←back to thread

139 points stubish | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.822s | 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 #
SlowTao ◴[] No.44440671[source]
> 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.

That is true. I spent my time coding a 2D game engine on an 486, it eventually went nowhere, but it was still cool to do. But if I had the internet then, all that energy would have been put into pointless internet stuff.

replies(4): >>44440976 #>>44441067 #>>44441325 #>>44444581 #
1. johnisgood ◴[] No.44441325[source]
I had the Internet when I was a kid and I ended up being a software engineer with useful skills in many different areas.

You are wrong to blame the Internet (or today LLMs). Do not blame the tool.

Sure I consumed sex when I was a kid, but I did a fuckton of coding of websites (before JavaScript caught up, but in JavaScript) and modding of games. I met lots of interesting, and smart people on IRC with mutual hobbies and so forth. I did play violent games, too, just FYI, when I was not making mods for them.

replies(1): >>44441360 #
2. pferde ◴[] No.44441360[source]
Could the difference between your experience and that of today's teenagers be in the fact that in your time, there were no online content farms hyperoptimized for maximum addictiveness, after their owners invested millions (if not billions) into making them so?
replies(2): >>44441402 #>>44441812 #
3. johnisgood ◴[] No.44441402[source]
Yes, I believe so. The only thing that was addicting to me was coding. It really was addicting. I did not leave the house all summer when I was >13 because I was busy coding. But then again, this "addiction" helped me a lot in today's world. That said, I am left with a serious impostor syndrome, however, and my social skills aren't the best, which is also required in today's world, by a programmer. :/
4. ta12653421 ◴[] No.44441812[source]
back then the web (or prior networks like Gopher, Usenet) were used and filled mainly by professionals working in the one or another field; and if you were online, you demonstrated already a basic tech undertstanding, since it wasnt as convenience as today. Sure, porn existed early on; but the "entertaining web content" was just not existing as today.
replies(1): >>44441930 #
5. johnisgood ◴[] No.44441930{3}[source]
Yes, especially IRC. What people call today "gatekeeping" is exactly what gave IRC networks value.