Some of the things I have accidentally come across on the internet are awful. But a simple web browse could allow a child to view inappropriate and disturbing things. Children should be able to carry on their lives and not be concerned about finding disgusting and inappropriate filth on a search on the web. Personally, I think there are things children just shouldn't see and the web is giving children access to these things.
Children shouldn't be exposed to some things that adults are, as it could damage them, yes we are all humans , but some topics are too advanced for some children to be looking at . it would be alot safer for the age restrictions to be there as it stops children from getting the wrong idea. there has been a case when two children watched a horror movie then if i believe rightly they killed their parents as they thought it was the right idea , this is what i mean by getting the wrong idea , if they see something like porn they might get the wrong idea etc..... and thats why I personally think age restrictions should be put in place.
Children are adaptable and, if they wanted, they could no doubt find ways around restrictions. But, there should be age limits to certain content. It's not good for children to be exposed to a lot of violence or sex, when they're too young to handle it. And, some content on the Internet probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone.
Certain features of the internet should continue to have age restrictions, such as porn and online shopping. These should not be allowed to anyone and everyone because it will only cause problems (kids buying stuff with their parents' credit card, etc).
There are many different things online that a kid (or anyone) could look at. It's not healthy for them and truly they don't need to be looking at stuff like that. I'm talking about pornography, sexting, rated movies and/or videos, and the related. Those things can ruin a kids life and introduce them to things too early.
My school has a firewall against anything pornographic or vulgar. Sometimes i don't agree but I know that it is best for the school because younger children use the same computers. If they saw what we look up, their minds could be spoiled.
Teenagers will write whatever they want and post whatever they want. They don't care who sees it or what will happen to themselves in the process. There are no rules. People speak anonymously and therefore often speak vulgar. Children will learn that this is "normal". The bandwagon is a powerful element. Society today is pretty messed up. I honestly am ashamed of my peers. I wish I was born at least eighty years ago. I'd rather live in the depression than deal with the electronic age... That will never end.
There is nothing more cancerous to a community, more devastating to a website, or more vomit inducing to a userbase than to be infiltrated by a bunch of children. These things are incapable of recognizing their place in the world, their natural incompetence, and their severe lack of education. If we are to allow children on the internet at all, we should heavily restrict their access to online communities.
As a parent, myself, I try my best to monitor my children's Internet usage. There are a lot of websites containing information that could actually be harmful, as well as traumatizing, to children. Websites that contain pornographic images, images and/or videos of death, and websites where ill-meaning adults have full access to your child's information, as well as the ability to converse with them, are all types of websites that are just examples of the types that I feel should be monitored very strictly. It is up to us, as adults, to provide for our children's well-being and safety.
some of the things i have accedently come across on the internet is awful. but thinking that a simple web browse could allow a child to view unapropriate and disturbing things. a child should be able to carry on their lifes and not be concerned about finding discusting and inapropriate filth on a search on the web. personally i think there are things children just shouldent see and the web is giving the children access to these things.
Most comment sections and forums on the internet regardless of the company running them from Amazon.Com and Yelp to 4chan and Youtube are littered with trolls, bullies and generally unfounded negative posts, fickle decision making habits and contradictory information. Market research firms are starting to realize this, but for right now, many products successes and failures are decided by minors spamming "like" buttons and increasing view ratios beyond a realistic representation of anything.
Most minors are still trying to figure out who they are and what is important to them. Allowing minors to influence others through the anonymity of the internet is toxic.
Seriously, age restrictions for the internet? You've gotta be kidding me. Not only would kids not be able to be up-to-date with everything in the world, they can't entertain themselves as well. Sure, there are inappropriate things out there, but dealing with unexpected things is part of life. It helps them mature more.
Realizing that there are multiple faults that promote discrimination on the Internet, the most destructive is the "adults only" delusion. Yes, delusion. Reality is, humans develop at varying degrees, completely independent of Earth-Sun revolutions. There is no such thing as an exclusive, suffice it to say "master," age group, similar to the reality of no master race. Adultness is a hopeless derivative ridden with double standards and lies. For example, child protection simply doesn't exist, and because youths in the current derivative-run world come last, the young minds will explore to their hearts' content. Calling youths "minors" is another foolish lie, because, once again, it violates being human and turns natural behavior (especially via the eyes and, of course, the intellect) into derived rights: in reality, you aren't blind to certain things until 18, nor do you magically grow gender-specific anatomy at that age. Regarding gendered anatomy gone public, the content would only offend the viewers IF labelled "adults only," for without warnings, the viewer wouldn't give a darn, and they needn't: it's just anatomy, everyone has it, you can't live without it, let it go. Holding a human's natural behaviors until a certain point in their life is virtually synonymous to incarcerating them. Then again, there are morals, but once again it's the whole derivative system that controls them. An individual defines their morals and ethics by their individual perceptions, not based on extraneous thought. One of many examples is a page called "Art For Adults." There is no such thing as "if you're under 18 or easily offended, please exit," (usually more rude than the latter quote) because there is no age limit to create and/or appreciate art. Labeling an image as offensive is based on the individual's morals, not an organised system. Restrictions are individual ("for your eyes only") and the right to apply the eyes for any reason whilst online is an extension of natural behavior in humans and by zero means for an exclusive, derivative group called adults. This term is just as imaginary and destructive as "master race." Racism failed online, so will ageism — inside and out, online and in screenless reality. Master age group-oriented mass media, either written or pictured, online or off, builds walls and creates inequality — as if the derived ones have absolute power. It is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Brainwashing youths doesn't last forever, not even 18 years. For the sake of equality online, the sickening, heart-wrenching label "adult(s only)" and similar variants such as "The Big A," "XXX," "18+" and/or the ever-repugnant "18 = 666 = Evil Audiences Only," are doomed to fail. The content once categorized as such will remain, but the "laws," judging humans by what they are through numbers and hierarchy (not by who they are), and any associated label, will fall clean out of use. Yes, that includes a derived individual showing off their "fully-developed" anatomy to "protect" youths. No wonder, "derivative" sounds like "derisive." In fact, no more derived individuals, just humans whose maturation rate is expressly individual and subject to variance.
Wrapping up the argument, the entire age classification system is set up for failure, because it undermines human intellect and undeniably violates Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Defensive indifference, laconically. On the Internet, who gives a darn? We were born, not derived, we live to gain knowledge until death, the ultimate limit.
Let's be humans.
My parents have banned me from many social networking sites and I am strongly against the idea as I think that if geting the chance to go on the site of my wish, I might have an oppurtunity to explore the real world and see what is really happening nowadays. This is also going to provide me with the chance to be responsible enough to decide wheter I am making the right decision or not.
for facebook, twitter, and even gaming sites!
Simply put what is exceptable for an adult is differnt than that of a teen, and that of teens to that of a 6,7, or 8 year old ect. Most people do have more than one computer but usually one is considered the family computer. Not every one in the family should be restricted to the 8 year old's level. Even if there were restrictions in place most children smart enough to use a computer and find these sites would be able to fool the system used to restrict them and in the end it would be a waste.
Who cares what anyone looks up online? It has nothing to do with age: the only people it's not appropriate for are the ones who don't like the theme. If someone wants to look something up online, that's their choice. What law is there that says living beings can't watch what they want?
As long as it's not the government, it's okay. If the government's restricting children's access to the internet, that's pretty enraging. Of course, certain features that generally aren't legal for people under the age of majority shouldn't somehow become legal for children just because they're on the internet.