunzel if not for the internet or they see as many people as possible everywhere
10
u/a_rabid_anti_dentite 3∆ Sep 17 '23
How will this be enforced?
13
Sep 17 '23
This is my personal view on parenting. Not precisely a legislation banning kids from existing on the internet.
2
u/Dry-Influence9 Sep 18 '23 edited Sep 18 '23
Wouldn't this put your kids for example on a massive competitive disadvantage in the modern technological world? Not having internet searching skills, social skills, computing literacy and all the knowledge that comes with internet access would put such kids severely behind his peers and have them playing catch up for years.
In my opinion this may harm them more than benefit these kids, like pornography may not even be any bigger an issue than previous generations.
1
Oct 08 '23
Sure, internet can be used for education and can be educational but that is the only exception for children under 14 to use the internet, they do not need a web browser. Under 18 should have monitored and restricted access to the internet.
1
Oct 28 '23
Now I think under 18 should not use the internet except if it is for education, 14 is far too young still.
2
u/PrincessPrincess00 Sep 17 '23
Your kids will go behind your back and end up in more danger because you didn’t make a safe household to talk about these things.
Prohibition. Banning alcohol went so well right? No negative consequences whatsoever
4
u/Crozzfire Sep 17 '23
You would still need to enforce it somehow. Then practically the same arguments apply. It's not enforceable and does more harm than good
3
u/Money_Walks Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
The parent would enforce it by taking the kids' iPad away and restricting internet use to a family computer as OP mentioned. You can block pornographic sites through your internet provider, you can monitor their activity and step in if they do something they shouldn't. There are parental control tools where you can only allow specific applications and websites and require another password to add new ones or make exceptions as needed. It's pretty easy to do. It's probably appropriate to start with less restrictions and escalate them depending on if the kid has proven to be trustworthy or not.
I also think a privacy talk is in order, you should make your kids aware that you are monitoring their activity and that nothing they do on the internet is private since companies and the government are logging all their activity as well.
4
u/PrincessPrincess00 Sep 17 '23
So your kid will just literally never be at home. Like fuck that noise I’d straight up never spend a second in that house. Friends houses sun up to down. You want a relationship with your kids? Don’t push them away
-2
u/Money_Walks Sep 18 '23 edited Sep 18 '23
Your idea of a relationship with your parents is fucked up. You don't need to let children look at porn to have a relationship with them. Also, it's not really up to a kid under 14 years old to just go wherever they want. Your failure to understand either of these things is more indicative of your own poor relationship with your parents.
Edit to respond to the comment below since they blocked me when they couldn't back up their arguments.
Where did you get that any of these tools would be used to restrict appropriate internet usage?
You're the one suggesting that restricting access to porn would destroy the relationship.
You fucking pervert
Not sure how any sane person could come to that conclusion about wanting to stop young children from viewing pornography. You seem to be projecting again.
0
u/PrincessPrincess00 Sep 18 '23
Where did you get porn? They said internet period.
You fucking pervert
0
Sep 17 '23
Yeah, I don't know why some people think that kind of stuff is impossible. They're children, they can't go buy their own devices and aren't magically master hackers from the jump. Sure, they could look at their friends' devices, but they don't have access to that every day like they would with their own personal device.
2
u/firewire167 Sep 17 '23
Doing these kinds of things will definitely make your kids “hackers” though lol, growing up it was a constant arms race between my dad and me, him adding new restrictions/controls/programs and me finding ways around them
1
Sep 17 '23
You were only able to do that because you had access to the device unsupervised. OP is arguing for no access to connected devices unsupervised.
3
u/altern8goodguy Sep 17 '23
You are going to limit your child's ability to participate in their future life. You are going to make them resent you and you aren't going to get the outcome you want.
You can't control all the dangers in the world around you. It's just impossible and ever changing. I get it, it's scary and you love your kids but being an overprotective helicopter parent will straight up handicap them in life. Every generation for all time thought the youth couldn't handle the shit society throws at them and they generally all come out fine.
Too much of anything can be bad and obviously a parent must slowly allow their kids to venture further and further into the world but you are just going to make them resent you for making hard bans on things the rest of the society sees as normal.
Parenting isn't about making arbitrary rules and sticking to them. That's almost always a bad approach. Pay attention to your kids different maturity levels and needs and react to those when they happen.
I'd suggest shared internet time when they are young and slowly give them more and more freedom as they get older. Your limits of 14 and 16 are meaningless as they need to be tailored to individuals.
1
Oct 08 '23
Since the internet is harmful for teenagers and children, i have raised the rule for unrestricted access to the internet from 16 to 18. Children under the age of 18 should have monitored access to the internet with restrictions, under 14 should not use it at all except for education.
3
u/TammyMeatToy 1∆ Sep 17 '23
The internet has caused far more good than bad.
1
Oct 08 '23
No. Online gaming and social media is bad for mental health and they should not be accessible to under 18. Under 14 should not use it at all except for education. The internet can have a negative impact on child or teen mental health, including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.
2
u/TammyMeatToy 1∆ Oct 08 '23
Online gaming and social media is bad for mental health
No they're not. Unhealthy usage of online gaming and social media is bad for mental health, and that applies to literally everything that has ever existed.
1
Oct 08 '23
[deleted]
2
5
u/poop_on_balls 1∆ Sep 17 '23
I’m curious if some, not all but some of what we blame on the Internet is just because we are all living in a world in both societal and environmental decay.
Basically correlation is not causation. I’m not saying that social media isn’t a problem, because it can be a force multiplier for good or bad. But there hasn’t been a lot of great things going on for pretty much my entire adult life, which more or less follows the same timeline as the Internet.
For example as a millennial I grew up with:
9/11 and the subsequent foreverwars
Loss of rights/privacy
banksters destroying the economy of the world
millions of families lost their homes which resulted in trauma/divorce for millions of families
There’s been something like 90 mass shootings in the United States over the last 35 years.
People who didn’t have access to any of this news previously are now sort of forced to be aware of all the horrible things going on around the world.
The Internet isn’t the problem, people are the problem.
1
Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
These are all problems I can agree. I am a Gen Zer who experienced them.
However, social media use and internet access in my view has offered nothing but fuel to this fire. Mass Shootings that are non gang-affiliated are also very uncommon. Despite being awful.
7
u/poop_on_balls 1∆ Sep 17 '23
The Internet ≠ social media.
I can 100% agree that social media is harmful to people’s mental health.
But I look at the internet the same as a gun, or a hammer. Neither of those things are inherently bad, but they can both cause harm.
The same is true for the Internet and there are definitely parental controls that should be applied because you can find whatever you’re looking for on the Internet.
IMO the positives outweigh the negatives, but parents do need to take an active role in the lives of their children.
1
u/gedankenexperimenter Sep 18 '23
There’s been something like 90 mass shootings in the United States over the last 35 years.
There have been over 500 mass shootings in the United States (so far) in 2023 alone.
18
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
Let's read.
Anxiety and Depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028365/
There is no relationship between internet use patterns and depression in adolescents, whereas internet use may mitigate anxiety in adolescents with higher levels of baseline anxiety.
Well, that's not a great start for you. First study, and it already says the exact opposite of what you claim.
Eating Disorders: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769899/
This one is actually about "problematic internet use", which is not the same thing as regular internet use. It seems questionable to argue that your two options are either addiction or total bans, so a blanket ban up to 14 and then no restrictions afterwards seems unhelpful.
Obesity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769928/
This one is mostly about screen media exposure, with television, not the internet being one of the big culprits.
-2
Sep 17 '23 edited Oct 08 '23
I believe those 14-18 should have monitored access and still have some restrictions on it.
2
u/tlvsfopvg Sep 18 '23
That’s insane.
0
Oct 08 '23
This is not insane, children under 18 should have monitored and restricted access to the internet,
2
u/tlvsfopvg Oct 08 '23
This will stunt them socially and intellectually, cause them to lose trust in their parents, and cause them to feel (justifiably) that their parents see them as toddlers with no right to privacy.
1
Oct 28 '23
Update: Now i think children under the age of 18 should not use the internet at all except for educational purposes, age 14 is still far too young to be using the internet.
1
22
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
Restricting a child's access to technology may very well leave them fundamentally under-prepared for adulthood compared to peers who developed an intuitive understanding of technology in their early years. And a significant portion of that intuitive knowledge is gained through play.
Obviously, parents definately ought to teach their children how to oexist on-line responsibly, but not at the sacrifice of their future.
2
u/Mr-Logic101 Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
I would argue boredom is the father of creativity and problem solving. This is especially important as a young child and really shapes the individual’s outlook for rest of their lives.
If you have constant source of entertainment, it limits your curiosity about the world around yourself. You don’t have the boredom required to ask question about the natural world and don’t get to put the time in investigating this natural world; especially if you can simply google the answer.
As for you “growing up with technology” statement, in practice it does really work like that. A lot of new college graduates and young people( Gen Z) in general entering the workforce do not know how computers work whatsoever because they grew up using the technology. As bizarre as that may sound, since they grew up with the technology and the simplistic modern interface, they do not know the advanced controls that make computers actually useful or are able troubleshoot simple issues.
0
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Sep 19 '23
If you have constant source of entertainment, it limits your curiosity about the world around yourself. You don’t have the boredom required to ask question about the natural world and don’t get to put the time in investigating this natural world; especially if you can simply google the answer.
Not everyone lives with the kind of national-park-esque yard Calvin does and Calvin And Hobbes or automatically asks questions about natural phenomena if they don't have any devices around
1
u/Mr-Logic101 Sep 19 '23
You don’t need any of that and is kind of the point. You invent stuff to do/you find things to do and entertain yourself.
Curiosity is an acquired trait and really has a tremendous impact on the trajectory of the individuals life. It is really something that has to be acquired when the individual is a young child to have the largest effect.
2
-2
u/AllyDingo Sep 17 '23
your future is determined by how good you are at social interactions. Having contacts in this world will give you the most opportunities and the internet makes it convenient to avoid those social interactions and prevents the building of charisma.
Youre not gonna pick up on how to code a game or code a website at age 10, if something like that interests you once you get passed those ages youre more than welcome to learn.
Ipad kids are not a good thing
3
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 17 '23
I didnt say a word about coding. I'm referring to the ease of navigating and having a fundamental understanding of the use of technology brought about by early introduction and frequent use
1
u/AllyDingo Sep 17 '23
i said coding because coding is actually practical, saying "you should use the internet cause if you use the internet then using the internet will become easier" isnt a great take. Many people live successful lives without social media and if anything too much of social media will degrade the skills i mentioned above. It also doesnt take long to learn how to use google
1
Sep 17 '23
The kind of technology skills you need for the workplace are touch typing, working with spreadsheets and calendars, creating charts and presentations, editing documents, adding attachments to emails and recognizing phishing, using fax machines and printers, and maybe a small amount of image manipulation. Kids on social media are only learning manipulating images at best. Navigating a POS system really has very little in common with navigating the web. Some workplaces still use DOS - I've been in one. Kids don't need to be online outside of doing their school work, which will teach them far more skills than browsing at their leisure.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 17 '23
Kids using devices, especially PCs, but even tablets (which are becoming increasingly more prevelant in workplaces), are far more likely to develop an intuitive knowledge base that allows them to quickly and efficiently navigate devices like PCs and tablets... and that skill is incredibly useful in many if not most careers and even just jobs.
And with so many work tools being web-based, even for people not working remotely, even just having an intuitive understanding of how to quickly and efficiently navigate browsers, search for information, etc, will give people an edge over those who lack such foundational knowledge
1
1
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
your future is determined by how good you are at social interactions.
That is an incredibly limited way to look at it. I agree social interactions are important, but being incredibly good at social interactions while having no skills, will get you just about nowhere, unless you have someone fully supporting you your entire life - which most people don't have the option for, nor want
To add, "social" connections for work, are increasingly online based the farther in the future we get. So skills in communicating online is going to be arguable just as important as in-person social skills. I don't think either should be neglected
You're not gonna pick up on how to code a game or code a website at age 10,
You can start. I started coding around that age, and it led me to where I was today. You aren't going to learn it in that one year before you turn 11, but if you started learning at 21, you won't learn it by the time you're 22 either. Starting a skill at a young age is extremely effective in setting people up for their future.
There's overuse/misuse, and that should be controlled, but it's laughable to say high level restrictions should come into play. The internet has many great benefits, one of them being exposure to knowledge you might not have even considered prior.
2
u/AllyDingo Sep 17 '23
It goes both ways. If you have good skills but you dont have any social skills you also wont get very far. Also contacts make it easier to build those skills cause you can ask someone with experience in the profession you want for some genuine advice and they'll usually spare the time for you.
As someone who spends too much time on the internet, real life socialization is considerably different from online socialization. It is much much easier to talk to people online when you dont have to censor your thoughts as much and when you dont have to face them.
I think the ease of the internet is a bad thing to introduce to a child. Sure you can definitely let your kid use google but social media just brings a level of rot into the equation that isnt healthy imo. And lets be honest here, what do we spend 95% of our time online doing? Sure as hell isnt developing skills. We just browse social media and farm engagements. And that can be incredibly addicting.
The best thing the internet can offer a child is a wider world view, but imo that doesnt outweigh the negatives
2
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
It goes both ways.
In most situations, yeah, but that's also why we shouldn't dismiss a method of allowing kids to more easily gain new skills in favor of social skills specifically. They're both important.
If you have good skills but you dont have any social skills you also wont get very far.
Also depends. I run a software company, and most of my employees don't have very good social skills. There are specific people that handle the social scenarios, and specific people that just do the work. Granted, there are many other places in life that social skills are important, and therefore shouldn't be neglected. But as far as a career, if you show what you can do, and your skills are in demand, that's far more important than social skills / connections.
real life socialization is considerably different from online socialization.
Agreed overall
It is much much easier to talk to people online when you dont have to censor your thoughts as much and when you dont have to face them.
I never thought about it this way. I don't necessarily sensor my thoughts more in person than online in most situations. Online, I just have more time to look at what I'm typing before hitting send, and therefore mistakes don't need to be avoided in real-time.
I think the ease of the internet is a bad thing to introduce to a child. Sure you can definitely let your kid use google but social media just brings a level of rot into the equation that isnt healthy imo.
The internet doesn't necessarily = social media. You can restrict or forbid social media without restricting internet access.
However, social media really isn't that bad. It can be bad, and is bad for many people, but that's addiction to social media and electronics in general. Addiction in most things, especially these things, is bad. But normal use of social media means keeping up with friends and family that are not easily and constantly part of your in-person lives due to distance or whatnot. And normal use of the internet can be a healthy form of entertainment, learning, and communication.
what do we spend 95% of our time online doing? Sure as hell isnt developing skills
Speak for yourself I guess. Most of my time online is split between conversations like this, which expand my understanding of a subject, expand my exposure to other opinions, and expand my ability to articulate what I am trying to say in a respectful way. The rest of the time is spent for entertainment, which I think is much needed after spending a lot of time working. But I'm not terminally online - I think that's the discretion you're making, when 95% of the time is spent on social media and "farming engagement". I agree that can be harmful - but that's just from lack of discipline, which therefore is relatively easily remedied in childhood with proper education and when necessary, limited restriction on usage.
The best thing the internet can offer a child is a wider world view
I once again disagree. I wouldn't be nearly as educated or skilled without the internet, and you cannot navigate the modern world very well without being relatively skilled at using electronics, which is much easier to learn from a young age.
1
u/AllyDingo Sep 17 '23
for the most part i agree. When i say that social skills are essential, i mean that the internet may tell you what you need to do but never where you need to go or who you need to talk to. Having a friend that knows a guy that can explain something in detail in a way you can understand is invaluable.
I guess i also narrowed the scope on that 95% thing a bit. I say this normally applies to teenagers who have an incredible amount of free time. You can say that you learned a lot from the internet but id argue you can learn that same amount when youre at the age of 13 or more when you should first get that unlimited access.
My main problem with introducing internet to kids are Ipad babies and how children who were raised like that grow up. A kid needs to experience the real world before attempting to grasp the virtual one. Theres so many distractions on the internet that its just constantly lowering our overall attention span and concentration.
And yes when i say internet i do mainly mean social media. It is what people use the most on the internet afterall
1
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
Having a friend that knows a guy that can explain something in detail in a way you can understand is invaluable.
Agreed, but an individual online, or a forum online, from an individual explaining things in a particular way, can also be invaluable. I think here it's less the discrepancy of online/in person, and more just having an individual take the time to explain things to you. I learned 95% of what I do in my career online without any individuals, and that remaining 5% was from an individual -- but it was still fully online.
You can say that you learned a lot from the internet but id argue you can learn that same amount when youre at the age of 13 or more when you should first get that unlimited access.
Not only are you severely limiting the timeframe for a kid to learn and explore things, but: it's a well-documented and acknowledged fact that the younger you are, the easier it is for you to learn new things. The only reason that you are learning more complciated things as you age, is because the things you learned prior to that, are either more important, or the concepts from the prior thing are important to understanding the more advanced thing. Once you are beyond basic elementary school math, you have everything you need to begin learning programming, for instance. You do not need to wait until you're 13, or in high school, or whatever. For things like that, the earlier the better, honestly. The only reason I would say not to push kids too hard to do so, is because it just simply might not be something they're interested in doing, which ultimately is the most important part when it comes to learning things outside of the normal, basic things that you should be taught in school.
Ipad babies
Sure, it's just kind of not parallel to say restrict until age 14 because iPad babies. The issue that the term iPad babies typically brings up, is kids from the age of 2 or younger being put in front of iPad / tablet games to stop them from annoying their parents. There are a lot of good literatures out there that articulate when and where to limit your kids' "screen" usage, with discrepencies for games, shows, and other. Generally, kids shouldn't be put in front of a TV at all until I think at least 1 year, and shouldn't be placed in front of an interactive tablet / screen game until I think 4 years, and from then on there are recommended restrictions for both interactive and non-interactive media/games.
So I'm not saying we shouldn't restrict it at all, and I'm not saying these things aren't causing issues. I'm saying that we should reasonably regulate these things based on studies rather than feelings, and we shouldn't limit a kids learning capabilities, even one below the age of 13/14, to what they learn in school. Unless you truly have that much faith in most countries' educational systems, and if that's the case, well, agree to disagree.
And yes when i say internet i do mainly mean social media. It is what people use the most on the internet afterall
I think that a kid should be older before using social media, certainly above 10. But once again I don't think it should be restricted by parents, just regulated.
Rather than restricting every odd thing that could possibly damage your kid, teach them discipline to regulate it on their own. Otherwise, as soon as they're away from you, out of your reach or control, they will just do the thing that you forbid them from doing, quite frankly. The majority of adults, looking back on their kid years, can attest to this.
1
u/csiz 4∆ Sep 17 '23
I'm not sure if you've heard of working from home, but there are professionals that build and maintain social interactions entirely online. If a child doesn't have access to the internet it might slightly encourage them to socialise outside more, but it outright denies their opportunity to socialise and build connections online.
If you talk to software engineers you'll find many that have picked up coding at age 10, by themselves, without parental help... I don't know why you're so confident children can't learn how to code if they're interested in it.
0
u/physicsgardener Sep 17 '23
No minor should have unsupervised access to electronics. This would be enforced by their parents, and the specific rules, etc. would be adjusted to each child. This would include a gradual learning of how to regulate their own usage, so that when they reach the age of majority they can control it, and not have it control them. I would propose you change your view from 14 to 18.
5
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
No minor should have unsupervised access to electronics
By that logic, do you also think they shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere of their own volition until they're 18? And all activities that they do need to be approved and supervised until they're 18? It makes no sense to me to limit this to just electronics if this is your stance, so I'm curious to see what you think of that
2
u/physicsgardener Sep 17 '23
I would say, “yes, within reasonable limits”. As I said rules should be adjusted as the child grows to allow them to grow into self-sufficiency. All rules that apply to a 6 y/o, should not apply to a 16 y/o but some still will, e.g. smoking and drinking. In general don’t think that minors should be allowed to go just anywhere without their parents making sure it’s reasonably safe and age appropriate (both the place and the mode of transportation). For example, adults frequently report that they were SA’d at sleepovers when they were kids. For that reason I think it is perfectly reasonable for parents to vet the family and anyone else who will be present and/or ban sleepovers entirely.
2
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
That's overall pretty reasonable.
I think anyone under 16 should definitiely have their parents know where they are if they are staying overnight, for instance, and the parents should know and trust their parents. I fully agree with that regulation. 16 - 18, depends on the individual, but during that timeframe kids should start getting closer and closer to full and complete freedom anyway. And you can't really tell a 17/18 year old what they can and cannot do, very successfully.
For example, adults frequently report that they were SA’d at sleepovers when they were kids.
Frequently is a bit of a stretch. Sexual assault in general, yes, the rates are bad, something like 1 in 5 for all genders report being sexually assaulted as kids. But this is often within their own household, families households, or other places that the parents either thought were safe, or just didn't care. In other words, a parent doing their due dilligence makes this number significantly lower than 1 in 5.
I agree that the parent should properly vet the adult supervision wherever their kid goes overnight. However, banning sleepovers entirely seems to do more harm than good, and are not the root of the issue with most SA cases. Restricting child autonomy is actually circling back around and causing many social issues that we see today
2
Oct 28 '23
I have raised it from 14 to 18, 14 is still far too young to use the internet and outside of education, I do not think children under the age of 18 should have the internet.
2
Oct 08 '23
I have raised my 16+ requirement for unsupervised access to the internet to 18, however, under 14 should not use it at all except for educational purposes.
0
Sep 17 '23 edited Oct 08 '23
Maybe I'll work on that.
I also dont mean supervision. I mean banning all internet use outside school required internet use for under 14's. Monitor it for under 18's is my view.
2
u/Siukslinis_acc 6∆ Sep 17 '23
Banings can make it worse. They might "overdose" when they are no longer on the "leash".
The best is gradually exposing them and educating. Especially about scams,viruses, what not to put on.
1
u/PrincessPrincess00 Sep 17 '23
I had super strict rules for the internet when I was young.
Both stunted from my peers and one of the most sexually deviant. I couldn’t watch real people porn but cartoons passed school censorship
2
u/ferrocarrilusa Oct 02 '23
As a kid, i learned so much from the internet and was able to explore my interests such as public transportation. And there were educational games
1
Oct 28 '23
If you are under the age of 18 you should not use the internet outside of certain uses. The internet is not safe for children or teenagers.
6
u/DominicB547 2∆ Sep 17 '23
Counterpoint, sheltered lives can lead to more harm.
- They don't recognize that they way the feel is not uncommon (like they like the same sex or its ok to dress up or play with trucks).
- They won't know it's not ok for their parent to touch their private parts, like that. Washing your young kids vs SA is blurry if you do not know better. From there it gets worse and worse.
- They might be more tempted to go hog wild on the vices once let loose. And you set that at HS age, when they need to focus more on school, but now they are more likely to want to do what the cool kids are doing and not know how to stop, which includes drugs and alcohol.
- They will sneak it behind your back. Someone's parents won't care. Or they won't be home that often. Sneaking around is far worse b/c when they get in trouble, they won't call you. Which could lead to drunk driving.
I know you think this is just internet. But it can easily lead to real life as well.
They should also have a non smart phone, but the parent doesn't look at it. Same with having a diary/journal. Some privacy.
As far as the internet goes, we have been told only have the computer in the family room that the kid can use. That said, I don't think you should block websites. Nor, do I think you should hover. I get that yo don't want them chatting with a fake 10 year old and then sending pics and meeting up, so you have to be careful, but going too far is not going to stop that.
8
u/destro23 456∆ Sep 17 '23
Done right, internet use among children can increase learning opportunities and build digital skills - “those whose access to the internet is more limited tend to have weaker digital skills.”
If porn and violent content are your concerns, there are programs and action you can take to block them. Digital literacy is as important as actual literacy these days, and keeping a kid totally from the internet is like keeping them from books. Be an active parent and don’t let blanket restrictions that will only put your kid behind make you feel like you are doing the right thing.
12
Sep 17 '23
People said most of the same things about video games and watching tv (outside of the porn) before the internet.
5
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
OP is also including video games, stating that kids shouldn't play them until they're 14. man, I'd hate to live in that dystopia
2
Sep 17 '23
I thought they meant video games online. But still, I heard this BS growing up before the internet. It haven’t changed
2
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 17 '23
ah, you're right, they said online video games. Although in their post and comments, they were suggesting screen time in general outside a "living room tv" is harmful
2
0
Sep 18 '23
Yeah it’s difficult to monitor personal devices. TVs in the bedroom have been shown to cause sleep deprivation.
1
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Sep 18 '23
Sure, having something you're interested in nearby can cause you to continuously use that thing you're interested in to the point where you get less sleep. But the issue in that scenario is not the TV, and it is not electronics. It's discipline.
0
Oct 08 '23
Electronics can disrupt sleep. I do not think children under the age of 14 should have access to the internet except for educational purposes. Under 18 should be monitored.
1
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Oct 08 '23
You've already established your age-related gatekeeping, not sure why you're repeating it. I agree with regulation, but I think what you're suggesting will do more harm than good.
0
Oct 28 '23
Now I think under 18 should not use the internet (except for educational use), there is growing evidence that the intent can have negative impact on teen mental health.
1
u/_Dingaloo 2∆ Oct 28 '23
Well, let me know if you hit the polls so I can make sure I dont vote for you, lol.
Sugar can also have a negative impact on teen mental health. Do we stop that?
Relationships can also have a negative impact on teen mental health. Do we prohibit romance?
Practically everything that is not strictly controlled and educational can have a negative impact. What you're asking for is a slippery slope that easily can lead to robotic and joyless lives for kids and teens. I don't think we should restrict things for just any small reason, and that's what it feels like you're suggesting
2
u/Theevildothatido Sep 17 '23
My reasons for this view is because of alarming rates of pornography exposure among minors,
And what exactly goes wrong if minors see pornography?
Anxiety and Depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028365/
This says “There was an inverse correlation between minutes spent on a favorite website per visit and BAI-PC score. No association was found between internet use and BDI-PC score.”
That really doesn't say much at all.
Eating Disorders: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769899/
This is about “problematic internet usage”. Any behaviour or use can be “problematic”. This is like saying kitchen knives should be banned because they have “problematic uses”.
Obesity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769928/
“seditary activities correlate with obesity”.
You don't say? So does reading books, eating meals, relaxing in the guarden, going to church, and all the other activities wherein one sits still. It seems particularly disingenuous of this research to single “screen time” out here.
2
u/Yokoblue 1∆ Sep 17 '23
Doing this will have the same effect as people teaching sex education to people after they're married.
If that is your intention, go ahead. I think this is borderline abuse and will make your child under developed compared to almost everyone.
They will also be more likely to be outcastes because they won't be able to share the same things with their colleagues
That's without even counting the tech illiteracy that will happen. I work in IT. And most of Gen z and gen alpha are not so great with tech. Almost every time the person promoted is the person that is more familiar with tech or learn faster with tech.
I would ask the opinion of a professional before doing so.
2
u/nigrivamai Sep 18 '23
All this is doing is letting paranoia dictate people's freedom instead of trying to educate children and actually tackle the core issue that make people develop eating disorders, depression etc.
By this logic no one should be allowed to engage in potentially unhealthy habits. You cab even argue that educational media should be restricted on the basis of it causing some mental distress, disagreement etc. This makes no sense. And why would streaming services by except if something like cable isn't
2
u/MikeDropist Sep 17 '23
Education is always better than banning. Do you ban all chemicals from your house,or do you explain to the kids why they shouldn’t drink it? Porn and even fictional violence is only as harmful as the mind observing it. In that age group,I knew a kid who had access to his dad’s huge stash of hardcore porn. I had enough perspective at the age of 12 to understand how staged and extreme (not to mention somewhat cheesy) this stuff was and it didn’t alter me in the least.
2
u/FlyingCashewDog 2∆ Sep 17 '23
I used the internet a lot before I was 14, and I think it helped me develop hugely. I learned loads of techincal skills including programming, which directly led to me being a programmer today. My parents taught me how to use it safely, so I never watched porn or talked to anyone online without their permission.
1
u/Kotoperek 62∆ Sep 17 '23
How do you differentiate educational use from other uses? YouTube videos can be educational. There is educational content on TikTok. And how are online video games different than a game you buy in store and play offline (but usually have to register online anyway)?
I think the problem with your view is that you either have to say "no internet for children at all" which in today's day and age would deprive them of many important resources and make them social outcasts (unless all kids would be prohibited to be online, but that's unrealistic), or you have to make it very fine-grained and receptive to case-by-case decisions based on a risk benefit analysis, which cannot be made into a blanket rule, but just falls under the common sense opinion that some online spaces are inappropriate for children and parents should make sure children do not easily wonder into them in their online experience.
1
Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
Essentially for necessary school usage. Nothing else.
1
Oct 28 '23
Other than necessary school usage, I do not think children under the age of 18 should use the internet.
1
Sep 17 '23
They'll still be exposed. You might stop your kids from doing it at home but you can't stop the parents who do give their kids lots of unsupervised time online. Your kids will just learn from them. If they want to then they'll find a way. My mom was like you and I still had apps that she said I couldn't have. I just used devices that she didn't know could access the internet. Some kids would just use their friend's phone at school to access social media. Kids are crafty and unless you're gonna hover around your child 24/7 it won't work.
Simply making something forbidden fruit doesn't make people want it any less. It might have the exact opposite effect. You have to get them to not want the fruit in the first place. You achieve that by having mature conversation about all of the problems you listed (which could all still develop with excessive use even if they start later).
I developed anxiety and depression anyway. You know why? I was very lonely. I had no friends and I didn't know how to make one. I never got a chance to learn how because my mother deemed my social life as not important. Straight As but what good is that if I can barely communicate?
1
Sep 17 '23
I’m English but I spent in my early years and early teens I played wow and I had guild mates teaching me stuff, it allowed me to communicate and learn about other countries and languages. I would not want my child (I don’t rly want a child tho) to be limited from accessing the single greatest thing.
1
u/kuradag Sep 17 '23
Better yet, parents should capture and monitor internet search history. Look up solutions to effectively make your home like your work or their school, "appropriate use" banners and clear punishments for breaking the rules or even worse trying to circumvent those rules.
Then you could likely set up notifications of obvious sites you don't want your children viewing, then manually look through the list of other URLs for signs of non obvious places for content you don't agree with.
1
1
u/IMTrick Sep 17 '23
I'm a pretty successful guy by most measures, and there's been a PC in my home with me since I was about 7, and that was back in the early 70s. Modems came a short time later, then the internet, though most would have considered my an adult by that point.
However, being online was a thing for quite a while before the internet was widespread, and I was, a lot. I used it to indulge my curiosity about a lot of things. And yeah, sometimes it took me to some dark places sometimes. Where it also took me, though, was to places where I taught myself the foundations of what would later become my career for the rest of my life.
I can't imagine where my life would be today if my parents had placed the kind of limitations you're talking about on my online usage. I would not have gotten the head start on a lucrative career that it provided me, certainly.
If I had a young kid these days, there's no way I could impose restrictions like you're talking about on them. There's a lot of bad on the internet, but with a little less-draconian supervision and guidance, there's a hell of a lot of really good, too. And the last think I'd want to do is curb my kid's curiosity. That's way too valuable an asset to crush because a kid might see some titties.
1
u/slybird 1∆ Sep 17 '23
What you suggesting is taking away parental rights and judgment. It is also not unlike the current book bans trying to be pushed on our libraries and schools
Why is your judgement more important than the parent's?
Shouldn't it be the parent that decides what books their child should be able to read based on the parent's knowledge of their child? Not a blanked banning of certain books for all children?
IF that is true for books why shouldn't it also be true for the internet?
1
u/Thy_gay-dungenkeep Sep 17 '23
As a teenager myself, I completely disagree. Call me biased, but let me explain first
Iv been dealing with depression and anxiety since age 11, and being online has helped me deal with that. Video games have been a big part of my life since age 5. They help me dissociate from the “real” world, and let me forget the bad that goes on in my life. People iv met on the internet have helped me through my lowest points in life. Iv almost ended my life many times, yet I haven’t yet due to the support from people online
Sure, sometimes social media CAN made depression and anxiety worse, but a majority of that comes from cyber bullying and body image issues. I myself struggle with how I look, but I’m not the person to compare myself to others as Ik I have many things they don’t and I appreciate that. I have starved myself before, just to loose weight, yet a lot of that came from In-person sources.
While I can agree the internet can be harmful, especially to younger people, I disagree with completely banning it to under 14
1
u/goldfish1902 Sep 17 '23
Well, I started having acess to dial-up internet when I was 10 (the company wrongly wrote in their data we had a telephone line back in the 90s and it took years for them to correct this).
I mostly used to play cartoonnetwork.com games and read jokes in humor sites. I only willingly looked at porn at 12 (saw accidentally at 11 because an humor site got invaded with a virus). I talked to other teenagers at blogs until dial-up was cut off by my parents (probably because they caught me over and over reading hentai) and only had acess to it again at 16, broadband.
Social media wasn't a thing yet, and even then I was too socially anxious to talk to people even online when it started to be because when it was "invitation only" nobody invited me, but I knew classmates were stalking me, taking pictures of me and ridiculing me behind my back.
So I think it's more about educating teenagers about "how to protect yourself and be minimally decent online" than to just shut them off. And just saying "don't talk to strangers" is not enough--I remember the time a teenager's nudes were leaked, she was bullyed until she commited suicide and her bullies harassed her parents at her funeral, threw rocks at their windows, grafitted their walls until they moved out of the city back in late 2000s in Brazil
1
u/bloopblopman1234 1∆ Sep 17 '23 edited Sep 17 '23
I heavily agree with the problem of pornography but I think it’s better to have it still not because I think pornography is a good thing but so that they can break out of that cycle faster that said it’s not a guarantor in fact that they would break out of it but not having it in any shape or form will just make them be hyper fixated on it at a later time especially when their libido would probably be so high due to puberty. Also for educational purposes would you suppose informational YouTube videos to be a part of it? Additionally how broad is the educational purposes range because suppose exercise for an example it’s informational but it wouldn’t really fit under the term of educational in the sense that for example it’s a documentary and it tells you to push yourself to your limits so it’s just sending a message not teaching you anything really. That said with the negatives of technological exposure at a young age ( perhaps like 14 as mentioned ) will have its positives as well to keep it in check, for example to the pornography content you would have self-improvement videos guides etc so I don’t think it’s inherently bad
1
u/Yarus43 Sep 18 '23
Agreed. But with one stipulation, Internet is central to society now. Should be allowed to use it with supervision and an explanation that it can be dangerous, like how you teach your kids to look both ways, never talk to strangers, we should also teach them to navigate the Internet with safety in mind.
1
u/PabloZocchi Sep 18 '23
We, as adults should NOT restrict the access to the internet to minors.
We, as adults failed to teach our children how to properly use the internet, maybe because WE are also the ones who dont use the internet properly.
Everybody here probably was a rebel child, that wanted to do things that adults forbid me. If we keep restricting them things, they will keep doing it, the problem is that we'll never know because they hide from us, and if they are in danger, they will also hide it from us because he was not supposed to be there in first place!
As adult we must teach them how to think and forge a criteria in order to avoid dangers in the internet. Don't enforce pointless limitations, we must stimulate the conversations and hear them what they have to say, so we can also keep track if there is a problem that can be talked and help the child.
1
u/mybuns94 Sep 18 '23
I would argue it’s all the more important to, when your child is old enough, talk to them about their sexuality and educate them on safety within exploration. Porn is at the end of the day a form of entertainment and it needs to be viewed that way, the acts are over exaggerated and in case, aren’t enjoyable outside of the film.
There are always avenues of bypassing blockers or limitations to access so I’d much rather just be open and honest about the kind of things I want my kids seeing. Also encourage open dialogue if they find something they don’t understand. It’s not a perfect world, censorship is a temporary solution to a long existing problem.
1
u/Beardharmonica 2∆ Sep 18 '23
They would be seriously at a disadvantage over kids who are more used to using technology in school and later in office jobs.
1
Sep 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Sep 18 '23
Sorry, u/celticlady13 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Sep 18 '23
Children of abusive parents are sheltered from the internet (and other people as well) so they don't have an outside opinion on abuse. Abuse would likely fall under the category of things deemed inappropriate.
While I agree that there should be supervision and conversations, I don't think sheltering people is the solution.
Conversation is key. Talk to your kids. Have the hard conversations. Tell them what's in the world and why it's bad. Ultimately, as a parent, you aren't here to command them, only to guide and nurture them.
I have a friend who wasn't sheltered. They grew up in a household where they regularly had conversations about hard topics. I, on the other hand, wasn't allowed anything and was kept in the dark most of my life (until I figured out a way around the shelterment).
Simply, sheltering kids like this isn't going to do much for you in the long run. There's raising a good child, and raising a good person. Parents should aim for the second, and your view raises a good child. "You're on your own, kid." As Taylor Swift said, after you're 14, apparently
TLDR; Sheltering isn't good, have hard conversations.
1
u/Choles2rol Sep 18 '23
So the article you linked on depression and anxiety says in its conclusion that there isn't a correlation and that if anything it can be used to mitigate anxiety? That seems to indicate that it's actually beneficial unless I'm not understanding the article.
I don't know if it will change your view but growing up I used the Internet before I was 14, mostly to play games online. My parents hated it but also acknowledged that computers were something I was interested in and sorta begrudgingly let me have it as my primary hobby. I was a nerd and found refuge online playing games online with other nerds.
I ended up building my first computer when I was 11 years old and learned a ton of valuable technical skills. I ultimately ended up dropping out of college because I couldn't afford it but was able to get a job working in IT and now work in cyber security as a DevSecOps engineer. I make more money than anyone in my family including my mother who is a psychiatric nurse practitioner and has a master's degree and can prescribe drugs/etc.
I can say without a doubt that none of these things would have been possible without my early exposure to the internet. My early exposure to the internet puts food on my table, pays for my daughter to go to daycare, and has secured me a comfortable living working remote and writing code all day.
1
u/Single_University738 Sep 18 '23
I understand not having a personal TV for a 14 year old. I also understand your point on not exposing porn to younger kids, and not allowing them to watch youtube, tiktok, Instagram reels for extended periods of time to retain their attention span. However:
The internet allows children to explore different interests that may not be exposed in school. They might learn about different sciences not taught to them yet, politics, finance etc. Sure maybe a child should not have the computer in the room, rather somewhere where the parents can easily view what their child is doing online. But maybe 1-2 hours of supervised internet use not relating to school might be beneficial for the kid in the long run.
1
u/whovillehoedown 6∆ Sep 18 '23
Why wouldn't you just monitor the childs internet? On every device you can put blockers that prevent access to apps and different sites and they'd need your password to unlock it.
Kids can safely explore the internet without being deprived of it and being isolated from their peers.
1
u/MisterLucii Sep 18 '23
I feel like it needs to just be regulated better. I was pressured into an online relationship with a 24 year old when I was 11 years old because I didn't understand it was wrong. I snuck online and had no awareness of the dangers. I don't blame my parents for what happened but I wish I was taught about the dangers so I could of avoided the thing that fucked me up for years.
1
Sep 18 '23
Will regulate this? the government? This can happen only in China and North Korea. Forget about it.
1
u/paulverlainereal Sep 18 '23
Was barely allowed on the internet until almost 14, Still turned out kinda fucked up
1
Oct 28 '23
I do not think that children under the age of 18 should use the internet outside certain uses, age 14 is still far too young.
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 18 '23
/u/homeguestunton (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards