https://newsbots.eu/@BBCNews/105342775637721377
I'm never been a fan of "save internet for childs" nor "make internet family friendly".
I personally think that children are shouldn't be allowed to access internet. Why ?
- Because they're dumb (lacks the necessary experience that's why we also decided to not giving them permission to have sex.)
- They easily get manipulated (either by stranger or a corp. Just look up how much kids using their parents credit card without their parents knowing just to buy an in-game item which they think it will make them looks cool etc.)
By making internet accessible for them (without giving a somekind of restriction like firewall, etc).
You risk your childs being exposed to unnecessary information that would affect their mental growth.
Let's make internet better for everyone by start banning childs from using the internet. 
🇳🇱
@ravenclaw I agree with half of this, that the internet doesnt need to be child friendly.. but not because I dont think kids should use it, but more so because I feel we shield kids from more than we have a right to, or at least more than is healthy. Let them have access to adult content, just raise them to be mature about it
@freemo
> but more so because i feel we shield kids...
> ... Than is healthy.
I don't know if i could agree with this sir.
I mean.
If they doesn't know any better than us as an adults, how did letting them crawl the web freely supposed to makes the condition became more "healthy"?
> let them have...
>... Be mature about it.
Sure. But how we as an adults supposed to be sure or know about what this kids understand or might do later, if we let them get access to all this information ?.
Youtube "family friendly" creator like "jake paul, ricegum who promotes gambling to their audience that primarily consist of a children" might be the best example to be taken as a context here of why i think children shouldn't be allowed to access the internet.
Reddit as a whole also counts as one.
I'm sorry if i sound biased and taking authoritarian/preventive aproach here.
I just hate seeing this children get abused.
@ravenclaw Sorry finally getting to replying here.
> If they doesn’t know any better than us as an adults, how did letting them crawl the web freely supposed to makes the condition became more “healthy”?
Because a child mature enough to freely browse the web is far more healthy than a child you do not raise to be mature, is incapable of being trusted on the web, and is therefore a risk to themselves in other situations as well.
> Sure. But how we as an adults supposed to be sure or know about what this kids understand or might do later, if we let them get access to all this information ?.
We can never know absolutely, no more so than we can know an adult would. As a parent you do your best to teach them, if you happened to fall short as a parent then you have to learn as you go and improve. Locking your kid away from accessing the world doesnt really solve the underlying problem though, which is that the parent failed at raising a responsible enough child to be trusted.
> Youtube “family friendly” creator like “jake paul, ricegum who promotes gambling to their audience that primarily consist of a children” might be the best example to be taken as a context here of why i think children shouldn’t be allowed to access the internet.
In my mind a child raised properly (mature, responsible) would not rely on how something is branded (whether it is child friendly branded or not). In my mind they would be able to watch and consume all the same content as an adult, regardless of if it is child friendly or not, and not be harmed by it in the first place. A responsible child would have no problem watching videos about gambling, at worst if they didnt understand or know what it was they would ask questions and learn, and no harm done.
> Reddit as a whole also counts as one.
I would also have no problem letting a child have access to reddit for much the same reason. The primary lesson I'd teach them however is to be cautious around strangers, which if i raised my kids right, they would know long before they got on reddit or the internet.
> I’m sorry if i sound biased and taking authoritarian/preventive approach here.
I just hate seeing this children get abused.
Everyone has biases, thats ok. Disagreeing is healthy and nothing to apologize. I respect your opinions just as I hope you will respect mine. Obviously neither of us wants to see a child harmed or abused. I know you have the best of intentions.
@freemo
> cautious around stranger.
^^^ This.
Agreed without doubt.
Teaching kids to be cautious when talking or interacting towards someone they didn't know, is indeed the the best if it's not the best way make them safer regardless of any context.
The problem tho'.
- Internet tends to make a person (even adults) fall into false sense of security. Which will definitely make them to act as they please regardless of how it may affect their personal life or even their mental health state.
- Internet also a place full of ads and commercial which i think it's not a great place for a kids to be roaming at and I think targeted advertisement towards children are not ethical in the first place either.
((Television is also full of this junk and the only way to bypass this issue is by buying a subscription (that's what happens on my country, at least).
This is why i also hates them. (Slight oot))).
As long as people in the internet still act
>Internet tends to make a person (even adults) fall into false sense of security. Which will definitely make them to act as they please regardless of how it may affect their personal life or even their mental health state.
^This way.
I wouldn't want my kids to get exploited (bullying is one of the form)
by some irresponsible person for expressing his innocent argument. (Because i never want them to be there in the first place)
And i'm definitely doesn't want my kids to be exploited by targeted commercial either.
Until those issues get resolved.
I think it's safe to say that Internet really isn't a safe place for a kids to be around Mr. Freemo. 
@freemo
> The internet is no less safe
Indeed it isn't. I always think that internet is as real as so called "real life".
> don't give enough credit for their capabilities.
Yep they do, it's a basic human rights afterall. But those "irresponsible" people are the problem, they are the one who's causing all this problem.
Should we take action? We always did most of the times given the opportunities regardless whether it's happening on internet or in the "real" world.
> The world has risk but that doesn't convince...
> ...from the world
Should internet became more transparent like "real world" does or should we banned the access to the internet and real life for those who's worsening the condition ?
That would violates other aspects of human right.
Sheesh it only more problem to the cause.
Damn those social theorist!!! /s
> but hey thats just my opinion
It's all good Mr. Freemo 
It's not like that i'm trying to convince people otherwise anyway.
My intended goal is to seek what's the "lesser evil", since i think there would be no definite answer to what considered as objective on social topics.
So cheers! 
@ravenclaw The internet is no less safe than the rest of the world in my eyes. While I cant disagree that there are dangers on the internet I feel you, like most people, dont give kids enough credit for their capability. The only reason kids act as irresponsible as they do is because adults expect it of them and dont treat them otherwise.
go back several 100 years and kids were marrying at 12 years old and taking on all the duties of an adult, with all the same responsibility.
The world has risks, but that doesnt convince me personally that the most effective way to deal with that is to cut a child off from the world.
But hey thats just my opinion. I am a bit unusual, I would treat kids as no different than an adult in most ways, presuming they were raised in that manner to begin with (and thus already had the skills and coping mechanism that comes with being treated as an adult).