[computegabe]

Protection for the kids should fall on the parents or schools, not the companies. It's not the companies fault if the kid is given full access to the internet, especially at a young age. It's bad parenting. If it's such an important issue, make the parents liable in some way.

[ocharles]

This keeps getting parroted but it's flawed/overly idealistic/frankly naive. An awful of children are, unfortunately, poorly parented. This is not a new phenomenon, nor something we seem to be improving. OTOH, exposure to extreme material for young children is increasing, and has consequences beyond that child. Exposure to extreme pornography leads to a warped view of sex which affects everyone this child might have sexual encounters with. Exposure to extreme violent material leads to the murder of other innocent children.

I don't know where I stand on this legislation - my gut is that it's too heavy handed and will miss the mark. But I think we need to stop saying this falls solely on parents. The internet is far too big, and parenting is far too varied for this to work. I wish it would, but it won't. There simply aren't enough parents that care enough.

[computegabe]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think it's a terrible thing, but in this case, I think doing nothing is better than doing something. The unintended consequences far outweighs the benefits. The kids that want to find extreme stuff will find it anyway, regardless of regulation.

[lijok]

You're optimizing for "fairness". The UK government, however misguided, is optimizing for good outcomes for the next generation. The thing that solves this may well be parents taking accountability, but, putting these expectations on online platforms in place doesn't hurt and can only help.

[userbinator]

The UK government, however misguided, is optimizing for good outcomes for the next generation.

By "good outcomes" you mean "addicted to the government"... which is not entirely surprising.

[alvah]

>doesn’t hurt

Are you sure?

[SoftTalker]

Not really fair to put it on the parents. The internet has totally changed the availability. When I was a kid, to get porn you had to go to someplace that sold Penthouse or Hustler or similar magazines, those had nudes but didn't depict full-on sex. A lot of convenience stores and gas stations sold them but they wouldn't sell them to a kid. To get hardcore stuff you had to go to an "adult bookstore" or maybe the back room at a video rental place. Again they would not let a kid in those places.

Maybe you got to peek at something that a friend's older brother had, or a friend knew where his dad's stash was.

But bottom line it wasn't easily available and took some effort and risk to get it, and that's even if your parents weren't doing anything to prevent it.

On the internet it's just there. Maybe you click "Yes I'm 18" but that's hardly a roadblock.

What these laws do is try to get back to the 1990s and earlier when access was much more limited. Parents want this, they vote for this. In that sense, they are doing something about it.

[xg15]

This is the same tired excuse that is given every time. Requiring parents to police their kids' Internet usage 24/7 is about as practical or desirable as controlling their location 24/7. At the latest if those kids have their own phones - or simply visit friends, it's not possible anymore.

[computegabe]

Oh, so you want the government to police people's kids' internet usage 24/7, inadvertently screwing everyone else over in the process? I'm sure this will end well for the UK, especially the economy.