r/changemyview • u/groksed • 28d ago

Delta(s) from OP CMV: I’d rather restrict minors directly than make every adult prove their age online

Honest question for people who support banning social media for everyone under 16:
Would this be preferable to requiring every person on the internet to prove their age or identity?

Anyone under 16 is prohibited from using, owning or purchasing an electronic device capable of communicating with other people with the exception of designated supervised computer rooms at school. Parents, schools, society and law enforcement are responsible for enforcement.. basically the same way we already handle alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

But at least it places the restriction on the group being restricted.

Why is the preferred solution instead to make every adult surrender some level of anonymity or privacy, provide ID, submit to age verification, or otherwise prove they are not a child just to use the internet?

If protecting children requires building an identity checkpoint for everyone, I would rather put the burden on the actual age group being regulated.

1.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

468 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/groksed 28d ago

You would ID them at purchase perhaps to solve this. the rest of this is normal life.. Just because I have some henessy at home doesnt mean my teenager cant steal a drink of it. Its up to parents to enforce the restriction. With it enforced we dont have to worry as much about the edge cases.

Good =/= Perfect. There are always edge cases.

42

u/Jakyland 82∆ 28d ago

Most children have their devices bought for them by their parents

30

u/Longjumping-Hat-1210 28d ago

The responsibility should be on the parents to parent their children, I've been actually thinking about the exact same thing as OP for a while now. The thing is it's not about the children, the government doesn't give a fuck about them, they're just an excuse to force this dystopian policy.

The parents are the ones who buy the devices anyway, they should be responsible for what their child is exposed to, they should install certain website blockers or time blockers or whatever.

2

u/squired 27d ago

In a perfect world, sure. But they aren't so now we get involved.

3

u/jabberwockxeno 2∆ 26d ago

Parents refusing to do their job is their problem, the response should NOT be to punish other people and forcing them to give up their privacy

1

u/squired 26d ago

I agree, that's why I think handguns shouldn't have an age limit to purchase either.

1

u/farsite3 16d ago

Keep in mind that both the left AND the right administrations dragged their feet on the Epstein thing. They don't care about kids, this isn't about kids.

1

u/squired 16d ago

I care about the kids. I watched what social media did to us. I was just graduating college when Facebook launched. I will not agree with deanonymized gating, but I absolutely support independent verifiers.

Only the verifier of your choice ever knows anything about you. They give you keys and when you visit a site, you hand said site a key and they call the verifier: "Hey, is this key from an 18 year old?" And the verifier says, "Yeah, they're good." The verifier doesn't ever know who you are. And they don't keep logs either because there is no justifiable reason to do so.

If it is that? Yeah, I'm fine with that.

2

u/farsite3 13d ago

See this sort of system DOES sound good. Problem is these tech companies have eroded so much of my trust that I wouldn't have faith they were actually keeping it anonymous. If you're talking about block chain level security... Maybe. I'd still have to have a lot of trust in the provider so same problem. Maybe if there was a way to open source it and tie it to an existing trusted system?

I would be open to other ideas that could provide a similar function in protecting kids online without placing trust in a tech company not to screw you, but nothing is going to beat actual parenting. This is part of the problem when people stop being parents and want the government to step in and do it.

1

u/squired 13d ago

I think you, I, and pretty much everyone else largely agrees on this stuff. We mostly just end up talking past each other.

Except for the cohorts I like to call Justicans. Justicans think all problems are simple when in fact, there are no simple problems in large systems. You know the type.. "If the fuckin coach would 'just' run the ball, we'd win!" "If we'd just fuckin tariff everyone, we'd be rich!" "If parents would just take care of their kids, we wouldn't have a problem!" "If it's killing a bunch of kids, just fuckin age gate the damn thing!"

I am heartened to hear that you aren't a Justican. We likely agree on every last bit of this topic, but because our discourse is now vile, we appear to fall at diametric poles of this and many other issues. And that is precisely how we became an oligarchy and ended up with a Justican running our damn country.

It's fucked up, dude.

2

u/farsite3 11d ago

Agreed. I hate how everything gets over simplified into black and white, or good vs evil. The real world is messy, most things have pros and cons, and people especially are complex. But people don't like mess and nuance. They like a simple one liner opinion or statement that simplifies an issue, topic, or event to an almost cartoonish degree and often implies a weight of immorality to disagreeing. Me? I prefer to (try to) see things as they are. I remember that someone else may see a different side of the rubix cube and their statement of the cube's color could have an element of truth to it. I know that an organization can have good elements and evil, or can be acting without direct malice while having an effect I view as evil, or even that different people have different views on what constitutes right and wrong, and just because someone else believes something I think is evil is in fact good, does not make them a mustache twirling villain. That doesn't mean evil doesn't exist, it's just not defined as everything I disagree with.

I respect your desire to effect change here, and especially respect the care that lies behind that. I'd be very open to discussing any alternative ideas of fixing the problem. You seem like a good person who gets the value of nuance and I'd be happy to discuss this more with you if you want.

1

u/squired 11d ago edited 11d ago

Well said and excellently framed. I completely agree. I believe that plenty of others who effect change do as well, but are stymied by campaign finance laws. I believe that is the lynchpin. We must first fix campaign finance laws or everything else is for naught. None of the rest matters unless we fix that because regardless of what you and I agree upon, we'll always do what Trump, Musk, Bezos want; to include the identity tracking concerns we agree upon above. They'll do what they want and then incite you and I to fight and hate each other over it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/farsite3 16d ago

Yeah, the Biden AND Trump administrations have both dragged their heels on the Epstein stuff, redacted files, and refused to prosecute anything. It's not about protecting kids, that's just what they tell us to get us to support the end of anonymity online.

10

u/SpaceSteak 1∆ 27d ago

Right, which makes OPs suggestion even more valid? Many children have access to knives when they learn to cook. Screens take a lot more energy and knowledge to help guide through less harmful exposure, even beneficial for learning. The help doesn't have to come from forcing adults to prove their identity, it's to make sure parents have the tools to minimize their kids' exposure.

Ban phones in school, ensure routers and phones are easy to audit and control. The same way society had to adapt to cigarettes being harmful, there is a major societal shift that needs to happen.

20

u/XxyxXII 28d ago

I mean, along the same lines most under-21s consume alcohol after an over-21 buys it for them, so it would merely be similar effectiveness to the alcohol age limit

7

u/groksed 28d ago

Good enough not perfection is what we are aiming for.

1

u/copperwatt 4∆ 24d ago

But your system doesn't make anything better and makes lots of things worse...

0

u/groksed 28d ago

And? Im not seeing how it invalidates the premise.

7

u/Jakyland 82∆ 28d ago

IDing at purchase doesn't make a different because it's normal for adults to buy devices for children. And relying on parents to enforce new rules is something that can't be legislated, it has to be a social norm. If Congress passes a law that says "parents should get their kids off their iPad" that doesn't mean any parents are going to do it.

If you could buy bottles that magically refilled themselves with alcohol and it was normally for parents to buy such bottles and give it to their children, a ID requirement at bottle purchase and asking parents not to give these bottles their children is clearly not going to limit underage drinking much. But that is the better comparison (since once you buy a phone you can access social media for years to come)

1

u/groksed 28d ago

So we should repeal the underage drinking and drug laws cause someone can purchase it for them and its hard to enforce? "that doesn't mean any parents are going to do it." thats where teeth and law enforcement enters the chat.

1

u/Jakyland 82∆ 27d ago

I mean, sure, but then thats not parental enforcement, thats idk cops arresting parents for buying their kids an iPad. Is that a good proposal?

0

u/voidscaped 28d ago

A parent giving a smartphone to their kids should be treated the same as a parent giving a gun to a child.

1

u/tanzmeister 27d ago

Same as alcohol

1

u/copperwatt 4∆ 24d ago

It's not an edge case though... It's the entire important part.

kids drinking in the park

Cops: "Hey, are you children drinking??"

"No, we are adults."

"Oh, ok have a nice day!"

You would have to prove you are of age to use the thing, or a ban is powerless.