1620
'What a great way to kill your community': Discord users are furious about its new age verification checks — and are now hunting for alternatives (www.techradar.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
441 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 9 months ago (20 children)

I hear you. I guess shitty parents is a good enough reason to let a company monetize your PII for a bit before they (or one of their customers) gets hacked and dumps to the dark web.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    It's not, but that doesn't make your argument any more sensible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    Ah, so maybe shitty parents isn't a good enough reason to let a company monetize and eventually lose your PII to the dark web?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    That is what I said, yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    Okay. Cool that's what I said too. Just... the way you said it sounded like you were advocating for using bad parenting as a pretext for massive breaches of privacy and identity security.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    The way you said it sounded like you were advocating for parents to watch their kids every second of every day, and if they don't then whatever happens is their fault.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    If your child steals a car, are you allowed to say "I can't watch my kids all time time" and get off consequence free?

    Of course not. Do I think it is realistic for parents to keep an eye on their kid 100% of the time, of course not... But, I do expect that parents raise their kids in a progressively less restrictive manner and provide access to more autonomy as the child mautures? Absolutely, and I don't think it is unreasonable to extend that progressive loosening of the parental leash in the real world to children on the internet. You shouldn't have to watch your kids all the time on the internet, if they are old enough and mature enough to be on there unsupervised. If they aren't ready for unsupervised access to the internet, then you shouldn't allow it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (13 children)

    If your child steals a car, are you allowed to say "I can't watch my kids all time time" and get off consequence free? Of course not. Do I think it is realistic for parents to keep an eye on their kid 100% of the time, of course not.

    I don't understand how you reconcile these 2 statements. They can't watch their kids 100% but also if the kid does something illegal, it's their responsibility? You can raise your kids to do whatever you want but they often do not listen.

    If they aren't ready for unsupervised access to the internet, then you shouldn't allow it.

    Good luck telling your kids they can't get on the internet. Remember you can't watch them all day.

    Point is, if the parents are irresponsible, then who does it hurt? The parents? No. It hurts the children, and it hurts the rest of society.

    Your same argument can be used to abolish any sort of legal protections for children like gambling, driving, smoking, drinking, tattoos, etc. Everything should be the parents' responsibility, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (12 children)

    I don’t understand how you reconcile these 2 statements. They can’t watch their kids 100% but also if the kid does something illegal, it’s their responsibility?

    The reconsoliation is that as a parent, you are responsible/accountable for the actions of your child at all times, whether you are watching them or not. It's part of being a parent. Raising your children not to be little sociopaths who can eventually be trusted as adults, is a major part of parenting.

    Let me ask you: Should parents be responsible for damage done by their child?

    I'm not really expecting yes/no to that answer, so feel free to elaborate on it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (11 children)

    you are responsible/accountable for the actions of your child at all times, whether you are watching them or not. It's part of being a parent.

    Criminally liable? That's insane.

    Raising your children not to be little sociopaths who can eventually be trusted as adults, is a major part of parenting.

    Parents have limited control of that. Children are not remote controlled robots, they're their own people, and some of them are shit, no matter what you do.

    Let me ask you: Should parents be responsible for damage done by their child?

    If you can demonstrate a pattern of bad parenting, sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (10 children)

    If you can demonstrate a pattern of bad parenting, sure.

    So, if a teen takes their mom's keys, and drives her car into your parked car, should you be on the hook for the damages to your vehicle? Should you be on the hook for the damages to her vehicle? Especially if it's a first time offense?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    My answer to your question is on your comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (8 children)

    Gotcha. So if it is the first time, or maybe the second time, fuck you, pay for the damage someone else did to your car and their own car. Maybe on the 4th or 5th time, we can start getting the teen's parents to pay for it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Welcome to life bro. Shit happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Yep. Un-parented teen burns down your house, shit happens.

    Another kid brings their dad's gun to school and shoot your kid, shit happens.

    Kid has to steal food in order to survive. Shit happens.

    Clearly, the parents are completely beyond reproach.

    Seriously, do you even think of the wider implications of a position that you are arguing, or do you just pick the dumbest fucking stance and stick with it all the way? Parents have been raising their kids for literally as long as there have been people on this earth. It's practically globally agreed upon that the parents are responsible for raising and controlling their child, until the child has developed enough to make their own decisons, understand the risks, and accept the consequences for their actions.

    And... To go further, your "world view" about "bad shit happens" can be extended to cover "My child saw porn, shit happens", which would break down your argument that it is necessary for discord to collect and store PII from millions of people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

    Wow, that really escalated quickly from car damage. These are all crimes you can charge kids with just like adults. You cannot and should not charge their parents, who had abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to do with it. This is insane. Seriously, do you even think of the wider implications of a position that you are arguing, or do you just pick the dumbest fucking stance and stick with it all the way?

    And, to go further, we definitely shouldn't have any laws about drinking, smoking, driving, getting tattoos, etc. We just leave it up to the parents to make those decisions too, right? We have to trust them all to make the right decisions and don't bother making any rules or laws, right? 🤡

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

    You cannot and should not charge their parents, who had abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to do with it.

    https://apnews.com/article/james-crumbley-jennifer-crumbley-oxford-school-shooting-e5888f615c76c3b26153c34dc36d5436

    You cannot and should not charge their parents, who had abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to do with it.

    These two had "literally nothing" to do with it, and they were charged for it. It's called Neglect.

    https://abcnews.com/US/parents-charged-manslaughter-boy-struck-car-gastonia-north-carolina/story?id=122500748

    And yes, if your kid commits crimes, then you can be fined and sued for it. You are responsible for the conduct of your child while your child is incapable of being responsible for themselves.

    Let's not forget, by your framework of parental responsibility, if your unsupervised child sees porn on discord because they wandered into a community of people talking about porn... Tough shit, that's life.

    Drinking and driving can and do harm others. I understand age gating those activities to prevent unresponsible children from hurting other people and themselves. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". The age limits on smoking and also drinking, are there to prevent tobacco and alcohol vendors from hooking children on addictive substances. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". Age requirements to get tattoos are there to prevent children from getting life-long body altering ink from a vendor who had a financial interest in doing the work. Some states do allow teens to get tattoos, with parental consent BTW. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life".

    This is exactly what I meant when I said you should think about the wider implications of your argument before you make it and nail your identity to it.

    Tell you what. Let's do one more thing here to really test your conviction to this argument that discord should be photo-ID-ing it's users. The Fediverse is an equally open (if not more so) forum where people can communicate in ways that convey NSFW content. I will stick to my guns, and accept the consequences of any child I'm responsible for seeing titties or a live leak murder if I let them on the internet unsupervised. You, on the other hand, need to show us all a photo ID (make it your profile pic, or put it in your bio, to prove you're not a child) before you can post further on any platform? Deal? Or are you going to back out of what you are advocating to force on everyone?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Let's do one more thing here to really test your conviction to this argument that discord should be photo-ID-ing it's users

    Your entire comment is predicated on a position that I've already told you I do not hold, so good job on making a long and intentional strawman.

    It's called Neglect

    Neglect is what I alluded to earlier by saying "demonstrating a pattern of bad parenting".

    And to be clear, by "cannot" I was not saying it's impossible, I was saying it's wrong.

    Drinking and driving can and do harm others.

    Social media and porn also can and do harm others.

    The age limits on smoking and also drinking, are there to prevent tobacco and alcohol vendors from hooking children on addictive substances.

    Yes, I'm aware of what the purpose of that law is. It sounds like, by your position, we shouldn't have those laws, because that's a parents' responsibility. Is that correct? And if not, please elaborate on how that's different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'm sorry. I can't speak with you further. Discussion could include references to material that is not appropriate for children. Please prove you are over 18 years old if you would like to continue this conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •