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).
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.
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.
Would you let a child free reign to enter strip bars, pubs where adult conversations and brawls take place, porn shops? Most parents don't even let them hang around playparks by themselves. If they are online they should be supervised and only go to sites aimed at children. Letting them freedom to go online whenever they wants is equivalent of putting them in an adult body and letting them do whatever they want in the real world. It's also like having a cupboard full of all types of pornography and violent graphic novels and movies in their bedrooms they can open any time they want.
Children should be allowed to use the internet because there is so much useful knowledge on the internet children should learn, and they can develop skills they will need later on in life (typing, online etiquette, etc.). They can also learn how to use computers better, and this is also a skill needed in life later on, due to electronic use increasing.
Most kids are immature and ignorant and post all kind of stuff to websites just to get "likes". The majority of their contribution to sites like YouTube, Facebook, etc. Is useless, repetitive comments. They comment on various subjects without actually having any knowledge about it, and because they constitute a large part of the Internet users, this reduces the quality of the Internet as a whole.
As you can see from comment boxes and other important websites, such as Youtube, Facebook, children who are given free speech will hinder our progress on mankind's intelligence. Look around you, there will always be some sort of netizen with bad English skills make the internet look bad. Netizens always argue with one another, calling each other kids, and if those netizens - the ones who doesn't help much towards constructive usage of the internet, are out of the internet, I'm confident that the internet will be a better place. No childish arguments where one calls the other 'faggots' and such, no useless comments where their language are very alienated, and no more spoiling the matured netizens mood, specifically on trolling and fanboys' war. In fact, they should be brushing up on their fundamental education in order to use and serve the internet better, because I myself don't see the point them existing around the realm of the internet, especially if they use this for their cure for boredom, instead of the educational source it is meant to be.
Another problem is that they are prone to cyber victims. Do you see a pattern concerning the issue? The immature are always the naïve and gullible. With just the meeting of cunning men they may be blackmailed and stalked. They may be tricked into various adults' unscrupulous plots, I hope you know what I'm talking about. So with them out of the internet is just a protective measure. They don't ask for the internet, they learnt about it. So it is best to keep them away from further harm from the dark side of the internet. I personally don't see children using the internet correctly, they really uses it out of boredom.
The last point I want to make is the regards to their actions. Being older now, we may have regrets when we are young. But the internet can be seen by everyone, and thus they may end up regretting what they posted or commented online. The pain is very true and hard, especially the fact that we are in a globalised world and when things went viral, they will go extremely viral. One example is Facebook. We always seen memes and pictures featuring the stupidity of the Facebook and the internet. But I don't think is the stupid are the ones who were showcased, but the 'fortunate' ones who are immature, posting out of impulse and regret it in their older days.
In conclusion, I believe is that setting up age restrictions to at least 13 years old does not harm the beliefs of freedom, but the protection of our younger generation like how a mother protects the yound from predators. If you want a young, happy generation and at the same time making the internet useful, the age restrictions are the must to be put in place.
Porn site, or sites that contain porn, are usually monitored. The only notices they have are simple warnings, but how is that supposed to keep an underage child from looking at explicit content online? We live in a day where you can access the internet from virtually anywhere. Sure the parents could enforce it, but how can they know if there child is sneaking off and watching porn behind their back without their knowledge? I agree that pornography should have stricter restrictions. This "free expression" excuse is trash. We need to protect the future generations.
I think that There should be an age restriction because according to research, many of the awful things are seen by teens (of the age 12-16). I Really believe Children should use internet but only when accompanied by an adult who teaches him perfect uses of internet.When Teens do some wrong thing they also get addicted to wrong uses of Internet and then misuse internet again and again.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Adults use the same things as children do and studies show that adults use the Internet for entertainment more than kids. Maybe not for games but for social networks and other things that i will not mention. Children would be the same if they have restricted internet access or not.
A library has some books inappropriate for children. Does that mean we should restrict libraries? I believe that parents should monitor their own children and children should know what and what not to look at. Most kids only go on internet to play games and other things. Most of the bad things come from teenagers and such.
Over 27.8 million teens use the internet daily. Over 18 million use the internet through a mobile device. If you think you're going to enforce these rules then good luck. It would not be government enforced because we are over 17 trillion in debt. (Obama gave 7 of that trillion more than any other U.S President.) Not that I am trying to bash any political office on that comment just merely stating the facts. This is ridiculous ... Internet is so woven into our ways of life that you cant change that. Its dominating the world... In Los Angeles California they gave a high school iPads with no internet access, the kids hacked the iPads and broke through firewalls to get internet access... Its too far to come back.
Parents often think they need to think for their children. If you're going to not allow them on the internet, why not never allow them outside either? This is the world. Raising children in perfect-land will only create delusions for them.
I understand we don't want them viewing pornography or other innappropriate content. However, I believe that if the child sees something accidently, they should tell an adult. If they get caught looking at it, there should be a consequence.
Someday you (the parents) aren't going to be around and how on Earth do you expect your precious child to know what to do? We are all given free will. There are consequences. It is your job to TEACH them right from wrong, not keep them in little bubbles simply because they are young.
I would always agree that teenagers should be advised of what not to post. In the end, though, they are the ones that have to pay for their decisions. Adults, if you don't want kids on your social sites, block them! It isn't fair that just because YOU want to dominate the communities that they should be restricted.
I rest my case.
There are books which children shouldn't read. But we don't ban children from libraries or bookstores, do we? If we did, we'd end up with a bunch of illiterate 18 year olds. The problem with banning children from the internet is one of overprotective parenting. Parents are supposed to act in the best interests of their children, but in a day and age where Internet access is available to almost everybody as a near-universal form of communication, should we ban people from using it based on what time they were born at?
It would violate Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.Un.Org/en/documents/udhr/index.Shtml#a2). Also, aside from delusions of being subhuman until your 18th birthday, it is no different from not being allowed on the internet because your skin is brown/black/yellow. On the yes side the only arguments I can see are "think of the children! They cant use the internet because... Er... It is just not right!". Ridiculous.
How can websites or governments know the age of some guy who is browsing porn site?If individual should show his identity before browsing a porn site, his privacy is violated.Therefore, a government or a website is incapable of implement this kind of restriction. Since it is unfeasible,how should it be necessary?
How can a child become a free and responsible member of a society if we restrict him from observing this society? The child should be able to distinguish "good" from "bad". And internet content is not an exception. Parents should teach him such things together with how to cross the road, for example.