Should the Internet be Age Restricted?

[peter]

If the death of a fourteen year old girl by suicide after a prolonged bout of bullying via social media apps does not bolster my case that the internet should be a no-go zone for unsupervised under 18's then I don't know what does. The argument that it is an essential tool for youngsters to learn and familiarise themselves with is ok - so do it in school within the context of formalised lessons. The internet is no place for an unsupervised pre-adult any more than say behind the wheel of a car, or in a bar where alcoholic drinks are served. They are subject to too many risks - not least from the predatory advances of abusers, but also from their own cohort and from other sources with their own agendas - from which only the minimal protection of at least having a few years of life understanding under their belt might mitigate. I have long felt that this should be the case and the tragic death reported during the week in the UK only serves to reinforce my opinion.

[Skyweir]

I totally empathise with this position, especially given the incidence of bullying that occurs on social media platforms. I understand your ire. Bullying occurs in the school yard too.

Ive attended numerous youth suicides .. and it is always a great tragedy .. the loss of a young life .. and for those left behind.

There are no easy answers.

Banning the internet or restricting access by age is likely not the answer either .. though I know it seems a logical approach.

But I can imagine another .. dark web .. black market platform would just replace it. And that kids will circumnavigate restrictions placed upon them, like many do as teens re drinking. And to my mind it is more probable that the effectiveness of such a move would be compromised by that reality.

For those reasons, I dont think it could effectively be age restricted. Itd be like saying kids under 18 should not be allowed to read Donaldsons works. Tbh, I am surprised by how many young people have already read all of his works.

Should parental controls be exercised .. absolutely. If the concern is cyber bullying and playground bullying that should be addressed by parents and other reasonable supervisors, ie teachers.

I know here that anti bullying messaging gets wheeled out in classrooms regularly.. and while good .. its not enough. Like security protocols, it requires a suite of targeted measures to achieve effective results.

The key measure, must come from the home, from the parents and the childs familial support network.

A child needs to know their worth and value. This alone is a huge assist in the building of resilience. And resilience cannot be overrated. Its a key survival mechanism .. but also the domestic dynamic is another key player.

So gotta go feed horses but will pop back l8r.

[Ur Dead]

Yea... Nobody under 60 is allowed to use it....

It was my generation and earlier that helped develop it.
And look what you done to it....

/mumbles and goes off and chews on fiber optic cable....
(see my ani pic)

[peter]

There would always be kids that would circumvent any control measures - the same is true for smoking and drinking (and sex come to that) - but that doesn't mean that such measures should be abandoned. It is insufficient to rely on parental control to restrict internet usage by youngsters: the current situation already demonstrates this to be the case. In my opinion one death of a child as a result of social media abuse is too many. Besides, the use of the term social media is in itself a misnomer; rather than facilitating socialisation of youngsters (and adults come to that) it does exactly the opposite. My granddaughter, returning ten years later to the ski resort where she had experienced a wonderful six months as a child minder fresh out of college, reported that the cohort she encountered, far from throwing themselves into the experience of making new friends, testing new experiences, instead spent their free time with their heads buried in phones and computers. Social media via a screen had instead of suplimenting socialisation, rather replaced it. My argument in this case is that eighteen years of learning face to face communication should proceed as far as possible the (I was going to say descent, but maybe that's too strong a word) passage into screen absorption. There is richness here that the screen will never replace.

But this is all by the by. I maintain - the internet is too wild and unfettered a place for kids to have unrestricted access to it - and 'parental control' is insufficiently strong a means of policing it on it's own. It must be backed up by legislation to enforce it; only in this way will the kids themselves take on board (in most cases) that it is above their parents heads from whence the control is imposed - that they cannot be blamed for enforcing it because they will be held to account if they fail to do so (both in terms of the approbation of society and possibly by the exercise of the law). Parents trying to restrict their kids internet access these days are in an unenviable position; lent no support by the law they must fight a single handed battle against the wills of their offspring who see nothing other than parental interference in the attempts to keep them safe - and respond in the manner of kids of all times - with sullen recalcitrance or outright hostility.

[Skyweir]

Can you think of a practicable means of enforcing such a restriction Pete? I cant. Maybe youre cleverer than me and can think of some foolproof method.

To my mind itd be like trying to hold the tide back.

I agree parental control there is no surety of its exercise. Not sure what can he done about that either. Unfortunately we cant regulate parenting competencies either. Sure penalties arise from negligence, mistreatment etc and worse crimes. But that isnt preventative.. its punitive after the fact. So again .. not all that effective in safeguarding children or their innocence.

[Zarathustra]

I don't understand a parent being so out of touch with their child that they don't know he/she is being bullied to the point of suicide. How do you miss something like that?

The problem isn't the Internet. It's parents who let technology baby sit their kids. If your kid is being bullied online, seems like simple measures could be taken to shield your kid. Unfriend, block, talk to the bully's parents, etc. How hard can this be?

[Cail]

I don't understand a parent being so out of touch with their child that they don't know he/she is being bullied to the point of suicide. How do you miss something like that?

The problem isn't the Internet. It's parents who let technology baby sit their kids. If your kid is being bullied online, seems like simple measures could be taken to shield your kid. Unfriend, block, talk to the bully's parents, etc. How hard can this be?

Or have your kid go kick the everloving sh*t out of the bully.

This is due to the ridiculous limits we've put on parents, and the ridiculous notion that children are all special, unique snowflakes that have to be shielded from everything. Parents don't parent anymore, and when they try, some busybody calls the police or CPS on them. So we end up with unparented kids who have learned that there's no consequences for anything. This is how you end up having your $100-a-plate meal ruined by a kid doing an air-raid-siren-type squeal every 45 seconds. This is how you get kids beating up teachers in school. This is how you get "mean girls" bullying another girl until she kills herself.

We need to get back to the "children are seen, not heard" standard. Hell, strangers had my parent's blessing to hit me if I acted up in public. When a kid cocks off to an adult now, there's zero consequences. I told my mother to shut up once, and then woke up in the hallway.

There's no problem with anyone having access to the internet. But you're a negligent parent if you don't know what your kids are doing online.

[Skyweir]

I totally agree. Though I think the optimum parenting outcome is to ensure your child or children know their worth and value.

This doesnt mean treating them like snowflakes .. but all children need to be loved and know they are loved.

In my travels I dealt with a woman who knocked out kids with abandon. She loved babies. Was not a big fan of kids though. And she preferred girls over boys. She had one boy when she came to our attention. She was negligent, she nurtured them as babies but once they no longer depended on her .. her interest in them waned.

She hated her own son .. because he was a boy. No other reason whatsoever. She was actively abusive towards him.. and that kid was suicidal and fucked up. And tbh she couldnt have cared less.

I dont get any of that. But I know that kids raised in dysfunctional families and homes generally, cos theres always exceptions, struggle more.

Again kids need resilience, rules, learn responsibility, have responsibilities, need effective communication skills etc. to survive and get what they want out of life.

I would recommend kids learn to defend themselves and not just physically.

[peter]

A media discussion I saw on this case last night made much emphasis on the need for social media providers to take responsibility for the content and activity that is going out on their own sites. One panellist recommended that they be hit with punitive fines for proven breeches of conduct, the monies raised from which could be sourced into provision of front line mental health services (currently sadly lacking certainly in the UK) specifically targeted at youths affected by this problem. Apparently (and not being a social media user other than the Watch I cannot verify this) the modus operandi of the big social media providers is rather than to encourage a spirit of 'kindness' in the forums, to actively foster a spirit of meanness and backbiting on their sites, because it generates more usage than dull old niceness. The 'like' and 'don't like' features are a big part of this apparently. While keeping up a pretence of being disinterested service providers giving no thought to the conduct of their users or content of the postings, in fact they subtly skew the operating system to emphasize confrontation in order to increase dramatic appeal.

[Zarathustra]

Apparently (and not being a social media user other than the Watch I cannot verify this) the modus operandi of the big social media providers is rather than to encourage a spirit of 'kindness' in the forums, to actively foster a spirit of meanness and backbiting on their sites, because it generates more usage than dull old niceness. The 'like' and 'don't like' features are a big part of this apparently. While keeping up a pretence of being disinterested service providers giving no thought to the conduct of their users or content of the postings, in fact they subtly skew the operating system to emphasize confrontation in order to increase dramatic appeal.

Well, it's got to be pretty damn subtle, because I don't see it. I just started using Facebook last year. I see no way that a "spirit of meanness" is actively fostered, nor how it is even possible to encourage a "spirit of kindness." Is Zuckerberg supposed to scold us if he doesn't like what we say? Are conversations between our friends--whom we can unfriend at any moment--supposed to be moderated? I would think it's no one's business what I say to my friends and family.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Is someone, or even a group of people, saying nasty/rude/offensive things to you or about you on the Internet? I have the easy solution for your problem: don't go to those places on the Internet! Ignore the social media and look at funny cat pictures.

[Skyweir]

I agree with Z .. in that I dont see that in particular Facebook fosters contentious engagements and narrative.

Not sure where you heard that Pete. Zs right anyone can unfollow anyone at any time ... meaning you do not see their posts .. or deemed nasty narrative at any time.

You can unfriend anyone at anytime, meaning they never get to see your posts and you never get to see their posts, .. and you can block anyone at any time meaning they never get to see your account and can never contact you.

You can also report posts you find offensive ... and Facebook will review them. But while that happens, the offendingposts are removed.. and most stay removed. If it is sufficient that someone, anyone reported it, it is sufficient to have it removed.

Also Facebook has an algorithm that prevents the posting of nudity ... to block people posting pics of penises, boobs general nakedness etc that some might find offensive.

So there are multiple measures in place.

This is where a parents role is important I would think. As an extra layer of assistance, to know how a kid is going and guide them .. so they know what THEY, the kid can do to safeguard themselves.

And overlay that with the actions parents can take to safeguard their children. But even though its hard to imagine, kids, teens particularly dont necessarily share everything thats going on in their lives with their parents.

A parent needs to work at staying in tune with their kids .. and foster relationships between siblings. A kid might prefer to talk to a sibling or a friend than a parent.

But at the end of the day parenting is an ACTIVE responsibility.. and not all humans are cut out for the task or even want that responsibility sadly... or are just too bone idle or selfish to care about whats going on in a childs life. Thats the greatest tragedy imo, and leads to a higher potential for loss and in some cases ... regret.

[peter]

It transpires that the problem with this girl was much different than I had realised [though the disastrous results of online bullying have been the same in many recorded cases] and for this I apologise. In this case it transpires - and I have mentioned no particiular website because I simply don't know for sure which one it was - that the girl, already in a fragile mental state had been bombarded with suicide and self harm imagery [which continued to arrive at her site after she had killed herself, by her fathers account. He was in no doubt whatsoever that this unspeakable practice had been largely if not wholly responsible for his daughters death and gave a media statement to that effect. I have no idea who [or indeed what] might be responsible for such awful, awful activity - but I maintain that unsepervised access to the internet of minors is a small price to pay in order to eliminate it.

[Again apologies for getting my facts wrong; I tend to grab headlines and run with them rather than digging down for the whole story. Wrong peter - wrong! ]

[Skyweir]

Meh Ive done it myself, to my great chagrin:oops:

But I highly doubt this is an answer .. nor will it eliminate the problem of cyber bullying tbh.

It will no doubt ease the adult mind ... but its like burning all books because you disapprove or disagree with the content of some.

It doesnt take a sledge hammer to push a tack into a cork board. And to me thats whats being suggested.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I work in K-12 and there are lot of applications being developed for monitoring kids online activity and alerting parents.
Bark is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdh ... cc3aa23d7f

Smoothwall: https://us.smoothwall.com

There are a lot of others.

Hopefully it will be adopted and become widespread. ISP and cell providers should get onboard with this. At least have it as a service option thing.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I don't understand a parent being so out of touch with their child that they don't know he/she is being bullied to the point of suicide. How do you miss something like that?

Not everyone is as perfect as you apparently.

Every kid and adult is different and we all live under different circumstances.
Financial, medical, social....
Tons of stories out there about dead kids with parents saying that they thought they were doing everything right.

Everything else in life is age restricted. The internet should be too I think.

[peter]

Agreed. The only reason now that people think it shouldn't, is because it isn't. Once in place it would rapidly slip into the same mental slot currently occupied by gambling, smoking, driving, sex, drinking, voting.........

And kid's will remain alive that otherwise wouldn't.

[Zarathustra]

I don't understand a parent being so out of touch with their child that they don't know he/she is being bullied to the point of suicide. How do you miss something like that?

Not everyone is as perfect as you apparently.

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between perfection and noticing that your kid is upset and asking them what's wrong. The options here aren't perfection or death.

Tons of stories out there about dead kids with parents saying that they thought they were doing everything right.

Well, what else would you expect them to say?

Everything else in life is age restricted. The internet should be too I think.

How would you enforce something like that? How does the Internet know how old you are? Ultimately, the enforcement of such a policy would depend upon the very parents who are too clueless to know their kid is on the verge of suicide. If you can't trust them to interact enough with their kids to notice signs of depression, how can you trust them to enforce these policies?

And when we say, the Internet should be age restricted, what exactly are we saying here? Kids shouldn't be able to use the Internet to do research for their homework? Kids can't text their parents to say they are ready to be picked up from an after school activity?

No, of course not. So what you're really saying is to restrict specific content, not the entire Internet itself. But we already have tools for parental controls. Again, if parents aren't using these, then the problem is parents, not laws.

As long as parents are purchasing Internet access, there is absolutely no law that can keep children off the Internet if the parent lets them on--which is literally what we all do. Peter says we age restrict smoking, drinking, etc., but how many kids sneak a cigarette or a drink from their parents' stash? Just because you make a law doesn't keep children from it. It's always parents.

You can't raise other people's kids for them, no matter how hard you try.

[SoulBiter]

When my kids were kids, I had our internet locked down. No computer could be on our network unless I entered the password. I put software on all PC's, that they had access to, that limited content and time they could be online. I looked through their browser history (which also copied to a hidden text file in case they knew how to erase history) and I would block sites as needed. At 10 PM no matter what you were doing, the internet would turn off on their computers.

Being a nosy parent I also had the system they were on copying all their emails to a hidden file. (Yes I was THAT parent) and if I felt that a trust was broken, I could go through their emails to see what was going on, who they were hanging with, and what their plans were.

Now there were no smart phones back then, but it would be easy enough to load software on those as well, or you could go old school and just collect them when they came in the house.

What I couldn't monitor is what they did on their friends PC's when they were at their house. However they had a 'safe place' at our house where at some point they were disconnected. They disliked it, but I think it was for the best and gave me some measure of control over their internet habits.

All that being said, its the responsibility of the parent to monitor their kids activity and take action as appropriate. If you choose to let the Internet, phone and TV babysit your kids, well that's on you.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

When my kids were kids, I had our internet locked down. No computer could be on our network unless I entered the password. I put software on all PC's, that they had access to, that limited content and time they could be online. I looked through their browser history (which also copied to a hidden text file in case they knew how to erase history) and I would block sites as needed. At 10 PM no matter what you were doing, the internet would turn off on their computers.

Same here. Years ago when the kids had to share the computer, I set up time restrictions--they got 1 hour time blocks, staggered, from 4pm until 9pm (after school, before time to start getting ready for bed). I had shorcuts on my computer desktop which could open their browser folders, allowing me to copy and look at their history--I was really sneaky about it so they never knew how I knew.

Now that they are 18 and 16, I don't have time for all that so my advice is "don't go to any site or view any content you wouldn't want your mother to watch with you". Liebeschoen will be 18 in only a few days--after that I cannot monitor her content or restrict her any more but I still advise her to be careful with content and where she visits. I have made her aware that malware can remotely access her laptop's webcam--a risky prospect no matter who you are.