Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamnothere | Hacker News Reader

He’s saying that parents will always allow their kids to see, think, learn, and say things that he believes should be off limits, with government stepping in to decide that.

View on HN

Some parents will berate their kids or discipline them inappropriately and instill stress and anxiety in them that causes them to seek out things that should be off limits. It's easier to see a solution for the second issue when the first is not socially acceptable to talk about out loud. Nobody wants to be told they are parenting their own kids inappropriately. But in some cases, that just reality. Tech CEOs are a 100% reliable source of blame; parents - the people who are physically around their children the most - are not. (Source: myself. The best I managed to escape childhood with was C-PTSD, and I have had to get therapy to be able to manage my digital device usage ever since.)

So rather than work on the first problem, which is admittedly difficult, you want to remove the outlet that helps them cope? What do you imagine to be the most immediate consequences?

I mean I think we can all broadly agree that showing snuff and hardcore porn to 11 yr olds is objectively bad. There is a line, we just might not agree on exactly where it should be placed.

Are you saying that most parents show this stuff to their kids?

> And before anyone blames the parents, parents will always be shitty. They are an impediment to children's health society must work around.

This is what I was referencing. Your reply is a non sequitur here.

I'm saying most parents are perfectly powerless to prevent their children from seeing shit like that on the internet. Hell there's snuff on YouTube. Hardly a non sequitur.

It’s still a non sequitur because it’s not the argument I was responding to (which I found bizarre). I’m not really interested in rehashing general “must protect the children” arguments, sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com