Should we regulate the internet?

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869438#Comment_121869438

It's the blame game. Stop at source so it has nothing to do with Zuckerberg.

Im sure plenty of parents who let their children internet acess unrestricted newest person to blame for them been sh*t parents is Zuckerberg and next week it will be someone else.

I couldn't care less about Zuckerberg but blaming him is pathetic.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869420#Comment_121869420

I was never so technologically advanced as having access to blue movies Clo, had to make-do with my elder sisters Mills & Boon, or my elder brothers Viz collection that they both kept hidden from our parents, who limited our television consumption to news and current affairs programming (and even then they made liberal use of the off switch on the remote 😂).

That was only within the home. I grew up in the country, where there were many occasions I’d happen upon a discarded sodden copy of The Irish Sun newspaper and was overcome by the temptation to have a glance at page 3 while I imagined I was alone (being unaware of the reason for the pages being a bit… shticky, if you catch my drift? 😳).

As you say - as parents we can be as responsible as possible and hope it works out, and for the most part it does, which is why using extreme examples as the abuse, harassment and pornography available on the Internet as a reason to attempt to make the internet a walled garden for children is a futile exercise that offers the illusion of protecting children from harm, when it’s doing nothing of the sort. It just encourages them to want to investigate what’s so taboo about the things which they are forbidden to access, making the idea all that more appealing.

In terms of telling ISPs to lock down websites, well it’s not as though there isn’t precedent for it in terms of the agreement among Irish ISPs to attempt to restrict access to sites like thepiratebay and so on, not out of any concern for children’s welfare, but out of concern that they would be held liable for financial losses and penalties incurred by the the theft of intellectual property. A more recent example I suppose was their ability to restrict user’s ability to search for fake pornographic images of Taylor Swift, and their attempts to prevent them from being created in the first place -

American technology corporation Microsoft offers AI image creators called Microsoft Designer and Bing Image Creator, which employ censorship safeguards to prevent users from generating unsafe or objectionable content. Members of a Telegramgroup discussed ways to circumvent these censors to creative pornographic images of celebrities. Graphika, a disinformation research firm, traced the creation of the images back to a 4chan community.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_deepfake_pornography_controversy

Suggesting that if people can’t manage their children or look after them then they shouldn’t have had children in the first place is a complete abandonment of reality. Unlike your router or your ISP, or even the internet nanny software you imagined would do what you expect it to do - children do not come with a returns policy that allows parents to return them if they are not satisfied with the product, and they’re definitely not permitted to advertise them on websites selling pre-loved goods that failed to live up to expectations 🤨 😂

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869442#Comment_121869442

Apologies, I thought my answer would have been clear when I described myself earlier as generally liberal.

Of course I don't want books banned, if it's available in a public library it should be available online. My point about Edith Piaf is that schools are where a lot of children will meet this kind of literary content for the first time and it's a good place for it to happen.

I was a bookish and depressed teenager myself. I came across darker stuff and especially stuff around self harm that I found difficult. I'm so glad I went through that in a pre social media time where I could be the one to decide when to look at it and when I shouldn't.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869686#Comment_121869686

I'm so glad I went through that in a pre social media time where I could be the one to decide when to look at it and when I shouldn't.

You’re conveniently overlooking the fact that you were a child at the time, so it’s unlikely you were aware of adults making similar arguments as you do about children’s powerlessness to decide whether they do or don’t want to look at something potentially harmful, in an attempt to rid society of what they imagined were potentially harmful influences on children, people like Mary Whitehouse:

A hard-line social conservative, she was termed a reactionary by her socially liberal opponents. Her motivation derived from her Christian beliefs, her aversion to the rapid social and political changes in British society of the 1960s, and her work as a teacher of sex education

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869474#Comment_121869474

I do think there's legit criticisms in terms of moderation of abuse etc on all the major platforms. Targeted is particularly bad. Can't fathom what it's like being a teen being bullied online. So I'd place a level of blame on platforms for lack of safeguarding.

However parents with kids who bully are doing an atrocious job. And that's always been the case unfortunately. They're generally not oblivious to the bullying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869686#Comment_121869686

Book bannings are the effective same approach. So yep you're just as illiberal as those guys.

And you realize depending on who is in power at any given time, LGBT resources would absolutely fail to be whitelisted? Can you cite any group that favours your policy? And that's entirely ignoring the fact that China has failed to succeed with such policies so assuming it would somehow work elsewhere is bizarre

Manach

No, as it is too late. I've been online for decades and seen the Internet grow into a societal changing force that has transformed culture. To censor it now, as this is what regulation amounts to, freezes a range of a attitudes and polices of the chattering classes without any means to use the tropes of the Internet (memes etc) to mock and subvert said attitudes. Having done history, this regulation is the equivalent of printing press licenses that were introduced to prevent challenging the status quo.

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869655#Comment_121869655

Great story, how is it anyway comparable to today's world?

From the UKs childrens commissioner report I shared earlier, 80% of young people have viewed violent pornography while 1 in 3

"have actively sought out depictions of sexual violence such as physical aggression, coercion and degradation."

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869871#Comment_121869871

I'm only proposing regulating it for children.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871927#Comment_121871927

That's not what you proposed if you look back at your posts (more of you moving your goalposts) !

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871927#Comment_121871927

That's not what your proposing though. You're proposing a whitelist that would impact everyone and that adults should only be able to access websites at designated locations. On top of that, it would absolutely block legitimate resources that children and teens should have access to. Cause there would absolutely be EU nations that would wish to block LGBT resources for example. It's just a poorly thought out idea that you think is genius.

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121869769#Comment_121869769

Are you in favour of moderation or age restrictions? What if they're used against the LGBTQ community at some future point?

It's amazing how we've so quickly come to accept and even defend this extreme libertarian view that children should essentially be able access whatever they wish, and even have it presented to them by profit orientated algorithms.

From what I've about China's internet controls, they're actually quite different from this, and concerned as much, or more so with surveillance.

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871994#Comment_121871994

No adult is ultimately being restricted from accessing anything whatsoever.

Inconvenienced yes, restricted no.

If you actually look at the harm being done, I would think it a very small price.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872136#Comment_121872136

It's a restriction, particularly since there would be an additional cost to actually access the Internet outside of your home. Secondly, it would absolutely be abused to block completely Innocent material. You effectively want a totalitarian approach as a lazy solution. You can't turn back time on the Internet and disable it. No group advocates for such a solution and realistically, you seem to be the only person who thinks it's a good idea.

MegamanBoo

Interesting meta-analysis here comparing traditional to cyber bullying.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-022-02128-x

In short the outcomes are worse, specifically around mental health and self harm.

It seems kids facing traditional bullying now also typically suffer cyber bullying in addition, making it harder for them to develop coping skills and avoidance strategies.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872215#Comment_121872215

Does it recommend your stupid draconian proposal or why did you post it?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872136#Comment_121872136

If the normal Internet cannot be accessed by adults except in certain locations then it is a restriction no matter what way you might consider it in your head. It isn't an inconvenience as in some cases it may mean that adults are unable to carry out their work duties.

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872237#Comment_121872237

For the people here completely oblivious to the harm being done of course.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872353#Comment_121872353

Eh? You're not making sense.

Does the report you reference recommend restricting the internet to a defined whitelist and where "normal" internet access is only available in predefined public locations?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872367#Comment_121872367

It doesn't, @MegamanBoo can you cite anywhere that advocates it as a public policy measure?

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872367#Comment_121872367

I thought it clear why I posted it, to highlight the harm being done by unrestricted access for children. I take it you or @eightieschewbaccy didn't bother to read it so?

It doesn't mention my whitelisting approach. It's fairly novel so I wouldn't expect many welfare organisations would be aware of it.

I did find some research about my approach online which initially looks favourable, but the full content is paywalled so I won't be able to access it right now as I don't have college access on my phone.

I also found several references to how effective my approach is, and resistant to vpns etc, where used for censorship in Iran.

But I don't understand why you're so caught up on my one proposal? The main thing to be learned from this thread is that even on an anonymous forum, a lot of people favour far stronger approaches to online safety. I'd say that's a big change in the last few years and tells me that a) more people are aware of the harm being done b) people have lost faith in self regulation and softly, softly measures.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871923#Comment_121871923

In today’s world? It’s comparable at any time in the history of civilisation in that there has never been a time when there weren’t adults using the idea of the potential corruption of children’s feeble minds to argue for greater restrictions on people’s freedoms based upon their own moral standards.

Take for instance your offering of the statistics from that news article from the UK you presented as evidence in support of your argument in favour of introducing greater restrictions on the content that is available on the internet. It lacks any sort of context or attempt to put it in perspective. It attempts to draw a direct causative link between children’s access to pornography and their behaviour outside of that context, ignoring all the other factors which are also influential in shaping children’s minds and their attitudes and behaviour towards others.

It amounts to nothing more than an attempt at scaremongering adults into submission in support of a bill which has since become law in the UK, and will do nothing whatsoever to address the issues it claims to wish to address. Frankly when I read the Guardian article you provided my immediate thought was “1 in 10? They were a bit slow on the uptake!”, but then I remembered that it’s an entirely reasonable figure given that two-thirds of the world’s school-age children have no access to the internet at home:

https://www.unicef.org.uk/press-releases/two-thirds-of-the-worlds-school-age-children-have-no-internet-access-at-home-new-unicef-itu-report-says/

And in the UK, there’s that 1 in 10 figure again of school-age children who have no access to the internet at home. The figures for Ireland are even worse (and the lack of infrastructure was massively exposed during lockdowns when children were unable to attend school remotely), with over a third of parents reporting that their children were unable to complete their homework due to slow or no broadband at home:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/broadband-children-education-pure-telecom-ireland

And no, contrary to your assertion in your opening post that parents aren’t bothered or don’t care or aren’t actively monitoring their children’s internet access, the opposite is true for the most part:

• 69% of children use connected devices daily, and just under two-thirds (62%) are online for 1 to 3 hours per day.
• 57% of parents frequently restrict their children’s online access, such as turning off internet connections or restricting websites.
• 8 in 10 state they are anxious about their child meeting strangers online and 66% are worried about exposure to explicit content.
• Almost half (45%) of the Irish public have fallen victim to a virus on their device in the past year, with a further 36% experiencing two to three virus attacks in the last 12 months.
• Research study conducted for the launch of Vodafone Secure Net, a new digital protection product available in-and-out of the home with parental tools to help manage time spent online, safely.

https://www.ispcc.ie/88-of-irish-parents-worry-about-the-content-their-children-could-see-online

Being aware of all of that, is why I’m at a loss as to what exactly you hope to accomplish by introducing ineffective measures to restrict children’s access to the internet, or to create a walled garden is the more likely outcome, that wouldn’t be long becoming infested with perverts in much the same manner as online spaces aimed at children became increasingly popular with adults who sought out children for the purposes of exploitation. It was like shooting fish in a barrel for them, whereas now it’s considerably more difficult for those sorts of perverts who target children, or for children who target children online and offline. All you’d be doing is giving perverts a playground of their own and giving children no means of protection, while giving parents the false confidence of an illusion that their children are being protected by legislation (which in reality is doing nothing of the sort).

Much like the same false confidence my parents had in their ability to control their children’s exposure to that which they regarded as immoral, dangerous and having the potential to corrupt our fragile minds. There was more smut that had the potential to corrupt an innocent mind in the works of Shakespeare ffs 😂

https://archive.ph/MLQGA

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873094#Comment_121873094

I'd view prohibition as a pretty good example of what this kind of thing would do. Drive problematic aspects of the Internet further underground and like you said, it will give the creeps new ways to groom and whatever else.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871927#Comment_121871927

How do you propose to distinguish between children and adults online?

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873707#Comment_121873707

Certainly a valid point and a factor to be wary of.

As it stands this type of solution would be far safer from that type of side effect, than say home parental controls, as it doesn't allow VPN or darknet access.

While I wouldn't agree with the reasons behind Iran's use of a system like this, it is very robust and it seems several international hacker groups have failed to circumvent it.

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874324#Comment_121874324

In the more severe version of this solution I've presented the internet would be restricted by default, with adults able to visit age verified internet cafes to use the full version.

Probably a more realistic aspiration for now would be for the state, or ideally the EU, to develop a network like this and mandate it be available without additional cost from all ISPs.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875047#Comment_121875047

Okay so your first version is a huge joke.

For your second version, it's not a network issue. It's an authentication issue. How do you ensure that the person holding the phone is an adult?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875375#Comment_121875375

How do you ensure that the person holding the phone is an adult?

From what I understand of Megaman’s ideas - that isn’t an issue for the ISP, it’s an issue for the adult - that they have to provide identifying evidence to be able to make use of the federally provided network. All adults will be regarded as children by default, and it will be the responsibility of the individual to prove otherwise.

I don’t know where Megaman gets the notion that their ideas are working in countries like China and Iran, probably from the Chinese and Iranian Governments respectively, but it’s not a great selling point - “I want us to be more like China and Iran”, said no Western Democracy ever, and the few countries which have tried to implement similar regulations, similarly haven’t been able to regulate people’s internet access and usage to the degree that they wish to, in order to protect children of course. That small price to pay to protect children from harm comes at the cost of even greater long term harm for society as a whole. The ‘small price for protection’ argument just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/2/24/iran-unveils-plan-for-tighter-internet-rules-to-promote-local-platforms

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3008274/chinese-parents-who-fear-they-have-lost-their-children-internet

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875614#Comment_121875614

Which raises questions of;

• What evidence of adulthood will be provided?
• Who will process and validate this evidence?
• What information will be retained, and by who, for how long?

MegamanBoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873094#Comment_121873094

Thanks for that post it's very useful in highlighting the kind of extreme libertarian approach that's actually become normalised in defending a free internet, albeit for most people through hopelessness at the fallacy that 'nothing can be done'

I don't know if you read that article correctly but it actually referred to one in ten children aged 8 or under being exposed to pornography online.

For an adult to show pornography to an eight year old like that is child abuse and would have them placed on a register. Seemingly it's fine for an algorithm to do it.

You look then for 'causative' evidence. For a start, causative evidence is rarely found in social research as it requires isolating the variables. In this case that would involve deliberately exposing children to pornography, which no researcher ever would do for obvious reasons.

I did offer a meta analysis showing the increased harm of online bullying in comparison to traditional bullying which you conveniently chose to ignore.

Instead you offered what could most kindly be described as pseudo-intellectual waffle about the history of outrage and smut in Shakespeare. I don't see how you even imagine that as relevant given the actual evidence of harm here.

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876459#Comment_121876459

Basically you'll get and are getting, plenty of adults who really couldn't give a fk how children are been harmed and "shur there's nothing we can do about it!". Rather than ridiculing your solution, we'd all be better served if those responding could think of a better solution - because there has to be one. According to one poster, there's no actual problem because he managed his teenagers just grand. 🙄

Do we just let this damaging effect on children (and society in general) remain unchecked?