There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21, why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, etc.
Apples, meet oranges. And why the supposedly magic age of 21 in the first place? And why hasn't the rest of the world set the age limit that high for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, etc?
But thank you for inadvertently pointing out that the proposals to have mandatory age verification laws for social media (and God knows what else too eventually, the entire internet perhaps?) are NOT on philosophically stable ground. Any age limit is arbitrary, and ultimately will backfire on adults (however defined) as well.
Greg, the grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if. European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at tie Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so if you don’t see the discussion group agenda you’d like to discuss - for example, standards for product design that protect individual rights - add it. IMO the most trusted solution is one that is universal, run by a non-profit foundation with open governance and paid for through a tax on for profit companies. But those parameters will probably run into lots of hurdles. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
Since 2020. evidence has revealed the ugly reality that Section 230 has been leveraged as a threat by government officials seeking to quiet criticism. I hope that EFF has the independence to debate and discuss what is and is not transparent and be realistic about the conflicted interests between protecting individuals and corporate purpose to make money.
Separately,regarding digital ID technology, the psychological damages to youth should compel an industry thought leader like EFF to consider that the ID will come and the role they could play in bring the provider of a product to verify age anonymously instead of letting this become a for profit or it governmental function. Time to step up.
There is a difference between reforming Section 230 versus repealing it outright, of course. The latter would be a disaster and would not solve the problem. Canada and Australia, for example, have no equivalent to Section 230, and yet are nonetheless plagued by the same problems as the USA. Imagine that, only in the much more litigious and hypersensitive USA. Would you want to be sued for what other people post in the comments section of your blog, for example? All because some snowflake (of any political persuasion) felt offended? Outright repeal is a solution in search of a problem. As is the whole "ID for the internet" idea as well. Just another can of worms to open up, basically.
A better solution is Privacy First. Banning surveillance advertising would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom:
I would also support auditing the algorithms, banning deliberately addictive design features (without censoring content), and going antitrust on Big Tech. But anything else is a bridge too far for a free and democratic society IMHO.
Ads themselves would not be banned, just the creepy tracking and data mining (surveillance) used to fuel them. They would simply have to go on the DuckDuckGo model, and use contextual advertising instead.
Mandatory age verification to access social media, on the other hand, would clearly fly directly in the face of the First Amendment.
I am surprised that I still have all my fingers. As a kid I packed cutoff match heads into used CO2 cylinders to make improvised rockets that sometimes exploded when set off. I like to tell my grandkids about how as ten year olds with paper routes my friends and I once rode our bikes to a nearby small airport. We gave a pilot we didn’t know a couple of bucks for gas and he flew us over our homes in a Piper Cub. When I got home and told my mom her response was “that’s nice, get ready for dinner” and that was it. We lived in a Chicago suburb and would ride the train to the Loop and wander through the big department stores and once ended up on State street south of Van Buren outside a burlesque show hoping to get a peek inside. A friendly doorman waved us in for a free show. That we never mentioned to our folks. I fear for the current coddled generation.
All of us (especially guys) who had similar childhoods, can plainly see how these last 2 generations have been poisoned and then self normalized their contamination - as normal and righteous. These new masters of the world (I mean that literally - because they're the ones who will sit in seats of power/influence now and going forward) have been so demoralized (stripped of any moral compass) that they cling to perversions, fear, deviance and self hatred as if they were hallowed axioms, chiseled on stone tablets.
So many like to bloviate that this will swing back, there are more of us than them, etc., but attrition is a bitch and those of use who did things as kids - that would have todays drag queen story hour customers quaking with fear (hell that happens if you take away their screens for an hour - literally) - are steadily dying off.
Put another way - Our baseline of "normal" is quickly being replaced with the "new normal" and won't be getting switched back anytime soon or very easily.
Will there be a remnant, who have taught and been taught the fundamentals that allowed this country to function and gain a high level of prosperity, yes there will be. However, they will only be able to keep the flame lit, they will not be able to turn the tide.
They will be the 100 sanitation workers collecting trash, in cities where millions produce it hourly.
The tide will be turned when the crash comes (whatever that ends up being), those who caused it are drug off into the woods and buried and societies have to start from a relative position of "scratch".
The real trigger that triggered support for vigilantism last week is the case of the murdered CEO. How are a lot of the coddled youth you mention not horrified by a cold-blooded killing?
I've been shown a lot of disrespect and faced a lot of vitriol recently because I believe vigilantism has no place in democratic society.
Much more disrespect and disagreement than I would have faced over twenty years ago.
What's changed in regard to moral conscience since then?
When I say coddled, I don't mean that they don't have the ability to inflict damage, harm and chaos. I mean mentally they are incapable of dealing with perceived insult, harm or injury without acting out or going to extremes. Evidenced by every single nut job video out there where people are melting down over TDS and make serious threats against those they see as assaulting and harming them, through a voting choice. The coddling was no one ever telling them "no", "sit down and be quiet", "you are wrong", and the like. They have always been right, never allowed to hurt, want, be sad or scared and if they were it was all the bad old worlds fault.
This is just my opinion on your question, but I think this "I can do what I want because I "feel" a certain way and it's justified" is at the heart of all of this woke, omnipotent stupidity we are seeing - not only in the youth, but their parents as well. Also there are no swift and overwhelming consequences for their lower level tantrums. If anything they are catered to, as with the campus protester BS. What that does is reinforce their notion that they have power and sway and are right - so anything justifies their goal, to include murder. Lastly, this is just conjecture, but like toddlers who can take themselves from a few tears, to an enraged, unhinged, emotional hurricane in seconds, these people have been groomed societally to see rage and acting out as "the justified norm". I refer you to the idiots posting videos.
So, while there are tons of theories about this guy's motives, I'd say that in general the lack of inhibitions of crossing that line - that many have stood at, but don't - is a factor here.
We, collectively, have bred a generation or two now, to think everyone else is wrong and they're right. Add a level of mental illness into the mix and that only gets magnified. They also have great, "popular". examples, that affirm that. The most recent is hunter, with a 10 year blanket pardon for any and all crimes committed during that time. Hell fauci is another, who profited from the deaths of millions.
No fear of consequence = anything goes. That's goes for world leaders, politicians, governments, idiot woketards and toddlers.
Thank you for this. I agree that the book is well researched and powerful. I also agree that we need to be careful when enacting government policies... they will always have trickle over. (Why does everyone forget this when they want to apply govt' to their cause?) Parents most definitely should know their children best - it's called attunement and it's a very important part of parenthood. However, our instincts have been highjacked by screens, lack of authentic community, and being away from nature for too long. There are many ways of knowing including embodied ways of knowing, and sadly, we are a disconnected society, even though we are more connected than ever before. I find myself longing for more people to see this as the biggest hurdle and come together to tap into our true selves, rather than placating ourselves with our screens and the knowing that comes with a Google search, all while ignoring our children with an iPhone in our hands. This is really well written and researched and fans my longing for more authenticity and a deeper, more spiritual conversation about being more fully human.
If we trusted parents to make decisions for their children we wouldn't need truancy laws, supervision of home schooling, child protection services, etc etc etc. Parents give in to their children because of peer pressure. If no one in their peer group had access to social media, problem solved.
In a court of law, citing the US Supreme Court may carry the day. But elsewhere the Supreme's assertions may have probative value, but they're not dispositive. The Court can be wrong, as its reversals attest from time to time.
When I was a child in a saner era (the 1950's) the public square was constructed to be safe for children to wander about untended. Cocktail lounges were behind opaque doors. Pornography was behind the counter, tended by an adult. Movies were made according to the Hayes code, whereby gangsters called each other "dirty rat" and other tame epithets. By pitching the adult content over the childrens' heads, they nevertheless managed to address important social issues. I remember "Town Without Pity": Kirk Douglas played an Army officer sent to defend soldiers who'd raped a young woman in occupied Germany.
That better world is gone forever but in modern times I have to think that there is a way to provide certified adults with internet access to adult materials so that, for all practical purposes, it is invisible to children absent the actions of irresponsible adults. At the very least, shouldn't we be *trying* to do something along this line?
Bad Catitude on substack has a. essay on "In praise of Lawn Darts" that Explores much the same concept of allowong children to grow in a world with some risks...good read.
I recall a thing called a "snow day" (ages before remote education). Snow days took place when so much snow fell in a limited period of time that the roads and sidewalks remained largely impassable by the start of the school day. Hence, no school that day. But it wasn't just the cancelation of school that made snow days so enticing. I would look outside and see an adventure waiting to happen, and without a second thought I would throw on some winter clothes and race outside. I must have quickly informed a parent or brother that I was heading out, but I honestly don't remember; and, anyway, they all probably understood where I was going. And then I would just spend hours roaming the transformed landscape of a snow-covered world. I took that kind of childhood freedom entirely for granted. It simply seemed like the natural order of things. And the idea that modern kids are now restrained from such independent activity and are instead encouraged to stay inside with electronic devices fills me with unspeakable sadness. How is that not considered a form of child abuse? I don't have kids. If I ever do have some, however, I will dare anyone to arrest me for setting them free.
“Parents know what’s best for their children”? Unless of course you live in some states that allow school councilors to keep secrets from parents when they are playing gender games with your child’s mind.
Without then making spyware quite viable, how would parents enact these controls? We have strict-by-the-standards-of-of-peers rules about the phone but the schools do not seem to have any restrictions, the platforms certainly don't offer tools to parents to manage their access, there's increasingly toxic content specific to young people, and unless you install special spying software, Apple doesn't provide parent controls to parents who don't also have iPhones, and doesn't permit multiple parents to have controls. Furthermore, while social media offers benefits, there is zero reason why these benefits wouldn't migrate to less toxic platforms should the current ones become more responsible for their harms. It's totally possible to create less toxic alternatives, and to not make excuses for why our kids or any of us should be subject to endless advertising, misinformation, and harmful content. As long as we take it for a given that only access to these imperialist platforms offers the benefits of connection and discovery, the more we're giving them license to keep perpetuating their surveillance and disregard for humanity.
That’s factually inaccurate. My children have iPads that are locked down and both me and my husband can control it. You just need to set a code. We actually have parental controls on each others devices as well. It’s very easy to do. And don’t send your kids to public school.
Ultimately, parents need to PARENT. Parents have lost our confidence that what we deem to be right, is ultimately good for our kids. That’s why we defer to just about everyone else. The culture, the government, the school, social media parenting experts, toy companies, therapists, our peers, our children’s peers, our children, etc. even if that child is just turning 2. We don’t ever want to be accused of being bad parents or authoritarians, or earn our children’s anger. And that’s why it’s so hard to put down our foot and say, no, you’re not going to have a smartphone or access to social media until you turn X age, simple as that. And enforce consequences for any attempts to flout this rule.
Greg, this raises something I wish FIRE would give more thought to, which is the differences between children, adults and adolescents. And I suppose it's more of a philosophical point that should, in my view inform the way we approach the question of children. I have been engaged in opposing censorship for a long time (embarrassingly long), and I have often made the argument that we must not allow a situation where adults are reduced to the level of children with the authorities deciding what it is appropriate for them to see.
Flash forward to today and we have this weird situation where the authorities are actually infantilizing parents by going over their heads to determine what their children should have access to in school libraries. Parents have so little authority now and it is made worse when they try to challenge material in schools and are dismissed as prudes and bigots. All you have to do is say "book ban" and it's like everyone shuts down their critical faculties.
In my view, parents and schools should work together to determine what it appropriate in school libraries. Public libraries are different but even there, I think it's healthy to keep more adult books in the adult section. There comes a time when young people seek out the adult section, but it's something they are choosing to do. I think that's a little different than stumbling upon very adult themes some place where you aren't expecting it.
Anyway, so much harm and confusion seem to hinge on the collapse of differences between adults and children. If the two are collapsed, it not only harms children but it creates this situation where adults never need to take responsibility.
In one sense, I just want the discussion to take place even if it isn't fully resolved because we need to acknowledge that there are differences that we all agree need to be reckoned with. For instance the ALA's stance that "Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights." A nine year old is different that a 17 year old and each is an individual. Parents are the only people who are really in a position to judge, but in another provision the ALA vows to keep what minors access confidential. Obviously that's just one organization, but it's indicative of this unresolved issue which is relevant here too.
Kids will take responsibility when forced to do so. the child isn't the problem it is the parents. We have a multitude of problems that have been created by government with their attempts to "help". government and their "experts" using the science of mental health, a science that changes daily because it is proven wrong. yet government uses the findings of studies that are flawed to pass rules and regulations that harm our children and often inhibit parental rights and responsibilities. Often stepping in and accusing parents of abuse because a child learns to use the system against a parent. I had a teacher interfere with my grandson by telling him he could file abuse charges because his mother took the belt to him. well it caused all sorts of problems and cost thousands of dollars. I knew the principle of the school so I asked to address the class. I had my grandson present to tell them what happened after he filed the complaint. he told them he was taken away from his parents. he now shared a bedroom with three other boys who took his clothes and shoes. he no longer had his computer or books or his backpack to carry his books for school because the other boys stole them. He didn't get to go places with the family because the court took him away. then I told the class about the thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs. When I was done I had all of them crying. then I explained it all happened because the teacher told him he could complain to the authorities about how his parents abused him. she never asked if he deserved the punishment or even asked what it was. I told them that teachers are not counselors. she caused a lot of problems because she advised a child without knowing what the problems were. She tried to argue but my grandson stopped her cold. he asked if she was going to fix the problem she caused with bad advice? The one thing you dont want is social services in your life. They cause more problems than they solve. are they necessary? yes because many kids dont have people to turn to. before you ask make sure you have used all your choices before you make this one.---------- I, Grampa
Regarding your opening segment, could it be that we're missing a big part of the bigger picture? I see powerful people like Donald Trump (e.g., recently publicly threatening to retaliate against donors who support Nikki Haley) and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who, by the way, I'm pretty sure took a course in constitutional law at Harvard Law School) flagrantly abusing every governmental power he can muster to attack businesses and institutions that express support for ideas that DeSantis, personally, opposes. I doubt they're doing what they're doing because of anxiety. They're acting on what they perceive to be the power they already have to attack, as well as the power they can gain by attacking, others they think are weaker and disfavored by those who support Trump or DeSantis.
It seems to me that a new-found sense of power, far more than anxiety, is driving the illiberalism of our younger people. It seems to me that too many people who have learned the power of social media, etc., suffer from the same sense of entitlement to abuse the power of their speech as Trump and DeSantis. They are (merely) following in the footsteps and mindsets of many groups that suddenly found themselves with more power than they were prepared to handle responsibly.
I'm a big supporter of the freedom of speech, so I've read much of Jacob Mchangama's very insightful book "Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media" and, to this day, I continue to re-listen to his outstanding podcast "Clear and Present Danger" for its great insights. One common theme throughout all that history is that people with power abuse it to oppress others, including by repressing speech. Often anxiety played an important role, but power always played a bigger role.
What we really need to do to throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good is to pass comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, including banning surveillance advertising.
There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21, why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, etc.
Apples, meet oranges. And why the supposedly magic age of 21 in the first place? And why hasn't the rest of the world set the age limit that high for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, etc?
But thank you for inadvertently pointing out that the proposals to have mandatory age verification laws for social media (and God knows what else too eventually, the entire internet perhaps?) are NOT on philosophically stable ground. Any age limit is arbitrary, and ultimately will backfire on adults (however defined) as well.
Greg, the grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if. European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at tie Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so if you don’t see the discussion group agenda you’d like to discuss - for example, standards for product design that protect individual rights - add it. IMO the most trusted solution is one that is universal, run by a non-profit foundation with open governance and paid for through a tax on for profit companies. But those parameters will probably run into lots of hurdles. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
We need to be VERY careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually
Kafka, meet trap. Pandora, meet box. Albatross, meet neck.
Since 2020. evidence has revealed the ugly reality that Section 230 has been leveraged as a threat by government officials seeking to quiet criticism. I hope that EFF has the independence to debate and discuss what is and is not transparent and be realistic about the conflicted interests between protecting individuals and corporate purpose to make money.
Separately,regarding digital ID technology, the psychological damages to youth should compel an industry thought leader like EFF to consider that the ID will come and the role they could play in bring the provider of a product to verify age anonymously instead of letting this become a for profit or it governmental function. Time to step up.
There is a difference between reforming Section 230 versus repealing it outright, of course. The latter would be a disaster and would not solve the problem. Canada and Australia, for example, have no equivalent to Section 230, and yet are nonetheless plagued by the same problems as the USA. Imagine that, only in the much more litigious and hypersensitive USA. Would you want to be sued for what other people post in the comments section of your blog, for example? All because some snowflake (of any political persuasion) felt offended? Outright repeal is a solution in search of a problem. As is the whole "ID for the internet" idea as well. Just another can of worms to open up, basically.
A better solution is Privacy First. Banning surveillance advertising would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom:
https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms
I would also support auditing the algorithms, banning deliberately addictive design features (without censoring content), and going antitrust on Big Tech. But anything else is a bridge too far for a free and democratic society IMHO.
(Mic drop)
Ads themselves would not be banned, just the creepy tracking and data mining (surveillance) used to fuel them. They would simply have to go on the DuckDuckGo model, and use contextual advertising instead.
Mandatory age verification to access social media, on the other hand, would clearly fly directly in the face of the First Amendment.
I am surprised that I still have all my fingers. As a kid I packed cutoff match heads into used CO2 cylinders to make improvised rockets that sometimes exploded when set off. I like to tell my grandkids about how as ten year olds with paper routes my friends and I once rode our bikes to a nearby small airport. We gave a pilot we didn’t know a couple of bucks for gas and he flew us over our homes in a Piper Cub. When I got home and told my mom her response was “that’s nice, get ready for dinner” and that was it. We lived in a Chicago suburb and would ride the train to the Loop and wander through the big department stores and once ended up on State street south of Van Buren outside a burlesque show hoping to get a peek inside. A friendly doorman waved us in for a free show. That we never mentioned to our folks. I fear for the current coddled generation.
All of us (especially guys) who had similar childhoods, can plainly see how these last 2 generations have been poisoned and then self normalized their contamination - as normal and righteous. These new masters of the world (I mean that literally - because they're the ones who will sit in seats of power/influence now and going forward) have been so demoralized (stripped of any moral compass) that they cling to perversions, fear, deviance and self hatred as if they were hallowed axioms, chiseled on stone tablets.
So many like to bloviate that this will swing back, there are more of us than them, etc., but attrition is a bitch and those of use who did things as kids - that would have todays drag queen story hour customers quaking with fear (hell that happens if you take away their screens for an hour - literally) - are steadily dying off.
Put another way - Our baseline of "normal" is quickly being replaced with the "new normal" and won't be getting switched back anytime soon or very easily.
Will there be a remnant, who have taught and been taught the fundamentals that allowed this country to function and gain a high level of prosperity, yes there will be. However, they will only be able to keep the flame lit, they will not be able to turn the tide.
They will be the 100 sanitation workers collecting trash, in cities where millions produce it hourly.
The tide will be turned when the crash comes (whatever that ends up being), those who caused it are drug off into the woods and buried and societies have to start from a relative position of "scratch".
The real trigger that triggered support for vigilantism last week is the case of the murdered CEO. How are a lot of the coddled youth you mention not horrified by a cold-blooded killing?
I've been shown a lot of disrespect and faced a lot of vitriol recently because I believe vigilantism has no place in democratic society.
Much more disrespect and disagreement than I would have faced over twenty years ago.
What's changed in regard to moral conscience since then?
When I say coddled, I don't mean that they don't have the ability to inflict damage, harm and chaos. I mean mentally they are incapable of dealing with perceived insult, harm or injury without acting out or going to extremes. Evidenced by every single nut job video out there where people are melting down over TDS and make serious threats against those they see as assaulting and harming them, through a voting choice. The coddling was no one ever telling them "no", "sit down and be quiet", "you are wrong", and the like. They have always been right, never allowed to hurt, want, be sad or scared and if they were it was all the bad old worlds fault.
This is just my opinion on your question, but I think this "I can do what I want because I "feel" a certain way and it's justified" is at the heart of all of this woke, omnipotent stupidity we are seeing - not only in the youth, but their parents as well. Also there are no swift and overwhelming consequences for their lower level tantrums. If anything they are catered to, as with the campus protester BS. What that does is reinforce their notion that they have power and sway and are right - so anything justifies their goal, to include murder. Lastly, this is just conjecture, but like toddlers who can take themselves from a few tears, to an enraged, unhinged, emotional hurricane in seconds, these people have been groomed societally to see rage and acting out as "the justified norm". I refer you to the idiots posting videos.
So, while there are tons of theories about this guy's motives, I'd say that in general the lack of inhibitions of crossing that line - that many have stood at, but don't - is a factor here.
We, collectively, have bred a generation or two now, to think everyone else is wrong and they're right. Add a level of mental illness into the mix and that only gets magnified. They also have great, "popular". examples, that affirm that. The most recent is hunter, with a 10 year blanket pardon for any and all crimes committed during that time. Hell fauci is another, who profited from the deaths of millions.
No fear of consequence = anything goes. That's goes for world leaders, politicians, governments, idiot woketards and toddlers.
Thank you for this. I agree that the book is well researched and powerful. I also agree that we need to be careful when enacting government policies... they will always have trickle over. (Why does everyone forget this when they want to apply govt' to their cause?) Parents most definitely should know their children best - it's called attunement and it's a very important part of parenthood. However, our instincts have been highjacked by screens, lack of authentic community, and being away from nature for too long. There are many ways of knowing including embodied ways of knowing, and sadly, we are a disconnected society, even though we are more connected than ever before. I find myself longing for more people to see this as the biggest hurdle and come together to tap into our true selves, rather than placating ourselves with our screens and the knowing that comes with a Google search, all while ignoring our children with an iPhone in our hands. This is really well written and researched and fans my longing for more authenticity and a deeper, more spiritual conversation about being more fully human.
If we trusted parents to make decisions for their children we wouldn't need truancy laws, supervision of home schooling, child protection services, etc etc etc. Parents give in to their children because of peer pressure. If no one in their peer group had access to social media, problem solved.
We wouldn't need home schooling if public school weren't a mess.
It's fair enough to point out the failings of some parents, but don't do it while ignoring the failings of the nanny state.
"Parents" — yu fonny!
In a court of law, citing the US Supreme Court may carry the day. But elsewhere the Supreme's assertions may have probative value, but they're not dispositive. The Court can be wrong, as its reversals attest from time to time.
When I was a child in a saner era (the 1950's) the public square was constructed to be safe for children to wander about untended. Cocktail lounges were behind opaque doors. Pornography was behind the counter, tended by an adult. Movies were made according to the Hayes code, whereby gangsters called each other "dirty rat" and other tame epithets. By pitching the adult content over the childrens' heads, they nevertheless managed to address important social issues. I remember "Town Without Pity": Kirk Douglas played an Army officer sent to defend soldiers who'd raped a young woman in occupied Germany.
That better world is gone forever but in modern times I have to think that there is a way to provide certified adults with internet access to adult materials so that, for all practical purposes, it is invisible to children absent the actions of irresponsible adults. At the very least, shouldn't we be *trying* to do something along this line?
Ken
Bad Catitude on substack has a. essay on "In praise of Lawn Darts" that Explores much the same concept of allowong children to grow in a world with some risks...good read.
bad cattitude is a concise and wise and humorous contributor! i use all lowercase here in an effort to be honorific…
I recall a thing called a "snow day" (ages before remote education). Snow days took place when so much snow fell in a limited period of time that the roads and sidewalks remained largely impassable by the start of the school day. Hence, no school that day. But it wasn't just the cancelation of school that made snow days so enticing. I would look outside and see an adventure waiting to happen, and without a second thought I would throw on some winter clothes and race outside. I must have quickly informed a parent or brother that I was heading out, but I honestly don't remember; and, anyway, they all probably understood where I was going. And then I would just spend hours roaming the transformed landscape of a snow-covered world. I took that kind of childhood freedom entirely for granted. It simply seemed like the natural order of things. And the idea that modern kids are now restrained from such independent activity and are instead encouraged to stay inside with electronic devices fills me with unspeakable sadness. How is that not considered a form of child abuse? I don't have kids. If I ever do have some, however, I will dare anyone to arrest me for setting them free.
“Parents know what’s best for their children”? Unless of course you live in some states that allow school councilors to keep secrets from parents when they are playing gender games with your child’s mind.
Without then making spyware quite viable, how would parents enact these controls? We have strict-by-the-standards-of-of-peers rules about the phone but the schools do not seem to have any restrictions, the platforms certainly don't offer tools to parents to manage their access, there's increasingly toxic content specific to young people, and unless you install special spying software, Apple doesn't provide parent controls to parents who don't also have iPhones, and doesn't permit multiple parents to have controls. Furthermore, while social media offers benefits, there is zero reason why these benefits wouldn't migrate to less toxic platforms should the current ones become more responsible for their harms. It's totally possible to create less toxic alternatives, and to not make excuses for why our kids or any of us should be subject to endless advertising, misinformation, and harmful content. As long as we take it for a given that only access to these imperialist platforms offers the benefits of connection and discovery, the more we're giving them license to keep perpetuating their surveillance and disregard for humanity.
That’s factually inaccurate. My children have iPads that are locked down and both me and my husband can control it. You just need to set a code. We actually have parental controls on each others devices as well. It’s very easy to do. And don’t send your kids to public school.
If there are multiple parents, as in a divorce situation, this is not supported, which is a significant number of parents.
That’s not true. My husband and I both have control.
Ultimately, parents need to PARENT. Parents have lost our confidence that what we deem to be right, is ultimately good for our kids. That’s why we defer to just about everyone else. The culture, the government, the school, social media parenting experts, toy companies, therapists, our peers, our children’s peers, our children, etc. even if that child is just turning 2. We don’t ever want to be accused of being bad parents or authoritarians, or earn our children’s anger. And that’s why it’s so hard to put down our foot and say, no, you’re not going to have a smartphone or access to social media until you turn X age, simple as that. And enforce consequences for any attempts to flout this rule.
Greg, this raises something I wish FIRE would give more thought to, which is the differences between children, adults and adolescents. And I suppose it's more of a philosophical point that should, in my view inform the way we approach the question of children. I have been engaged in opposing censorship for a long time (embarrassingly long), and I have often made the argument that we must not allow a situation where adults are reduced to the level of children with the authorities deciding what it is appropriate for them to see.
Flash forward to today and we have this weird situation where the authorities are actually infantilizing parents by going over their heads to determine what their children should have access to in school libraries. Parents have so little authority now and it is made worse when they try to challenge material in schools and are dismissed as prudes and bigots. All you have to do is say "book ban" and it's like everyone shuts down their critical faculties.
In my view, parents and schools should work together to determine what it appropriate in school libraries. Public libraries are different but even there, I think it's healthy to keep more adult books in the adult section. There comes a time when young people seek out the adult section, but it's something they are choosing to do. I think that's a little different than stumbling upon very adult themes some place where you aren't expecting it.
Anyway, so much harm and confusion seem to hinge on the collapse of differences between adults and children. If the two are collapsed, it not only harms children but it creates this situation where adults never need to take responsibility.
In one sense, I just want the discussion to take place even if it isn't fully resolved because we need to acknowledge that there are differences that we all agree need to be reckoned with. For instance the ALA's stance that "Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights." A nine year old is different that a 17 year old and each is an individual. Parents are the only people who are really in a position to judge, but in another provision the ALA vows to keep what minors access confidential. Obviously that's just one organization, but it's indicative of this unresolved issue which is relevant here too.
Kids will take responsibility when forced to do so. the child isn't the problem it is the parents. We have a multitude of problems that have been created by government with their attempts to "help". government and their "experts" using the science of mental health, a science that changes daily because it is proven wrong. yet government uses the findings of studies that are flawed to pass rules and regulations that harm our children and often inhibit parental rights and responsibilities. Often stepping in and accusing parents of abuse because a child learns to use the system against a parent. I had a teacher interfere with my grandson by telling him he could file abuse charges because his mother took the belt to him. well it caused all sorts of problems and cost thousands of dollars. I knew the principle of the school so I asked to address the class. I had my grandson present to tell them what happened after he filed the complaint. he told them he was taken away from his parents. he now shared a bedroom with three other boys who took his clothes and shoes. he no longer had his computer or books or his backpack to carry his books for school because the other boys stole them. He didn't get to go places with the family because the court took him away. then I told the class about the thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs. When I was done I had all of them crying. then I explained it all happened because the teacher told him he could complain to the authorities about how his parents abused him. she never asked if he deserved the punishment or even asked what it was. I told them that teachers are not counselors. she caused a lot of problems because she advised a child without knowing what the problems were. She tried to argue but my grandson stopped her cold. he asked if she was going to fix the problem she caused with bad advice? The one thing you dont want is social services in your life. They cause more problems than they solve. are they necessary? yes because many kids dont have people to turn to. before you ask make sure you have used all your choices before you make this one.---------- I, Grampa
Regarding your opening segment, could it be that we're missing a big part of the bigger picture? I see powerful people like Donald Trump (e.g., recently publicly threatening to retaliate against donors who support Nikki Haley) and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who, by the way, I'm pretty sure took a course in constitutional law at Harvard Law School) flagrantly abusing every governmental power he can muster to attack businesses and institutions that express support for ideas that DeSantis, personally, opposes. I doubt they're doing what they're doing because of anxiety. They're acting on what they perceive to be the power they already have to attack, as well as the power they can gain by attacking, others they think are weaker and disfavored by those who support Trump or DeSantis.
It seems to me that a new-found sense of power, far more than anxiety, is driving the illiberalism of our younger people. It seems to me that too many people who have learned the power of social media, etc., suffer from the same sense of entitlement to abuse the power of their speech as Trump and DeSantis. They are (merely) following in the footsteps and mindsets of many groups that suddenly found themselves with more power than they were prepared to handle responsibly.
I'm a big supporter of the freedom of speech, so I've read much of Jacob Mchangama's very insightful book "Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media" and, to this day, I continue to re-listen to his outstanding podcast "Clear and Present Danger" for its great insights. One common theme throughout all that history is that people with power abuse it to oppress others, including by repressing speech. Often anxiety played an important role, but power always played a bigger role.
What we really need to do to throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good is to pass comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, including banning surveillance advertising.
https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms
Big Tech can go EFF off!
Well-said. We need to be VERY careful what we wish for, since we all know what they say about wishes.