Should the Internet have More Age Restrictions?

[Carbon Maestro 1,003]

Now here's something that you might have done, you've gone on Google, and to satisfy your youthful curiosity, you find something that is rather...not for those under 18 year olds. Whoops!

 

The internet is an adult world. Would you let a kid free reign to enter strip bars and pubs where adult conversations and brawls take place?

 

But I think good parenting has a big part in making a civil internet user.  Personally I grew up in a household where my parents looked over my shoulder when I'm online up the age of 13. I actually don't think this is bad though. Later on, my parents became less restrictive as I got older.

At the age 13, my parents were rather smart on insisting that I don't share my real name, address, phone number, passwords with people online. Also, at that age I was told not to straight-up download any material that didn't belong to us, which is technically illegal and could lead to computer malware.

 

At 16+ my internet restrictions went to essentially a minimum, and my parents straight up told be about adult content, and that I'm responsible for ethical, civil online behavior, and the internet isn't a place to spread gossip, bullying messages, or threats.

 

Oh man, sorry for the tangent, but so many parents DON'T do this, and I can recognize that even without children. Do you think parents need to do all of the above? I certainly think so. Having the freedom to go online whenever is equivalent of putting yourself in an adult body and doing whatever they want in the real world. I don't see children to be using the internet for research or knowledge; I see it as a means out of boredom.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Carbon Maestro

[Tetrakemy 221]

There is a little thing called parental controls and google also has content filters. The Internet is a human right and not a privilege to have. 

[PE Brony 1,712]

OMG YES. The same goes for ALL instances where the internet is involved! I hate coming across YouTube videos either hosted by kids, having their comment-section spammed by kids, or my least favorite, finding kids on Xbox LIVE who definitely should NOT be playing the games they are playing, especially when they are the most foul-mouthed little brats that ALWAYS have microphones! I think many people have started playing with other people muted purely because of this.

 

Now to my general feelings about it:

 

My parents raised me to be a respectful person and to be civil. I was disciplined. I was restricted. I was monitored. All for which I am grateful now! In these current days of letting your kids do whatever they want because you don't want to deal with them, or don't want the government or social media hating you for doing what parents are SUPPOSED to do to/for/with their children, there is no other explanation for why our society is going down a black hole faster than you can say "Lightspeed."

 

Youth run rampant on forums, video games, and social media. They should be out playing! Sure, I spend a lot of time online now, but I'm in my mid-twenties, and have friends thousands of miles away, or college projects and homework assignments, or just need a break from school and work to zone out on Netflix or YouTube. When I was still growing up, I was playing kickball in the street in front of my house, or riding my bike around the trails that crossed my neighborhood! I still spend a lot of time playing sports. Heck, my job has me running around as a soccer referee!! That's WAY more exciting than sitting in my room! Sure, I still have to deal with kids since I referee youth soccer games, but it's not behind a wall of anonymity where they can say anything they want without someone knowing it was THEM saying it!

 

Internet anonymity (combined with lack of strong parents and families) is creating a generation of extremely disrespectful, dyslexic, dolts who will have little to offer the real world when they finally grow up enough to realize they can't free-load the rest of their lives (unless of course they live off the government, which has become more prevalent as well...)

[Carbon Maestro 1,003]

There is a little thing called parental controls and google also has content filters. The Internet is a human right and not a privilege to have. 

Ah, be careful. Technology is an enabler to a right, not a right itself. I'll make it clear:

For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this "rights" category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

 

While the US has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Hope that clears things up.

[PE Brony 1,712]

 

There is a little thing called parental controls and google also has content filters. The Internet is a human right and not a privilege to have. 

Since when was the internet a "right"?? It is 100% a privilege. It is NOT a necessity to keep you alive. It is a convenience that many people do without quite happily.

 

Children are MUCH more adept at manipulating the internet than their parents are these days. They've grown up with it their entire, short lives; while their parents are still trying to figure it out.

 

I had to set the internet restrictions on our family computer as a teenager because my parents didn't know the first thing about it! Even if the kid alone isn't savvy enough to get around filters, or settings, I guarantee they have at least 3 friends who know ways around them and will gladly share them! My sister wasn't too computer savvy, but when my computer software programmer brother-in-law blocked MySpace (YEARS ago, I know!), her friends showed her how to use proxy sites to get around it. Then he had to block all the proxies. Then guess what, she just went to her friends' houses and used their connection anyway.

 

It's not responsible enough to just set barriers on your computer. Parents must teach their children proper etiquette, safety, and morality for using the internet. But that requires that the parents must first understand what the internet has to offer and how to use it themselves, and start young.

[Tired Brony 89]

There is a little thing called parental controls and google also has content filters. The Internet is a human right and not a privilege to have. 

A human right should not be something that comes at the expense of someone else like the internet. For example, making access to water sounds like a nice human right, but someone has to pay for it.

[Fluttershyfan94 5,738]

Sometimes I feel it should, but have to say no. Parents should rather keep an eye on their kids on the Internet and warn them about things like the original post stated.

[Tetrakemy 221]

 

 

Since when was the internet a "right"?? It is 100% a privilege. It is NOT a necessity to keep you alive. It is a convenience that many people do without quite happily.

 

Children are MUCH more adept at manipulating the internet than their parents are these days. They've grown up with it their entire, short lives; while their parents are still trying to figure it out.

 

I had to set the internet restrictions on our family computer as a teenager because my parents didn't know the first thing about it! Even if the kid alone isn't savvy enough to get around filters, or settings, I guarantee they have at least 3 friends who know ways around them and will gladly share them! My sister wasn't too computer savvy, but when my computer software programmer brother-in-law blocked MySpace (YEARS ago, I know!), her friends showed her how to use proxy sites to get around it. Then he had to block all the proxies. Then guess what, she just went to her friends' houses and used their connection anyway.

 

It's not responsible enough to just set barriers on your computer. Parents must teach their children proper etiquette, safety, and morality for using the internet. But that requires that the parents must first understand what the internet has to offer and how to use it themselves, and start young.

 

 

 

It is NOT a privilege its a right. 

 

Its protected under the human rights act as well as the first amendment and 10 years ago the supreme court ordered that disconnecting someone from the Internet is a human rights violation. 

 

The only cause in the united states that can cause someone to lose internet intentionally is if you do not pay your bill. 

 

The Internet is a basic human right and not a privilege. 

[OnHerForehead 19]

Honestly I don't think there should be an age banned however I think that a restriction should be put on, which has nearly everything blocked under the age of 13, make it less restrictive from 13 - 16, nearly unrestricted from 16 - 17 and 18+ has no restrictions.

[SparklingSwirls 21,263]

The internet is a very large place. There are a lot of kid-friendly websites that are designed for children under 13, so I don't think it would be fair to block off everything. Still, I think it's important for the parents to teach internet safety, and also to use those parental control filters on google.

[The Crimson Cross 7,532]

Hmm.... I understand that certain sections of the internet are not for kids, for it is under the parents' discretion of how to deal with children and the issues regarding the content of the internet. I am also aware that anyone has the right to use the internet.

Parents should then actually set age restrictions for various content on their computers.

Edited May 14, 2014 by TheGoldenCross

[Graveyard Duck 150]

No. This kind of thinking is akin to locking your kids in your house until they turn 18, then shoving them out into the cold world on their own. They don't learn anything about what they're up against this way. It's better to let them explore under a watchful eye.  

 

If you're not paying attention and your kid falls into a well and drowns, it's not the well's fault, it's your fault. As a parent the kid is your responsibility, not the world's responsibility. Likewise, if you let your kids get onto inappropriate material without you knowing, it's not the net's fault, it's yours.  

 

That said, there should be more measures to make it easier to monitor how your kids explore the net. Parental controls do exist but kids are crafty and it's too easy to bypass them. But again, it's not the world's responsibility to restrict certain possible inappropriate material, it's the parent's. The parent must know what they want to be available and what they don't.

 

 

...I just realized I went on a hugely tangential diatribe that wasn't really getting the point of the topic. Oopsy-doops. But I've made my point well enough. Yes to parental supervision, no to either throwing your kids unarmed into the wilderness or locking them in their rooms for their entire adolescence.

 

Edit: I also just want to point out that "age limit" sounds like you're referring to kicking people off the net if they're over a certain age, not under. We need geezers on the web too! I think a better term might be "age restriction"? It seems more intuitive that you're talking about youngsters that way.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Graveyard Duck

[PE Brony 1,712]

It is NOT a privilege its a right.

 

Its protected under the human rights act as well as the first amendment and 10 years ago the supreme court ordered that disconnecting someone from the Internet is a human rights violation.

 

The only cause in the united states that can cause someone to lose internet intentionally is if you do not pay your bill.

 

The Internet is a basic human right and not a privilege.

Nowhere in any of those does it imply that everyone in the United States MUST have access to the internet. You busted your own argument when you said it's reliant on paying your bill--which it is. If you pay for something, you should receive it.

 

I don't pay a bill to be happy or do the things I love that cost me nothing. I don't pay a bill to be free. I pay bills for services rendered. If I can't pay my water bill, there goes my privilege of having water sent to my house. If I don't pay my electricity bill, there goes my lights, my xbox, AND my internet. If I don't pay my internet bill, there goes my privilege of having the internet at my fingertips in my home!

 

Sure, the 1st amendment in the US gives the freedom of speech etc, but it doesn't say that everyone must always be provided with the internet. There are more ways to communicate opinions than via the internet alone. Have you ever written a letter and mailed it so someone physically?? It's a lot slower, sure, but it has the same effect.

 

If the government cuts off your internet connection intentionally, then THAT is an infringement on your freedom of speech.

 

The internet is just one means of expression. If you pay your bill, enjoy the privilege that it brings--such as allowing you and I to discuss its* status as a necessity while millions of others have much more important, life-changing things to worry about than whether or not the internet is as important to them as finding food, water, shelter, or friendship!

 

*Edit: Fixed an error

Edited May 14, 2014 by PE Brony

[The Crimson Cross 7,532]

Yes to parental supervision, no to either throwing your kids unarmed into the wilderness or locking them in their rooms for their entire adolescence.

 

That is a good point but I don't see how kids watching 18+ content is restricting their knowledge of the world.

[Carbon Maestro 1,003]

 

 

Edit: I also just want to point out that "age limit" sounds like you're referring to kicking people off the net if they're over a certain age, not under.

Point taken. Note that the question already included age restrictions.

[Tetrakemy 221]

Nowhere in any of those does it imply that everyone in the United States MUST have access to the internet. You busted your own argument when you said it's reliant on paying your bill--which it is. If you pay for something, you should receive it.

 

I don't pay a bill to be happy or do the things I love that cost me nothing. I don't pay a bill to be free. I pay bills for services rendered. If I can't pay my water bill, there goes my privilege of having water sent to my house. If I don't pay my electricity bill, there goes my lights, my xbox, AND my internet. If I don't pay my internet bill, there goes my privilege of having the internet at my fingertips in my home!

 

Sure, the 1st amendment in the US gives the freedom of speech etc, but it doesn't say that everyone must always be provided with the internet. There are more ways to communicate opinions than via the internet alone. Have you ever written a letter and mailed it so someone physically?? It's a lot slower, sure, but it has the same effect.

 

If the government cuts off your internet connection intentionally, then THAT is an infringement on your freedom of speech.

 

The internet is just one means of expression. If you pay your bill, enjoy the privilege that it brings--such as allowing you and I to discuss it's status as a necessity while millions of others have much more important, life-changing things to worry about than whether or not the internet is as important to them as finding food, water, shelter, or friendship!

I did not bust my own argument dummy butt. 

 

WATER is a basic human right,

 

POWER is is basic human right

 

SHELTER is a basic human right

 

We still have to pay for them. Your idea of what a basic human right is horribly skewed. 

 

Basically what you are saying is that just because you have to pay for it, it does not count as a human right. Well I got news for you. According to your logic. That would mean that human rights do not exist. Because even free speech isn't free. Even Breathing AIR is not free. 

 

There is nothing in our world that you get for free. It has a cost to someone out there and regardless of what it is. The bill factor does not make it any less important. 

[Dddrgn 450]

No, it should not. There should be more warnings, parents should be more educated on how the internet works and how to keep their kids safe - and for sure, parents should have options to limit their kids internet usage so they don't come across something clearly not meant for their age group. However, this should be on a case-by-case basis, and completely up to the parents. Otherwise, it would be simply restricting the free flow of the internet, which is not a good thing.

[Graveyard Duck 150]

Point taken. Note that the question already included age restrictions.

 

I realized that when I read the topic, but I clicked on the link ready to say "No, what if grandma needs to buy something on Amazon because she can't go to the store?" XD

[Carbon Maestro 1,003]

Basically what you are saying is that just because you have to pay for it, it does not count as a human right.

 

While that is an interesting approach, I think you're mistaking human rights with civil rights. Internet access, while an enabler of basic human rights through the right to expression, is not itself a human right.

 

A human right is something we need "in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives." If you place technology in this category, you'll end up with some strange priorities as time passes and technologies change. In my earlier horse example below, consider what would have happened had horse been declared a human right a century ago.

 

 

At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this "rights" category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

 

And here I'll quote the Google Vice president Vinton G. Cerf, "Critical freedoms are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time." The internet itself isn't a right. But the unfettered access to information is a right, which correlates with freedom of expression. This is the civil right that protects an individual's freedom from infringement by governments and organizations.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Carbon Maestro

[QuirkyUsername 1,576]

Any restrictions set can be easily bypassed. Especially when the most intense security for most websites is an age gate either asking for your birthday or an even more simple "Yes I am 18+" It seems like a fruitless endeavor to increase such a thing when websites only use the most basic and useless of age restrictions. The worst it would do is slow down anyone determined enough to find a way around it. At the end of the day harsh laws and rules only hinder those willing to follow them. Just because it's slightly harsher than last week won't stop people ignoring it this week.

 

There is really nothing more to add that Duck hasn't already stated so may as well leave it at that/

[Sir Hugsalot 8,624]

No way such restrictions would prevent youth from using internet. Besides why should entire youth be cut away from internet when not all of them (actually minority) acts bad? Isn't it a bit unfair? Besides it's up to parents to control what their children are doing. I understand that sometimes it can be very hard as You can't spy Your child all the time, but I already saw parents buying GTA games for their kids that were 10 years old at best or for example kids watching porn in SCHOOL LIBRARY. Is it our fault that teachers and parents don't keep eye on them when they actually CAN? So - no, no restrictions. Kids would find their way through them anyway. 

[Guest90210 3,567]

That's up to the parents to teach their kids proper use of the internet. Besides, most methods of verifying age would be impossible to enforce (let's be real here, how many of you have lied when it said "enter your age" on a website, video, etc? I can bet every single one of you has at some point).

[PE Brony 1,712]

I did not bust my own argument dummy butt. 

 

WATER is a basic human right,

 

POWER is is basic human right

 

SHELTER is a basic human right

 

We still have to pay for them. Your idea of what a basic human right is horribly skewed. 

 

Basically what you are saying is that just because you have to pay for it, it does not count as a human right. Well I got news for you. According to your logic. That would mean that human rights do not exist. Because even free speech isn't free. Even Breathing AIR is not free. 

 

There is nothing in our world that you get for free. It has a cost to someone out there and regardless of what it is. The bill factor does not make it any less important. 

Woah, woah, woah! Why the name-calling?? Completely unnecessary. It's that kind of behavior that ruins debates for everypony.

 

Anyway, are you telling me you've had to pay money to breathe? That sucks. The only times I can think of that I've paid to breathe have been at the dentist when they give you some of that so-called "laughing gas," or when I went in for surgery and they knocked me out and put me on a ventilator until they were done...I had to pay for that...but I've never seen any of my money go anywhere to ensure that I can breathe...my respiratory muscles take care of that, and I didn't have to pay anything for them. (They--my muscles that is--like it when I eat food so that they can stay strong, and I have to pay for food, but that's not paying for breathing now is it?)

 

While that is an interesting approach, I think you're mistaking human rights with civil rights. Internet access, while an enabler of basic human rights through the right to expression, is not itself a human right.

 

A human right is something we need "in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives." If you place technology in this category, you'll end up with some strange priorities as time passes and technologies change. In my earlier horse example below, consider what would have happened had horse been declared a human right a century ago.

 

And here I'll quote the Google Vice president Vinton G. Cerf, "Critical freedoms are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time." The internet itself isn't a right. But the unfettered access to information is a right, which correlates with freedom of expression. This is the civil right that protects an individual's freedom from infringement by governments and organizations.

Who better to ask than someone who runs the biggest search engine on the internet? And thanks for pointing to the difference between Human Rights and Civil Rights.

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,329]

No I don't think there should be an age restriction for the internet. Whenever there is an age limit for a site, most kids just lie about their age anyway making it pointless. Also, there are websites for kids for a reason. Websites like club penguin or any site for a kids channel for kids to use. But yeah there should be some monitoring by the parents to see what the kids are doing and if they don't like what the kids are looking at, don't let them see it. Shouldn't the parents be watching what the kids do instead of letting the computer being their baby sitters. It's not the internet's responsibility, it's the parents.

[Carbon Maestro 1,003]

Besides why should entire youth be cut away from internet when not all of them (actually minority) acts bad?

To think that some parents believe that any children can handle adult content is B***s**t. Watching mature content at too young an age gives false expectations that are most likely never going to be met.

 

The kid may not know his consequences, but and if the parents fail to enforce good behavior early, the result is pretty consistent: You have a typical rebellious, authority-hating, defensive brat who lives on only to be an even more defensive brat as an adult. See Tumblr's "wonderful" Social Justice blogs for more information. I'll leave it for the reader to find out about that.

 

Kids would find their way through them anyway.

Not necessarily. For one, you should agree that a 10 year old should not have access to explicit adult content. One way is to freaking ask the ISP to block access from upstream in the first place, and this solves some but not all problems. But the best way is to have the parents have their own passwords for their own computers (Honestly it's not that hard), give the kid a separate computer in a common room and not in their own room, and freaking educate the child about internet safety.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Carbon Maestro