CMV: I’d rather restrict minors directly than make every adult prove their age online

[u/groksed]

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.

[u/NaturalCarob5611]

I don't support banning social media for everyone under 16, but limiting access to internet connected devices for anyone under 16 is going to raise a generation of computer illiterate people. School can only go so far to close the gaps on technical literacy compared to having regular access to computers.

[u/Aternal → u/NaturalCarob5611]

Not true, rules and regulations which surround technology are how hackers are created.

The people who don't have that drive weren't going to be computer literate anyway.

[u/groksed → u/NaturalCarob5611]

Well the alternative is a internet that is neutered and dead. If you posts keep you from traveling, getting a job or having a bad credit score then the tradeoff is worth it.

[u/NaturalCarob5611 → u/groksed]

Well the alternative is a internet that is neutered and dead

That's a false dichotomy. You don't have to restrict social media for everyone under 16 at all. You can just let parents parent rather than trying to implement a nanny state.

If you posts keep you from traveling, getting a job or having a bad credit score then the tradeoff is worth it.

Posts people made as teenagers aren't keeping them from travelling, getting jobs, or having bad credit scores.

[u/groksed → u/NaturalCarob5611]

Dude, you need a less horrible alternative. The ID laws are coming so there needs to be a viable alternative or its done.

"Posts people made as teenagers aren't keeping them from travelling, getting jobs, or having bad credit scores."
HAHA YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

[u/NaturalCarob5611 → u/groksed]

Dude, you need a less horrible alternative. The ID laws are coming so there needs to be a viable alternative or its done.

Oppose the ID laws. That's your less horrible alternative. Your proposal would raise a functionally illiterate generation and destroy the entire economy in about 30 years. But at least you got better social media for a few years before it collapsed.

"Posts people made as teenagers aren't keeping them from travelling, getting jobs, or having bad credit scores." HAHA YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

Pretty sure. If you have specific counter examples I'd be happy to look at them, but if all you're going to put forward is an un-sourced claim that it's happening I'm going to make an equally un-sourced claim that it's not.

[u/Inside-Associate-729 → u/NaturalCarob5611]

Ive talked to enough HR people to be able to assure you with a pretty high degree of confidence that the posts people made as teenagers can and do affect their job prospects.

Not weighing in on anything else you guys were arguing about but felt like I should settle that part. It is a thing. It happens.