zlacker

> Isn’t that the same argument as “Parents should keep kids away from cigarettes” by tobacco companies who were simultaneously marketing to children?

I think most would agree that there's a significant difference between a physical product that shortens the lifespan of virtually all humans who use it, and looking at images and video, no matter how extreme.

> And parents aren’t in control of children 24/7. Schools tend to provide tablets and laptops everywhere, and how much trust should parents have that things like a content filter are adequate to keep children from asking objectionable pornography, hate sites teaching misogyny and so forth?

Agreed.

Parents and guardians should definitely be aware of and concerned about what internet filters are in place at schools.

>>djoldm+(OP)
> Parents and guardians should definitely be aware of and concerned about what internet filters are in place at schools.

Neither of the words you used give parents any control over the situation. Legislation is the circumspect way parents are exerting control over websites that are unable to police themselves.

>>_w1tm+Q2
Fair enough. Sounds like legislation may be a good way to enforce internet filtering on school computers.

Schools have traditionally been ground zero for culture war in the USA, so this fits.

>>djoldm+(OP)
I do agree there is a significant difference. The images and video are much worse -- one particularly bad video can scar people for months, even years, one cigarette isn't that bad.