this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
23 points (75.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43336 readers
1493 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
nanny state regulations shouldn’t be a replacement for simply expecting parents to do their job and ensure their kid doesn’t have unfiltered internet access
I dont know about that one. Following this logic why is it forbidden to sell alcohol and tabacco to minors or why are so many drugs illegal like everywhere, when good parenting prevents the use of these by minors? Of course this comparision is far fetched, but I dont think that the problem is solved by just filtering the internet access of minors.
Alcohol and drug use can lead to impaired actions when driving or otherwise contribute to causing people to harm other people. Same with tobacco and secondhand smoke. If the behavior of an individual drastically increases the likelihood that they will cause harm to others then I see the argument for government prohibition from minors. But I have yet to see a case where someone kills another due to the accused’s individual porn usage If there is sufficient empirical evidence that widespread porn usage is accessible by minors, is used by minors, and has shown a correlation to actual harm determined via experimental or observational meta study on existing cases, then I will be for id backed prohibition of pornography
But the prohibition of alcohol and tabacco from kids have nothing to do with saving other people from the effect these kids under the unfluence could have. The age limit is there to save kids from getting used to these substances in their early developement, so they don't become addicted to them. Or am I missing something?