Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nandomrumber | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nandomrumber

Do you actually have an argument to make?

He’s 100% correct.

For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t.

There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say.

I dropped the word ‘online’ from the above paragraph, because on is the real world. Touch grass, but there’s no way online isn’t real. Are these words not real simple because I telegraphed them to you?

That’s not a world I want to live in.

View on HN

>For a start, child are parents responsibility

And not distributing porn to children is a porn company's responsibility.

You are repeating a very common talking point but its not a good one.

Age verification laws make it possible to hold services providers liable for breaking the law (it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors in many places, like the US).

It's both true and completely irrelevant that parents should do a better job protecting their children from harmful services online.

Yes, my argument, to restate it, is that rhetoric can be misused to counterproductive effect, as is the case here.

Carefully note that I have neither affirmed nor contradicted anything of the substance of his argument. So defending his position to me is a non sequitur.

Yeah, fair enough.

The goal should probably be convincing people at the margins, and not turning away those in opposition.

Preaching to the echo chamber is probably less productive.

> For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Yes

That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right?

That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself

> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie.

> Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

Mine did. While not everyone has a backyard, things like pencils, papers, books, used toys, etc can be found inexpensively or for free.

So why are there laws that dont let them buy cigarettes and alcohol?

I don’t believe there are, at least not here in Australia.

In Australia, I’m fairly certain it is not an offence for a minor to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

It is an offence to supply alcohol or tobacco to a minor.

Did social media exist when you grew up?

Xanga and MySpace are what my friends had; yes

It's weird that none of your arguments or proposals hold accountable the responsible parties.

You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.

Responsible parties like porn companies that distribute porn to minors? Parents are still accountable with age verification laws.

If parents suck at parenting, they will suffer.

If porn companies distribute porn to minors, which is illegal in many places such as the US, they will not suffer. Unless you start holding them accountable.

Every major adult content site has warnings that you have to be over 18 when you enter the site. Its extremely easy to use parental controls to block these sites for a kid, and parental controls don't require violating user privacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com