Well yeah. If I was blocked off from communication with everyone, of course I would be anxious. There's a difference between the security in having your phone on you, and using it all the time.
There has to be a happy medium between not isolating your kids while also protecting them from what is a highly corrupting environment. Maybe this is just hindsight, but I look back at my unfiltered internet access as a kid and am pretty pissed off that my parents didn't get more involved.
Tbh I had good filtered access as a kid but was rabid for more and private internet access, so kinda went off the deep end when I got a phone. I'm not sure what my parents could have done
Same here. When I got my first smartphone in highschool, I quickly became massively addicted. I would guess that at least half my time was spent on reddit and 4chan for many, many years.
Though I don't blame my parents... How could they have known?
Its communication that harms young brains. Kids should never have unrestricted access to the internet.
That sounds like censorship to me (and thus, a bad thing). Maybe it's just because I come from a background where my ultra religious parents censored the entire secular world from me as a child, but I am firmly against any form of censorship.
Goatse, tubgirl, meatspin, or the BME pain olympics are not exactly hallmarks of quality communication and restricting that type of content is valid for minors. It’s not censorship to try to avoid desensitizing kids too early. Sometimes, people need experience before they can see the horrors.
I think they were referring to basic information censorship versus letting 10-year-olds/whatever aged minor have unfettered access to the entirety of the internet.
Here are the lines from the guy I replied to:
That sounds like censorship to me (and thus, a bad thing)
And…
but I am firmly against any form of censorship.
Allowing any censorship would be a bad thing, according to that poster, so I provided a reason why some censorship may be desired.
Your argument is not on censorship yes or no, but on how far. That’s a different discussion.
True, guess I interpreted it less literally. Who knows for certain besides OP, I suppose.
kids need to have things restricted from them. If a parent believes something is harmful to their kid, then they need to restrict it from them.
not really. kids need communication, as well as adults: since humans are such social animals. what harms young people more is stuff that decreases attention span, unrealistic body expectations, etc not "communication"
Well yeah. If I was blocked off from communication with everyone, of course I would be anxious. There's a difference between the security in having your phone on you, and using it all the time.
There has to be a happy medium between not isolating your kids while also protecting them from what is a highly corrupting environment. Maybe this is just hindsight, but I look back at my unfiltered internet access as a kid and am pretty pissed off that my parents didn't get more involved.
Tbh I had good filtered access as a kid but was rabid for more and private internet access, so kinda went off the deep end when I got a phone. I'm not sure what my parents could have done
Same here. When I got my first smartphone in highschool, I quickly became massively addicted. I would guess that at least half my time was spent on reddit and 4chan for many, many years.
Though I don't blame my parents... How could they have known?
Its communication that harms young brains. Kids should never have unrestricted access to the internet.
That sounds like censorship to me (and thus, a bad thing). Maybe it's just because I come from a background where my ultra religious parents censored the entire secular world from me as a child, but I am firmly against any form of censorship.
Goatse, tubgirl, meatspin, or the BME pain olympics are not exactly hallmarks of quality communication and restricting that type of content is valid for minors. It’s not censorship to try to avoid desensitizing kids too early. Sometimes, people need experience before they can see the horrors.
I think they were referring to basic information censorship versus letting 10-year-olds/whatever aged minor have unfettered access to the entirety of the internet.
Here are the lines from the guy I replied to:
And…
Allowing any censorship would be a bad thing, according to that poster, so I provided a reason why some censorship may be desired.
Your argument is not on censorship yes or no, but on how far. That’s a different discussion.
True, guess I interpreted it less literally. Who knows for certain besides OP, I suppose.
kids need to have things restricted from them. If a parent believes something is harmful to their kid, then they need to restrict it from them.
not really. kids need communication, as well as adults: since humans are such social animals. what harms young people more is stuff that decreases attention span, unrealistic body expectations, etc not "communication"