| I think they are. Many, many parents do not understand the dangers of unrestricted Internet access for their kids. So they give their kids a computer. Their kids start browsing hardcore porn. At 13 to 14 years old. How is that not a bad parenting? Guess what? My parents gave me a laptop when I was 13 to 14 years old. They gave me that laptop for school work. But I quickly used it for browsing porn. You cannot blame me for being a bad person. Because I was only a teenager at that time. I did not understand that this is/was morally wrong. I blame my parents. They did not protect me. But I now know that many, many minors are being exposed to hardcore porn online. And becoming addicted to it. With very, very serious consequences. Why aren't parents protecting their kids online? I think these parents aren't intentionally bad people. They are just ignorant of the dangers of the Internet. |
| It is not about restriction, but about education and monitoring. Restriction of the worst should be done via the router settings and mobile phone data settings, monitoring can be done on the router and parental controls, but honest and open communication with your children means you can educate them. |
| idk about you but the closer a girl gets to looking like ronald mcdonald, the more aroused i become. CAV where can we cast our eyes to @PoruMairu who thinks of himself a member of the true church. Helion. |
| I feel like taking the side for early access, parents shouldn't be too overprotective because it can cause a detrimental delay of learning process. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Looking at porn doesn't make you a bad person regardless of age and it's completely normal for someone that has sexual feelings to wind up looking at it at some point. I don't actually remember exactly when I first saw porn but it wasn't the internet I had accidentally figured out how to manipulate the satellite TV to make porn channels that we didn't even get to actually come in. I also had found a discarded porn magazine once. You're going to run into porn at some point even if you had no internet or you're going to accidentally walk in your parents having sex if they do that kind of thing and are bad at remembering to lock the door. If someone gets addicted to porn that often isn't because the porn itself but rather it happens if they don't really get to spend time with friends, lack hobbies or going through depression or something else like that. It isn't some inherent thing. Also they still would be no more or no less likely addicted when not a minor as far as I'm aware. I think if anything it is possible that lack of exposure to more moderate sexuality it leads someone to search for it and they may wind up with something more hardcore than they really need or otherwise they may start having sexual attraction to random things in this absence. So cutting off all access to everything remotely sexual could have opposite of intended effect because where there is a will there is a way. You restrict something entirely and shun it that can easily make it more desirable. |
traedApr 4, 8:35 PM
| They should have some oversight, yeah. |
 |
| I think the irresponsibility lies in both monitoring internet activities and limiting overall internet usage. I think it is incredibly important for kids to go outside and explore their surrounding and to socialize face to face in the real world. Let us stop pretending this is just about hardcore pornography and online predators, but how excessive social media use panders to the lowest common denominator. This content is almost the exact opposite of offensive, with social media algorithms being overwhelmed by the mindless drivel that is being produced en masse via artificial intelligence. Now, I do not want my child to stumble across any content like gore or pornography, but at the very least I can at least contextualize those sorts of materials. Violent video games do not suddenly become okay if you let your children play them for hours every day. I feel as if I can protect my children by being the support they need and pointing them in the right direction. Part of responsible parenting is more than just monitoring content, however important that is, but making sure our children have access to a wide array of activities so that they do not default to using Tiktok or Instagram for hours that could be spend on more meaningful, more productive activities that would ultimately make them happier. This cannot happen without limiting overall access to the internet, and at least making sure that the time spent is mostly well-used, depending on the age.   Maybe I am a bit of an old fogey here, but I want children today to grow up without asthma, to have painted or to have read several books over the past year, to maybe have one schoolyard scuffle or two and to scratch their knees exploring the creeks and rivers surrounding their homes. |
PeripheralVisionApr 5, 7:18 AM
 |
| Yes and No -> A children always will find their way for adult content which isn't the huge deal, before internet there were other ways to consume them in physical media and parents/grandparents also had their ways to get them. Hardcore porn isn't even the worst adult content available in internet. The bigger problem for which the responsibility is about, is to control what a children writes/corresponds with others. When I was a volunteer to help children with social/integrity problems, one of the kids was actually trying to hold a conversation through messenger with youtubers/others and as much as those most popular are held by managers/people paid to respond via messenger, it can get risky when a child without any knowledge on this and without any control of a parent will receive a response, which might led into a dangerous situatio to the kid. |
| Yes, of course it is. It should not be controversial to say that. Kids are being raised by TikTok and YouTube more than they are their parents, and that is not a good thing, since these sites are full of terrible people who want to manipulate their minds. It will especially become a problem when they find porn, those reclusive habits are going to cause them problems down the line. Especially if they are a young boy. By around age 13, they are likely going to discover stuff like that, if they have internet access. By their late teen years, it becomes less important. But until then, monitor your god damn children's activity! Parenting 101 in the digital age. When I have kids, they won't have internet access until they are, like, 13 at the earliest. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| It is a tough subject. There's a balance I think parents would have to achieve. I remember when all my friends were getting into facebook, I was reluctant to make an account because I was so used to being told not to use your real name on the internet and not to talk to strangers. I assume my parents must've told me that and I'd say it protected me well. I mainly just watched youtube let's plays or played some pc games as a kid anyways. Usually did those things with my parents haha, since the only computer we had when I was very young was in their room. I got a laptop when I was a bit older. I think that's not a bad idea. When the children are very young have a shared computer, educate them to keep them safe online, when they get older give them their own to use privately. Pretty much what happened to me and I was dodging creepers like a pro in my teens. |
| Of course they are, I completely agree with OP - I am appalled that people still are in such a dire need of a reality checks when it comes to how easy pornography is accessible by minors and how destructive it can be. Obviously, there's other negative potentialities of kids having unmitigated online access, especially on mobile devices, but I think for most porn is the biggest risk. Yes, it is normal for children to be curious, and there are other ways by which they can access sexual content, but, upon dropping an ounce more thought into this mental bucket, it is obvious that the internet has changed the game drastically. For one, it is obvious that a 1:1 correspondence doesn't exist between A) By happenstance coming across a porn mag on the street or in an adult relative's personal belongings, and B) With a couple clicks having access to all the sexual deviancy in the world. It is a known media trope from before the internet era that young boys would go through all sorts of ridiculous feats to have access to a porn mag. I refuse to believe you people are this ignorant of culture when we're on a site defined by our egregious consumption of media. Second - Likewise, a 1:1 correspondence between the content and aims of mainstream porn in decades past, and the content and aims of mainstream porn now, does not exit. Most porn magazines only have pin-up nude pictures, and most mainstream older porn was rarely more than people engaged in relatively normal sex. All that stuff exists and is popular now, but thanks to digital analytics it has clearly been engineered to be significantly more eye-catching and further debasing from the reality of actual eroticism; if you know anything about photography, the difference is clear and staggering. This is not even mentioning that a lot of porn creators are significantly more explicit about the agendas they want to push than those past, with PornHub "writers" explicitly wanting to push concepts like transsexuality to underage porn consumers. It is worthwhile to note that these people themselves were exposed to porn at a young age. A quick look at the statistics will tell you that young people these days, who grew up with the internet as a reality basically their entire lives, are having sex and masturbating less than previous generations. These are many factors towards this change, but as this brilliant article elaborates, once the initial "curiosity" about sex and sexual anatomy is satiated, the kids rarely stop there, and eventually all mystique regarding eroticism in general is gone as they see more and more. It is obvious if one were to think about it critically - if the first prolonged access you have to this incredibly pivotal aspect of human life is via the virtual, no fucking wonder you're going to have such a broken relationship with it. We do not expect those who kill to value human life as much as those who haven't, why doesn't the same apply to anything else with moral implications? You are not exempt from desensitisation, it is one of the fundamentals of our cognition. Just over a month ago, I was at an airport restaurant/bar waiting for my gate to be announced, and sitting in front of me was a normal-looking family of two parents and a little girl (no older than 8). The mother and the little girl sitting next to her both had their backs to me, so I could look over the little girl's shoulder to see what she was doing on her tablet. She seemed to be aimlessly scrolling through her image gallery, and after a couple of unmemorable pictures she suddenly scrolled to *drum-roll* an explicit porn drawing of an Overwatch or Fortnite character (I wouldn't know), which she promptly deleted before her mother looked over, and kept scrolling like nothing happened. I still do not believe my eyes, and had I not been with another who saw the same thing, I'd be doubting myself still. I'd rather live in the middle ages and die of the bubonic plague as a toddler than experience that again. A quick point about the educational potential of the internet: All the information in the world won't do jack-shit if your kids do not have the correct attitude towards learning, and the internet won't teach them that - you will. The internet can help foster it, but it is clear that for a lot of people the internet is having the very opposite of an educational effect, with attention spans likely being at an all time low. Assuming you have a decent home library (which even I, a young low income person with other expenses, am slowly accruing) and know how to pirate have legal access to documentaries, your kids will have enough educational and curiosity-satiating content for life. The internet's famed ability for self-guided education can be replicated with significantly more depth this way, with zero of the risks of them coming across something that might waste their time, if not scar them for life. I admit, when I was younger I loved going down Wikipedia rabbit-holes, but having unmitigated access to a home library would have done me significantly more good in terms of my actual education. Personally, I don't see the need in giving my kids internet access until they're in the mid-teens and are starting to make other decisions for themselves. This is all glossing over the obvious point that a lot of popular content on the internet is purpose-built to predate upon your time and attention, as that is what generates profit. All other considerations are secondary. |
TibetanJazz666Apr 5, 5:15 AM
 |
| Parents nowadays are so lazy that they let the computer being their kids babysitter. |
 |
| helicopter parenting is bad too balance in all things is better |
| @Zarutaku I feel like taking the side for early access, parents shouldn't be too overprotective because it can cause a detrimental delay of learning process. People have learned without the internet before, but I would be wrong in suggesting it has made information more accessible. Websites like Khan Academy and Chemistry LibreTexts have done a great deal to make access to educational tools more widely available. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that not having early access would cause a detrimental delay of the learning process. If anything, one ought to view the internet is a doubled edged sword with regards to education and children, and by no means the only or even the most effective tool or resource for learning. If anything, I would say unmitigated internet access, especially with regards to social media, has made more people more hyperpoliticized, less likely to practice empathy, and overall just be outright dumber. I think we have a problem when more children put down "influencer" as their desired job title. Like what the fuck is even an influencer? Just as we ought to criticize parents who let the internet parent their kids, so should we criticize parent who let the internet teach their kids. TibetanJazz666 actually has a point here This is all glossing over the obvious point that a lot of popular content on the internet is purpose-built to predate upon your time and attention, as that is what generates profit. All other considerations are secondary. Most websites and social media have every incentive to make kids' brains rot. Dependent on the age and overall goals are, I think the internet access is incredibly overrated with regards to say, primary school children, versus a high schooler. Like seriously, it is not like they would need to pick up an encyclopedia like a high school would have needed to in lieu of the internet. @TibetanJazz666 A quick point about the educational potential of the internet: All the information in the world won't do jack-shit if your kids do not have the correct attitude towards learning, and the internet won't teach them that - you will. The internet can help foster it, but it is clear that for a lot of people the internet is having the very opposite of an educational effect, with attention spans likely being at an all time low. The internet's famed ability for self-guided education can be replicated with significantly more depth this way, with zero of the risks of them coming across something that might waste their time, if not scar them for life. I admit, when I was younger I loved going down Wikipedia rabbit-holes, but having unmitigated access to a home library would have done me significantly more good in terms of my actual education. Personally, I don't see the need in giving my kids internet access until they're in the mid-teens and are starting to make other decisions for themselves. So a few days ago popular science Youtuber Kyle Hill reposted this meme.  The internet's famed ability for self-guided education kind of requires some degree of knowhow, and as popular as pop science videos are, they are not all that educational because they lack the academic rigor of videos actually going over these topics in depth. Very few popular engineering videos would cover the Navier-Stokes equation, very few pop science videos would go beyond the depths of the adage "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell". Even parents who aren't especially adept in these fields would be remiss to know what they do not know. If you ever go to a Youtube video that actually gives lessons on these topics, you would find nearly zero comments claiming the video was fun, but many more comments on how good the video was at teaching the topic at hand. Actual educational videos aren't meant to be entertainment, but informative. So just to vent, but I am tired of how many people pretend that Youtube is educational and cite videos like Kurzgesagt or Veritasium. Not that they do not do create great videos, but they just are not hard science or hard math videos, and never intended to be. They want the appearance of intellect without the cultivation thereof. These by the way are the very best videos creators on the platform, by the way. AI generated science schlock has inundated social media sites. In the end, I find it doubtful popular science content can ever replace actual education in the sciences and math. |
| |
| In some ways yeah, they more than likely gave the device to the kid in the first place and signed up to the data provider for them, but even so you can't watch over them 24/7 as people generally seem much busier nowadays and/or are addicted to their own devices, spending time talking one-on-one with their own kids in-general seems to have gone out of the window. And I guess there's not much you can do if kids are sharing stuff between their friends - which was a panic-inducing thing a while back, but idk if it's still a thing or not? you'd hope that a kid won't go looking at things they (probably) shouldn't be at that age, even I'm guilty of this and I like to think I was a very well-behaved kid who very much listened to parents, but I found porn very addicting when I discovered it. I think also too much online interaction with the wrong kinds of people is probably much worse though, as kids are easily led, especially if they find interacting in-general difficult, as well as browser games as kids often don't understand that their not quite as free as they sound and can rack up hundreds of (enter whatever country's) currency. I grew up in a less tech savvy time & family, but even so I got access to softcore porn as a teen via SKY TV given to me mainly to home educate myself. I think their were primitive ways to block off channels with codes, but my Dad never added those, and my box was the only one we had. If we had another I believe the other box would show what I was watching (this advice was from years & years back, so idk if it was correct or not). I was told not to watch any adult material, but that didn't last long. What I watched was absolutely nothing like what kids watch nowadays (most likely), but even so I got very addicted to it and would watch it every night, but even so...I didn't get/understand what I was watching fully. And also around this time (2000) I discovered Wrestling on SKY also, and i fully believed 100% it was all real, and one of the 3 promotions I'd watch regular was ECW, and that one was notably more extreme (literally the "E" in ECW). I think my parents caught me a few times, but for someone reason they didn't do anything, I think they just put their trust in me as genuinely I hardly ever did the opposite of what they said ever. We did have a computer at home, and I probably occasionally did look at porn, but it was more awkward as I couldn't just jump on it... I'd have to ask my Dad first, then he'd have to unplug the phone line etc etc. Plus we had some sort of limit and I didn't want to spend to much time on the computer, plus my Dad would be in the same room as me, just not worth the effort. When i did get my first phone that had internet access via WAP, I would browse porn pictures as occasionally I got free WAP for a while. But the stuff was so pixely idk why I bothered lol. But even so I found other non-porn temptations around the home as a kid, as some of my older sister's glamour magazines had pretty racy photos, can absolutely remember seeing a women wearing a literal see-through lingerie set and seeing pubic hair. And 2 chains of sell-everything stores would have yearly catalogues out, and these would have underwear sections for different age groups, and I liked looking in-particular at girls of a similar age to me (remember, i was like 12-13 yrs old here) in their undies (panties in-particular became and still are my main fetish). And speaking of those, I randomly found a pair of my sister's knickers on the floor of the walk-in cupboard room of my room (probably dropped by my Dad doing the laundry), and was honestly pretty mesmerized by them, as I virtually never saw them regularly, if anything I saw her naked more often. Things like that you probably wouldn't even think would be a problem/should be something I should be protected from, but I know they were things I enjoyed seeing & fueled my fetish, but I at least have managed to safely contain it throughout, but I still feel embarrassed about it, as I have female family members. So yeah, if kids want to find something they definitely will, but I think communication with them to try and point out dangers and set limits should at least be attempted, rather than let them let loose with whatever device. |
Loyal_SheeplingApr 5, 3:26 PM
 |
| Not much to add to TibetanJazz666's great post, but at the risk of repeating myself, the people in this thread who were exposed to traumatic material at an early age did not exactly turn out okay. I did not get to use the internet until the final year of high school (I would only browse Wikipedia...), and I see no reasons why kids should have access to it outside of a school setting (it is also known that written material is more suitable to memorisation). Sadly, you see a lot of irresponsible parents who, instead of parenting, get rid of their children (or even toddlers) thanks to smartphones and tablets; interestingly, those who can seemingly solve basic geometry problems on a screen are typically unable to do it with real objects, so one cannot replace the work on spatialisation by digital (false) equivalents. What is even weirder is to see children on social media; the lower limit to use social media should be at least 18, and preferably 21 (if you are not allowed to drink beer, you should not be allowed to move the pub conversations you die to join online!). |
PeripheralVision said: Great post, I fully agree with what you said. Socializing should first and foremost happen with people you meet in person, at least when it comes to clear kids under 14I think the irresponsibility lies in both monitoring internet activities and limiting overall internet usage. I think it is incredibly important for kids to go outside and explore their surrounding and to socialize face to face in the real world. Let us stop pretending this is just about hardcore pornography and online predators, but how excessive social media use panders to the lowest common denominator. This content is almost the exact opposite of offensive, with social media algorithms being overwhelmed by the mindless drivel that is being produced en masse via artificial intelligence. I wouldn't really feel like monitoring others, but would rather hope to build a base of trust where they can tell me if something bothers them DreamWindow said: It's sad, however, while I don't deny the existence of manipulation, I think that it's still not ideal to be online for a longer period even when they manage to get into a good social bubble where they only interact with genuinely kind peopleKids are being raised by TikTok and YouTube more than they are their parents, and that is not a good thing, since these sites are full of terrible people who want to manipulate their minds. DreamWindow said: If I could decide than only if they need to look up stuff for school and until 14 only 1h (in addition to the time spent for their school assignments) at most and from 14-18 3h of free computer time at mostWhen I have kids, they won't have internet access until they are, like, 13 at the earliest. edit: Meusnier said: I'd be totally up for a higher limit for using social media, though it can be also 16 or 17, though it may be based on my own experiences, since I've started at 17 myself to post on my very first forums (before I even joined MAL)What is even weirder is to see children on social media; the lower limit to use social media should be at least 18, and preferably 21 |
DesuMaiden said: I think they are. Many, many parents do not understand the dangers of unrestricted Internet access for their kids. So they give their kids a computer. Their kids start browsing hardcore porn. At 13 to 14 years old. How is that not a bad parenting? Guess what? My parents gave me a laptop when I was 13 to 14 years old. They gave me that laptop for school work. But I quickly used it for browsing porn. You cannot blame me for being a bad person. Because I was only a teenager at that time. I did not understand that this is/was morally wrong. I blame my parents. They did not protect me. But I now know that many, many minors are being exposed to hardcore porn online. And becoming addicted to it. With very, very serious consequences. Why aren't parents protecting their kids online? I think these parents aren't intentionally bad people. They are just ignorant of the dangers of the Internet For not restricting? No For not teaching kids the dangers of the internet and how to avoid them? Yes And honestly (look i don't know what your personal experience with it was) porn in the least of my worries, cuz let's be real, if a teen wants to watch porn and their parents put restrictions on it, they'll just find a way to watch it behind their backs, the most dangerous thing to kids/teens on the internet is groomers, and any kid who has access to the internet should be taught how to recognize one and to not be afraid to tell their parents if they do come across one |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
| scenario1 parents restrict net through parental controls kids bug them non-stop to remove restrictions because "mY FrIeNdS aRe AlLoWeD..." parents just want some peace and quiet and don't want to deal with all this shit and may even see their kids obsession with IT as a substitute for childcare, so they drop parental controls and gg scenario2 parents restrict net through parental controls kids perceive this as merely a challenge, and seek to subvert said controls through different browsing methods, vpns, up to buying and borrowing alternative devices from their friends parents are none the wiser that their restrictions are not working scenario3 parents have unrealistic expectations of what children should be exposed to based on their own experience ("i WaTcHeD pReDaToR wHeN i wAS 8 yEaRs OlD") they apply no restrictions not just to the internet, but their content engagement in general, regularly allows their kids to watch 18 rated films despite being 10 etc it may not be immediately apparent the damage they are causing scenario4 parents are genuinely tech illiterate and don't know how to even apply parental controls, may not even use social media themselves so not aware of the dangers, possess just a general lack of awareness of the internet aren't motivated enough to find out because the damage that exposing unrestricted content to their children is not immediately apparent, see scenario3 as potentially relevant scenario5 many governments around the world are digitising everything, including education, classrooms here in the UK now have iPads for lessons, children are growing up way more reliant on technology and media access than their parents because they are now expected to use it from a young age to learn how to do everything because of this, parents can be anxious about restricting their childrens IT access in case it puts them behind or even makes them a target for bullying i could go on, and on, and on. easy to just hand wave lots of cyclical societal problems away and just say THE PARENTS ARE TRASH |
| the official MAL hall of fame/cursed comments is now open for business - you are welcome to PM me any potential quotes to include |
Reply to removed-user
@DigiCat
This, they will find a way to watch porn and this will the least of my worries too.
I also blame these worries and thinking consuming sexual content per se is traumatizing, on the typical purity culture and sex negativity in our society.
This, they will find a way to watch porn and this will the least of my worries too.
I also blame these worries and thinking consuming sexual content per se is traumatizing, on the typical purity culture and sex negativity in our society.
LittleOwlbear said: This, they will find a way to watch porn and this will the least of my worries too. I also blame these worries and thinking consuming sexual content per se is traumatizing, on the typical purity culture and sex negativity in our society. I do want to add onto this conversation of addiction, but I do recommend Carl H. Hart's Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear. I do not disagree with the idea that pornography is a drug in itself, one which can cause addiction which can cause fundamental issues with functioning in society, especially for children. The basic idea here is that just as you told me before that the problems with disabilities can often times be more social in nature than intrinsic to the disability, so can addiction be seen as social dysfunction stemming from a dysfunctional society and or environment. Johann Hari has said that "The Opposite of Addiction Is Not Sobriety, but Connection". I agree with you for the most part. Pornography is not necessarily the "source" of addiction so much as it is a lack of alternatives, reasons to not be addicted, which for children have to be provided or guided to by parents. I think this is the sort of misconception that places the blame on pornography as if social media addiction has not proven to be just as relevant a danger to children. It seems seldom different than video games. Not that I want young children to watch pornography, nor do I not think pornography has unique dangers on potentially leading to dangerous misconceptions about sex and gender, but rather that these dangers take place outside of parental context that rightfully deserves more criticism than simply "parents let their children watch pornography". Or as I see it, I can count on a teenager who has been taught well to consume some sexual materials, and to not necessarily view it as reality or let it dominate their lives. |
PeripheralVisionApr 5, 10:38 PM
| |
| Yes. The State or other media shouldn't be influencing children or raising them. |
| Lie until what you want to be true becomes truth. Lie until you can't remember what's a lie and what isn't. Lie until you aren't lying anymore! Figures  |
| i got caught watching porn so many times, and every time i got my devices taken away from me. sure enough when id get them back id be right back on that hentai grind. it wasnt just porn, it was also playing online games like moviestarplanet and reading smutty fanfics. the point is every time my parents would try and put their feet down, id get sneakier, learning new ways to hide my web activities - i learned how to clear my browsing history, turn history off completely, use a vpn, hide apps from the app display on my tablet, etc etc etc. my proudest heist was when my mum would sign my into the wifi only when i was allowed, not telling me the passcode and disconnecting me afterwards, and i ended up just recording the screen before i gave her my tablet to connect - i mustve been around 9-10 when this happened. im not saying that its completely useless to restrict a childs activities, but that alone is not enough a lot of the time. a child needs to be taught from day one what is wrong and right, whats dangerous and how to keep safe. |
| this was an automated message from big yappers inc. please send any complaints to your local waterstones counter.  |
| Absolutely. I didn't have my own personal device with internet access till I was 13. Before then if I wanted to use the internet, it was with my parent's computer. It's insane to me to see 5 year olds with iPads. It's why I get so pissed off when I see boomer parents suggesting the government should censor the internet under the guise of "protecting the children". The children shouldn't even have unrestricted access to the internet in the first place, your terrible parenting isn't my problem, fuck off. |
PeripheralVision said: Dependent on the age and overall goals are, I think the internet access is incredibly overrated with regards to say, primary school children, versus a high schooler. ofc primary school is too early for unrestricted access, I was talking in respect of OPs point of view that 13-14 is too early, as if it should be restricted until legal adulthood. Myself starting to use it in late middle school didn't feel too early retrospectively, I could somewhat agree with restricting it until entering high school, but afterwards it would hinder the development of internet competency or would be pointless because they find workarounds anyway. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Oh, the possibilities. Parents' decision regarding the restriction of their children's Internet activities will greatly influence their children. I don't know whether to feel grateful for my parents for being lenient in this regard. But I don't like the word "restrict". |
| ラーメン食いに行こうぜ～ |
| kids will see weird or uncomfortable things one way or another. you aren't able to stop that. you can help build resiliency through communication and prosocial modeling, not by hiding them from the world lol |
| Yeah, get kids off the internet so I don't have to see their braindead opinions |
 |
| Are they? Yes. But I have two philosophies: 1. A kid shouldn't be online until they turn 13. I guess they shouldn't make accounts and stuff, like I don't mind them having access to YouTube or games. I know what I was like with 10 in chatrooms and I definitely think waiting til 13 is much safer. I'd only allow for servers with classmates. But media accounts should wait til 13, most of them require that anyway. 2. A teenager, starting with 13 ofc, has the right to their privacy. They are their own person and I don't think it's right to surveil them in any way. Ofc they will make mistakes and it's up to me to teach them proper internet safety as their parent and be available if they do need help. My mom said when I was around 15 or so that I was responsible for my own sleep. I wouldn't intervene as long as their grades suffice, but I would also teach them how important grades are in the last two years of school. It's so much more important to teach than it is to restrict. People need to make mistakes to learn their lessons and they should happen before you reach adulthood. Watching nsfw stuff as a kid was purely educational to me, if I didn't have the knowledge about these things someone could have taken advantage of me due to my naivety. I'm glad that I was given unlimited access to the internet as a kid, but I also know that I posted my entire address in a chatroom because I wanted to be pen pals with one person in there. My parents knew nothing about the internet, but I know everything (that matters, at least). If restriction is your parenting style go for it, but I feel like that leads to unnecessary rebellion and it's better to treat at least teenagers as somewhat equals. |
| I know a few, the only way to stop this is to move to a far away place where slow wifi exists. This will force them to find better ways to entertain their child... |
More topics from this board
» do u guys have friends irl? ( 1 2 3 )removed-user - Nov 7, 2023 |
102 |
by 4630_Yen_Chan
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever been falsely accused of anything? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - May 1 |
89 |
by Noboru
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Any professional artists here?DesuMaiden - May 19 |
15 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» is being self-independent the only goal a person should focus on?FruitPunchBaka - Yesterday |
14 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
38 minutes ago |
|
» I might be going away for awhileThe-Nsider - Yesterday |
25 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
40 minutes ago |