So have you heard of emotional violence or exploitation? That's how that works over the internet. You don't need to be in the same room to be forced to do something if you're vulnerable.
OP addressed that already. OP is saying something akin to the following:
"A kid wanders at night alone and gets into a run down bar. She gets groped. The police shuts down the bar, everyone applauds. But what is a kid doing wandering around at night unsupervised?! Where are the parents?"
This is a bad analogy, a child can't wander into a shady bar, late at night, while at home, in their room, while doing what they can to hide their activities from their parents, in the way that they can going on an inappropriate website.
If they're going on inappropriate websites then that's their problem. I'm sure any good parent would teach their kid about actions having consequences...
I mean, realistically we all did, unless you grew up during time when there was no internet. My mother was concerned about it when she found out I had watched porn when I was 13, but nothing more. Funny thing is that my mother brough it up to my father and he was like yeah ok he's a teenager. Lmao. But here I am today, I find porn extremely boring and didn't watch it for over a decade, maybe I could have porn addiction if my parents decided to block internet over it instead.
The thing online that traumatizes me the most is the thought that people turn off kid's internet instead of teaching them how to deal with strangers properly, because believe it or not, outside world is a lot more scary than internet.
A 11 year old can know to stop replying if someone asks their home address online, same kid can get kidnapped and have it be beaten out of them in the real world.
Shield a kid from the horrors of the world, the you'll have a dumb adult in he future.
Teach your kids how to spot danger and how to handle all the world's bullshit, then you'll have a smart adult in the future.
Don't baby your kids please.
This does not get into the fine details of what happened. They could have had something going, deceitfully or not, that convinced them they had no other choice. Anyway, that wasn't the point I was making. I was pointing out that a child sneaking away to a shady bar in the middle of the night has much more serious implications of negligence than a kid going to an inappropriate website.
Bro. Analogies don't need to be 100% realistic.
How many analogies have you read involving fictional characters? Or saying stuff like "that's a catch-22"? Do you say "actually, that phrase comes from a work of fiction, so it's invalid"?
"It's like when Homer can't stop eating donuts" - "Oh but Homer doesn't exist. Checkmate!"
An ant carrying a leave is like a dude carrying three cars on his back. "Whoa! It's impossible for a dude to carry that much weight!"
Well, The shady bar thing has happened before. So it's not unrealistic and that wasn't my point anyway. It simply does not fit the situation provided in the way the poster is trying to use it. There are far, far, greater implications of negligence for a child sneaking away, to a shady bar, in the middle of the night, than there is with a kid going on an inappropriate website.
Or even the opposite analogy. A guy goes to a bar that has an ID requirement. Has a few drinks. Meets a girl. They end up having a conversation and she and he hook up.
A week later, the cops show and the guy is charged with a sex crime because the girl was under 18 even though:
By all appearances she was of a similar age to him and consenting
She was in a place where only adults would be expected to attend
The ID requirement of the establishment meant that she should have been well above 18
So what's the liability of the bar, both towards allowing underage patrons and allowing them to hook up with older individuals while potentially intoxicated? Could they be sued and/or shut down?
How does that story change if the bar was known to look the other way on underage patrons, or not properly check ID? How about if the girl in question was known by some of the staff? How about if the man knew that underage patrons were not uncommon.
Who has a case against the bar: the man; the girl or her parents; the police; or maybe all of them?
Nobody should applaud an establishment working under the rules and doing their best being shut down, but when that establishment has a known history of illegal activities on their platform/premises there's a case that can be built against them.
That said, the internet is not a bad, and as a globally accessible platform with no physical presence validating ID and policing users/content can be quite difficult. Hell, we see that here on Lemmy with a not insignificant number of people who engage in illicit activities or troll .
So have you heard of emotional violence or exploitation? That's how that works over the internet. You don't need to be in the same room to be forced to do something if you're vulnerable.
OP addressed that already. OP is saying something akin to the following:
"A kid wanders at night alone and gets into a run down bar. She gets groped. The police shuts down the bar, everyone applauds. But what is a kid doing wandering around at night unsupervised?! Where are the parents?"
This is a bad analogy, a child can't wander into a shady bar, late at night, while at home, in their room, while doing what they can to hide their activities from their parents, in the way that they can going on an inappropriate website.
If they're going on inappropriate websites then that's their problem. I'm sure any good parent would teach their kid about actions having consequences...
I mean, realistically we all did, unless you grew up during time when there was no internet. My mother was concerned about it when she found out I had watched porn when I was 13, but nothing more. Funny thing is that my mother brough it up to my father and he was like yeah ok he's a teenager. Lmao. But here I am today, I find porn extremely boring and didn't watch it for over a decade, maybe I could have porn addiction if my parents decided to block internet over it instead.
The thing online that traumatizes me the most is the thought that people turn off kid's internet instead of teaching them how to deal with strangers properly, because believe it or not, outside world is a lot more scary than internet.
A 11 year old can know to stop replying if someone asks their home address online, same kid can get kidnapped and have it be beaten out of them in the real world.
Shield a kid from the horrors of the world, the you'll have a dumb adult in he future.
Teach your kids how to spot danger and how to handle all the world's bullshit, then you'll have a smart adult in the future.
Don't baby your kids please.
This does not get into the fine details of what happened. They could have had something going, deceitfully or not, that convinced them they had no other choice. Anyway, that wasn't the point I was making. I was pointing out that a child sneaking away to a shady bar in the middle of the night has much more serious implications of negligence than a kid going to an inappropriate website.
Bro. Analogies don't need to be 100% realistic.
How many analogies have you read involving fictional characters? Or saying stuff like "that's a catch-22"? Do you say "actually, that phrase comes from a work of fiction, so it's invalid"?
"It's like when Homer can't stop eating donuts" - "Oh but Homer doesn't exist. Checkmate!"
An ant carrying a leave is like a dude carrying three cars on his back. "Whoa! It's impossible for a dude to carry that much weight!"
Well, The shady bar thing has happened before. So it's not unrealistic and that wasn't my point anyway. It simply does not fit the situation provided in the way the poster is trying to use it. There are far, far, greater implications of negligence for a child sneaking away, to a shady bar, in the middle of the night, than there is with a kid going on an inappropriate website.
Or even the opposite analogy. A guy goes to a bar that has an ID requirement. Has a few drinks. Meets a girl. They end up having a conversation and she and he hook up.
A week later, the cops show and the guy is charged with a sex crime because the girl was under 18 even though:
By all appearances she was of a similar age to him and consenting
She was in a place where only adults would be expected to attend
The ID requirement of the establishment meant that she should have been well above 18
So what's the liability of the bar, both towards allowing underage patrons and allowing them to hook up with older individuals while potentially intoxicated? Could they be sued and/or shut down? How does that story change if the bar was known to look the other way on underage patrons, or not properly check ID? How about if the girl in question was known by some of the staff? How about if the man knew that underage patrons were not uncommon.
Who has a case against the bar: the man; the girl or her parents; the police; or maybe all of them?
Nobody should applaud an establishment working under the rules and doing their best being shut down, but when that establishment has a known history of illegal activities on their platform/premises there's a case that can be built against them.
That said, the internet is not a bad, and as a globally accessible platform with no physical presence validating ID and policing users/content can be quite difficult. Hell, we see that here on Lemmy with a not insignificant number of people who engage in illicit activities or troll .