Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Its wrong for kids to be on the internet bc they should be outside riding bikes or playing sports and if not that studying.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I edited my comment, but we used to have only so many hours/data per month so you couldn't spend all day online. Theres nothing wrong with the internet in moderation.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

sure, whatever the case the onus should be on the parents to decide what moderation is, not the government

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sadly, I think most parents are too r-slurred to make that decision. I see so many parents pushing around what appear to be six year olds staring at smartphones/tablets in a stroller. That generation is completely fricked.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

by that logic the government should take custody of all children and raise them because you cant trust parenrs to do it right. This is the same logic :marseygroomergrooming: use to rationalize talking to children about their sexuality/gender identity without parental knowledge or consent. "the parents might be homophobic so the kod can only be their true selves at school!" :soycry:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do think there should be birthing loicense.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You know thatll never happen, we cant even get voter id laws.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How can we require an id to drive but not to vote? Sad!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unlike voting, driving isnt a right, butt a privilege... or thats the logic. Obviously that goes out the window when trying to exercise 2A rights

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We don't leave it up to the parents to decide whether their child can use drugs, alcohol, or porn. The government already has an established interest in restricting harmful/addictive things from children regardless of how the parent feels about it.

We've all been on the internet long enough to see what repeated long time exposure to the internet/social media does to people and turns them into terminally online, paranoid schizo anti-social r-slurs. You probably know someone in real life that has altered their life trajectory because of this shit, or if we're really being honest we can see it in ourselves given where we are on this Reddit reject site surrounded by fellow r-slurs who have melted their brains.

Social Media is just another form of a drug given how it interacts with our brains and leads to addiction and it should be treated in the same way by the government as we treat other addictive vices.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We don't leave it up to the parents to decide whether their child can use drugs, alcohol, or porn. The government already has an established interest in restricting harmful/addictive things from children regardless of how the parent feels about it.

If a parent lets their kid watch porn, drink or do drugs, then hold them accountable. I domlnt see pfizer, smirnoff, or brazers being held iable for parents letting their kids raid the liquor cabinet the pill box or the hustler. Also just bc the government can do something doesnt mean they should.

I dont think the government should regulate the internet, drugs, alcohol or pron, beyond holding adults liable for neglect if they dont supervise the kids properly. Dedtorying anonymity on the internet is an r-slured solution. If you think otherwise then youre a bootlicker. Thisnisnlike people who want to ban guns bc "think of the children". Would banning guns save childrens lives? yes, butt owning one is a findamental right, thebimportance of which outweighs safety and social harm. If safety was a chief concern theyd require children to wear helmets in the car a law which would save hundreds of childrens lives a year and would be easy to pass because driving isnt a right. They dont do that tho bc itd be verybunpopular and political suicide. I agree that internet is dangerous, butt eliminating parental responsibility is not the solution to protecting chikdren from it as it would give the governemnt far too much power to control free spwech on the web.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Bro is yapping

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://media.tenor.com/2Xp-XGrcZBkAAAAx/sherlock-benedict-cumberbatch.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyzoomer#talking:


:#marsey:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wrong, they should be bullying the weak and using the internet to figure out how to make napalm and potato cannons

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

back in my day you could get books from the publicly library for all of that and more, plus you had to exercise in order to get said books.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.