That's the parent's rights to be hyper-religious nuts which in the US is not just parental right but the 1st amendment, the first right anyone gets to have (religion along with freespeech). Indoctrinating kids with whatever wild and extreme view is their right. The only thing they can't do is compromise the safety and wellbeing of their child, if you think belief you don't like qualifies then forget their internet access, have the kids taken from them!
Nazis are raising murderous traitorus kids and religious children is your worry! What an insane world we live in.
Parent's aren't handed their children by society or the state, they brought them into the world and have both rights as well as responsibilities over them. And you don't get to say you have the right to free speech or have beliefs like the one you are holding now and be allowed to raise your kids one way and them try to legislate away the rights of other people to raise their children their own way no matter how vile it is.
This society thing is a two way street.
> I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.
You don't have the right.
You can discourse with adults and change their views though and provide them the opportunity of your alternate viewpoint.
Influencing other people's minor children is no one's right. Not even the government. No matter how correct your view is. This is what libery looks like, because today you speak from a position of power with your views, tomorrow others get to do the same with your children.
Exigent circumstances aside, it is your civic duty to respect the rights of others and appreciate that right while vocally disagreeing with it.
> it is your civic duty to respect the rights of others
Including minors, whose rights it's most socially acceptable to infringe, and who can't vote so politically they don't matter. It is absolutely reasonable to advocate for those rights and what those rights are, and observe when they're being infringed.
"minor" should not mean an utter lack of ability to learn about other viewpoints. Minor children have rights as well, and I'm arguing that "find out viewpoints other than those of your parents" is not in fact a right that should be restricted until you turn 18.
That isn't a very politically feasible thing to advocate. It is, however, useful to argue the correlates: it's a good thing that children sometimes manage to work around restrictions placed on their access, it's a good thing that such restrictions are not perfectly secure, and it's a bad thing for them to become more difficult to bypass.
I wish all the success in the world to anyone trying to work around restrictions they're under in order to learn when they've been prevented from doing so. And I wish unending failure and disappointment to anyone trying to build systems to control and lock down such access.
> Including minors, whose rights it's most socially acceptable to infringe, and who can't vote so politically they don't matter. It is absolutely reasonable to advocate for those rights and what those rights are, and observe when they're being infringed.
Minors have plenty of human rights as well as legal rights. The only thing you are worried about is your owm ability to indoctrinate other people's children who are not mature enough to see through propaganda, you want to get them as young and naive as possible because you feel 18yr olds are too hard to deceive I guess? Because why else would you insist on infringing on parental rights if your indoctrination is correct?
> "minor" should not mean an utter lack of ability to learn about other viewpoints. Minor children have rights as well, and I'm arguing that "find out viewpoints other than those of your parents" is not in fact a right that should be restricted until you turn 18
That is not a right at all. You are talking about how things should be not what a democratic society agreed is a right. Parents can absolutley prevent their children from learning about harmful ideologies or content. They can even force schools to exclude their kids from sex-ed that isn't inline with their beliefs. They can homeschool them or raise them in the woods isolated from the world. The only alternative viee points children have to learn about are those prescribed in the education system as manadatory because those are skills they need to survive as adults. And even that is very debatable, beyond reading and writing most things are fluid there. You just really don't like the idea that people will raise religious kids. You should know that this is such a basic right that no law can take it away from parents, even I would participate in armed conflict over this.
You have the right to free speech which I am more than willing to respect but you are arguing for freedom of reach here, and not just to anyone but to minors who are members of society explicitly designated as too weak and immature to care and fend for themselves and it is the entire reason people have children, to pass on their ways and themselves. People don't have children just to increase the population. And information and "view points" or even their ability to interact with arbitrary content/people can be considered harmful. TV and movies have to go through rigorous rating specically so that parents can prevents kids from discovering alternative view points.
Think of it this way, it sounds like you want your secular world views indoctrinated to kids, but that also means every religion has the right to indoctrinate your child but not just that every corporate interest, the military, the porn industry, and so much more also must be allowed to indoctrinate your child against your permission. At that point in your ideal world, parents are merely food and shelter providers, nothing more.
> That isn't a very politically feasible thing to advocate. It is, however, useful to argue the correlates: it's a good thing that children sometimes manage to work around restrictions placed on their access, it's a good thing that such restrictions are not perfectly secure, and it's a bad thing for them to become more difficult to bypass.
You are justifying means because you like ends. Kids also kill themselves, get eating disorders and self harm as a result of bypassing these restrictions. It's not a good thing for parents to not be able to protect their children best they can, weaking of that ability is never a good thing. Children should have access to social services and the police though in case their parents are abusive, not just holding unpopular views.
> I wish all the success in the world to anyone trying to work around restrictions they're under in order to learn when they've been prevented from doing so. And I wish unending failure and disappointment to anyone trying to build systems to control and lock down such access.
For adults I agree. For children, absolutley no way! I advocate for the right to be raised protected from alternative view points and indoctrinated by parents. Parents have the right to live isolated from technology and any viewpoints in the woods and homeschool their kids and raise them to be vile nazis or extereme communists so long as they can read and write and are able to leave the family when they are 18.
I highly recommend watching "captain fantastic" which is about a very liberal family raising their kids in the woods, shielded from alternative view points like this.
Ultimately you should recognize that every responsibility and obligation comes with a right. Parents have an obligaion to their children for bringing them into the world and as a result they have many rights over them. But the ability to indoctrinate and regulate their children's viewpoints is not just their right but also an obligation they have to keep them safe both physically and mentally. Children are very easy to influence and indoctrinate, that's why anyone from the gun industry to the porn and tech industry tries to get to them as young as possible to see things their way. And parents have every right to get in the way. And the government doesn't get to decide what content is harmful so parents get to do that.
You seem to be determined to interpret "all people should have access to information" through the lens of people trying to reach or indoctrinate others; if you continue to frame it that way I'll assume it's not in good faith. I am not suggesting that anyone has a "right" to get any particular message to any particular audience; nobody has the right to reach, or to a platform. I am suggesting that people have a right to seek out and learn from information even before they're 18.
> You just really don't like the idea that people will raise religious kids
I was using religion as a placeholder for any of a variety of common groups that try to restrict information.
> it sounds like you want your secular world views
Emphatically not. I don't want to see any particular worldviews pushed. I want kids to be able to read and learn. Whatever worldview they ended up with as a result of that, fine, at least they knew that other worldviews exist and what they say.
The path you're advocating is the path by which we get books being removed from libraries because someone complained about something in it. That path does not lead to better worlds.
And to be clear, I'm not advocating an all-or-nothing change here, just a different balance.
> You are justifying means because you like ends.
Yes, I am. From the most restrictive of environments, I have seen many hopeful stories of ingenuity in passing information by word of mouth about how and where to get less restricted access to information. I'm under no illusions that such channels are exclusively used for positive things, and I hope you're under no illusions that such restrictions are exclusively used to "protect".
I don't particularly expect to convince you. You are free to advocate the contrary. I draw hope from the fact that it's nearly impossible to completely restrict access to information, and I wish people the very worst of luck in trying.
My suggestion is the government doesn't decide what content should be surfaced but and neither shoulf it set what categories content filters use, it simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, policies what categories and methods they can't use (not the other way around). Using legally protected groups as a category, or using ML or private data to measure browing habits/intent or sharing browing habits to third parties are some examples of what the FTC would prohibit. The rest is up to parents,not the government. That would make everyone happy. Worsr case, social media companies might be forced to cooperate with third party content filtering services to help them identify things like cyberbullying or groomong and notify parents before their kids self-harm (again, final decision or even the decision to collect/use that info is up to parents). Give parents tools instead of expanding surveillance powers and using kids as an excuse is my message, if they are serious about helping kids.
I feel like everyone in tech is engaging in a culture war instead of fighting for what they believe in by using their strength: technical solutions to supposed problems like this and leaving would be government abusers without an excuse.
They are already doing it with NIST CSF and most companies are following that framework because there is no better option. PCI and HIPPA are also a thing, this would be similar.
> And what would be the criteria for “legitimizing” a piece of filtering software that didn’t involve ideology?
It works across various site and content, discloses capability and passes privacy and security requirements. The details of what criteria it uses is not regulated, but what it can't use is. It can include abortion for example or not include it, but it can't include "police services" or "black people" because preventing kids from accessing the police or discriminating protected groups is not legal already. FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this.
Neither of those are political or ideological. No one is arguing on any side of the aisle that companies should be able to indiscriminately share medical or financial information.
> It can include abortion
Why can it include abortion? To me and many others, abortion should be no more of a religious argument than whether I can get psuedophredrine to treat sinuses. The government already pressured companies to suppress information early on in Covid that everyone now agrees shouldn’t have been suppressed - that the vaccines were not 100% effective and that you could still spread Covid if vaccinated.
> FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this.
And the “market” already has filtering mechanisms that allow parents to filter what their children can see. It’s built into iOS and the carriers offer a service.
Nazis are raising murderous traitorus kids and religious children is your worry! What an insane world we live in.
Parent's aren't handed their children by society or the state, they brought them into the world and have both rights as well as responsibilities over them. And you don't get to say you have the right to free speech or have beliefs like the one you are holding now and be allowed to raise your kids one way and them try to legislate away the rights of other people to raise their children their own way no matter how vile it is.
This society thing is a two way street.
> I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.
You don't have the right.
You can discourse with adults and change their views though and provide them the opportunity of your alternate viewpoint.
Influencing other people's minor children is no one's right. Not even the government. No matter how correct your view is. This is what libery looks like, because today you speak from a position of power with your views, tomorrow others get to do the same with your children.
Exigent circumstances aside, it is your civic duty to respect the rights of others and appreciate that right while vocally disagreeing with it.