• TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate these coomer groomers silently downvoting your comment. Parents do need to be in control until the age of 15-16, in addition to teaching them openly proper stuff about various kinds of addictions and psychological harms.

    • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a difference between passive blocking and surveillance. The former is a safety measure that’s perfectly sufficient to keep bad stuff away. The latter is an invasion of privacy that has no benefit, and many unsavory consequences on a child’s sense of trust and autonomy. Blockers are enough.

      It is a safe assumption that every human, at the age of puberty, will search for porn or sonething similar. If not, your kid is asexual.

      A blocker will prevent that search. You know that search will take place. Heck, you did it and at some point in time got away with it.

      What possible purpose would you as a parent have for knowing the details of that search? That is just a gross invasion of a very private phase in development. You might as well add cameras to the bedroom to see if your kid, who is obviously past puberty, is masturbating (of course they are - checking on it is just disgusting and creepy).

      • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You want kids at the age of 12 (or when puberty hits) to fall into porn addiction in the name of freedom and privacy? That is very fucked up. And I say that as a privacy advocate. Privacy does not need to be the same for vulnerable children and matured adults who are mentally strong enough to make their decisions.