Posted on 01/26/2024 5:31:12 AM PST by V_TWIN
I disagree.
#1 I think social media should continue anonymous. In cases of criminal activity tracing via IP addresses can be performed.
Prohibition should have taught people something but apparently did not. People will find a way. It is absurd and counterproductive to attempt to control people when there are so many ways to circumvent. Are you going to require retina scans to access social media with a need to re-authenticate every 5 minutes?
When you forbid something you make it attractive. Kids can gain access to porn easily & do. That eliminates your analogy. The porn laws are on the books so that the adults allowing access or distributing can be held accountable and punished. No one believes the laws make it impossible for kids to access porn.
It is the job of the parents to educate their kids about using social media, to monitor and to block when appropriate. No one can or should try to substitute for the parents. I can scarcely believe you would trust the Government or the social media companies to protect your children. Giving those entities more power is anathema and should be avoided at all costs. Not only would the purported aims not be achieved, the way that power would be used is beyond the imaginings of a moral and sheltered individual. Big Brother is here today.
Even after prohibition alcohol is still illegal for minors. Not sure how what you stated supports your premise.
If anything it shows that some restrictions are used, we can debate the effectiveness, is your point alcohol show not be banned at all, minors should have complete access to it?
And yes the porn laws do just that, make it so adults can hold other adults accountable, now why would that not work for social media?
That is a funny post. You know computer expert kids are not rare. Kids are the ones that enter Government secured platforms to play pranks.
Kristoffer Wilhelm von Hassel At the age of five, Hassel exposed security lapses in the Microsoft Live Xbox system, prompting wide media coverage, with some journalists highlighting the dropping age of hackers and their technology mastery
Jonathan James, age 15, from Pinecrest, Florida, managed to install a backdoor in US military servers and access the source code of the International Space Station (ISS).
THE average age of cyber attack suspects has fallen from 24 to 17 in the past year, the National Crime Agency revealed today.
One 12-year-old bought the Blackshades virus that lets hackers take control of another computer secretly.
Experts believe youngsters are lured by the “kudos” of criminal activity.
They warn gamers may hack an opponent but the attack can then escalate and take out a website, costing firms huge sums.
The NCA today launched a campaign aimed at parents of 12 to 15-year-olds, to steer them away from crime.
*********
That may well be true but it takes eons for things to develop.
Just look at humanity itself and their development over the
thousands of years. Shorten it to when Columbus sailed the
ocean blue in 1492. What has evolved and what has been and
what the future will hold another 1000 years from now.
My preferred approach would be to see the internet finally divided into extensions to allow at more effective controls and blocks of material inappropriate for minors.
I am absolutely not for loss of privacy, with the interment though, unless you are on a library desktop, logged in through a tor browser and in a ski mask (most libraries have cameras now) you are not anon. Your ISP knows and will give all your information up in a heart beat.
Also anyone who thinks these company VPNs provide anonymity are delusional.
“Please explain why you hall it hypocrisy, there is a lot of argumentation through assertion happening in this thread. I have repeatedly posted my reasoning with real life examples and several here only respond with ad homonyms and assertions lacking and stated justification.”
Your homepage:
******PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning—any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/ or the comments made about my photo’s or any other “picture” art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.*******
And here you are advocating that every person on the internet who wants to participate in a forum should indeed have to prove identity and age with REAL physical government issued identification! Again I have never seen anything like this before when it comes to hypocrisy!
Can’t you see the cause and effect of this will destroy every site like the FR?
I raised a very healthy and successful daughter ( young woman now)
Parents ought to parent. Social media is just an inert thing. People on social media is a different thing
Teen aged girls in particular can be very cruel
Inert things do not cause harm. That’s like blaming a gun for deaths. Nonsense
Yep and everything you posted shows they just learn fast. They are not born with an innate knowledge of computers.
I was playing with IRC bot attacks and the likes back in the early 90s and was already ~40 yr old, does not take a kid to learn, they just learn quicker and generally have more time to do so.
Regardless you did not make the point it is some mass generational thing, your examples are still the exception, not the rule.
The point about prohibition has nothing to do with minors. It is about the Government trying to control & failing. Just as in the case of laws against showing minors pornography the laws forbidding alcohol to minors are to allow punishment of the involved adult(s) not believing that the law stops kids getting access to alcohol.. Look at the lack of success if that is the aim.
Prevalence of Underage Alcohol Use, People Ages 12 to 20. According to the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 13.2 million people ages 12 to 20 (34.2% in this age group) reported that they have had at least one drink in their lives. In 2022, 5.9 million youth ages 12 to 20 reported drinking alcohol beyond “just a few sips” in the past month.
According to the 2022 NSDUH, 646,000 people ages 12 to 20 (1.7% in this age group) reported heavy alcohol use in the past month
You need to stop emoting & stop believing that you (GVT) can control the world. The place of GVT should be limited as much as possible. GVT is not a virtue signaling banner to wield. Liberals use it that way and have brought America to the edge of collapse. Those who would be in Government need to be logical, restrained and free of corruption...they are not.
You don’t appear to care about reason or logic since you twist the discussion to allow yourself to pretend to be correct. You said only the rare kid knows more about the internet than you do. That is obviously fallacious which was my point. Very computer savvy kids are not rare and I doubt you have the skills to hack NASA.
“So you think laws against minors viewing pron are equally stupid? How progressive of you.”
You are making the equivalence that someone being against preventing someone from accessing twitter or facebook is equivalent to them supporting the same group acessing porn.
Dumb idea.
This concept needs to be nipped in the bud and shot down immediately before it can gain momentum and spread to all other states and every community website on the internet just like the FR. The concept will destroy it all. There will be nothing left but Amazon and Walmart ads.
I agree, I am not blaming the gun for the death. I am saying like with guns in your example, or pornography, or alcohol there may be a legislative / legal solution or at least aid to help parents with controlling access to social media for minors.
I keep asking everyone now I ask you, do you believe there should be no laws against having access to pornography, alcohol, or guns?
Should an 8-16 year old have unfettered legal access regardless of the parents wishes to all those things? I say this because that is effectively the state of social media these days and imo it is equally as dangerous to minors.
And to repeat, after reading the FL law I think it is wrongheaded, privacy must be respected as best it can be. That does not mean there is no solution possible legally.
Social media is very much enabling the destruction of our youth, children are not adults and they warrant protection from such assaults.
I have literally repeated several times the FL law is wrong. All I keep saying is there may be a legal solution, I agree the privacy aspect must be protected.
Yes my first post basically just stated my agreement, I have tried to clarify in many other posts on this thread, please go back and review them.
I get my first post comes across that I liked the FL law but what I was thinking was I think we need something to prevent minors with such access and that I can see some possible legal solutions.
That’s fair. I definitely understand there are some brilliant older folks who are great on computers. I wish I were one of them. I use a computer everyday but basics.
Yes I am, but you broadened it to someone, I made it quite clear I am only concerned about minors. That is a very important difference.
Yes minors need restricted from social media, preferably by parents.
No I do not support the way Fl law would try to do that.
Yes I do support the possibility there may be some legal solution that can help parents limit such access.
Agreed.
The trap of good intentions ensnares the unwary and does great harm.
We don’t want or need a nanny state. Nanny states operate for the benefit of the connected and destroy whatever they touch.
Children cannot access any of it without a computer
Easy don’t give your child a computer. IF they need it for school have it in a centrally located place and monitor the usage
Yep, when mine were goring up I had a firewall running and the net access shut down at 7 pm. Also I tracked all their traffic.
Many parents are not really proficient enough to do that and honestly needs help, that is my concern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.