←back to thread

139 points stubish | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.878s | source
Show context
hilbert42 ◴[] No.44439416[source]
A resident of said country here. Another questionable measure by Government to protect our mollycoddled, insufficiently-resilient society.

That said, a better approach would be to limit kids under certain age from owning smartphones with full internet access. Instead, they could have a phone without internet access—dumb phones—or ones with curated/limited access.

Personally, I'm not too worried about what risqué stuff they'll see online especially so teenagers (they'll find that one way or other) but it's more about the distraction smartphones cause.

Thinking back to my teenage years I'm almost certain I would have been tempted to waste too much time online when it would have been better for me to be doing homework or playing sport.

It goes without saying that smartphones are designed to be addictive and we need to protect kids more from this addiction than from from bad online content. That's not to say they should have unfettered access to extreme content, they should not.

It seems to me that having access to only filtered IP addresses would be a better solution.

This ill-considerd gut reaction involving the whole community isn't a sensible decision if for no other reason than it allows sites like Google to sap up even more of a user's personal information.

replies(12): >>44439443 #>>44439508 #>>44439898 #>>44440671 #>>44440703 #>>44440989 #>>44441053 #>>44441680 #>>44441756 #>>44443272 #>>44450028 #>>44464625 #
abtinf ◴[] No.44439443[source]
> Another questionable measure by Government to protect our mollycoddled, insufficiently-resilient society

Complains about mollycoddling.

> a better approach would be to limit

Immediately proposes new mollycoddling scheme.

replies(1): >>44439464 #
hilbert42 ◴[] No.44439464[source]
Mollycoddling kids is one thing, we've always done that to some extent. Mollycoddling adults is another matter altogether.
replies(1): >>44439659 #
xboxnolifes ◴[] No.44439659[source]
Both proposals are mollycoddling children. It just happens that one of them inconveniences adults.
replies(1): >>44439743 #
strken ◴[] No.44439743[source]
"Inconvenience" is downplaying the impact of not letting adults use incognito mode to search for things.

Yes, right now search engines are only going to blur out images and turn on safe search, but the decision to show or hide information in safe search has alarming grey areas.

Examples of things that might be hidden and which someone might want to access anonymously are services relating to sexual health, news stories involving political violence, LGBTQ content, or certain resources relating to domestic violence.

replies(1): >>44440605 #
rendall ◴[] No.44440605[source]
Also porn. Let's be honest, all of this energy expenditure is about porn.
replies(4): >>44440768 #>>44441009 #>>44441134 #>>44441933 #
1. GoblinSlayer ◴[] No.44441009[source]
People search porn in google? Because google is internet itself?
replies(1): >>44441295 #
2. falcor84 ◴[] No.44441295[source]
Because it's easier to put your query into the address bar than to open a dedicated search page, and most people use Chrome with the default being Google search.
replies(1): >>44441512 #
3. XorNot ◴[] No.44441512[source]
Absolutely no one searches for porn on Google except if they don't know the URL of an aggregator.

Which that one kid will tell everyone if they don't.

replies(1): >>44441785 #
4. Erikun ◴[] No.44441785{3}[source]
More people than searches for free fonts at least (couldn’t think of a good comparison search term to “Free porn” off the top of my head) https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...