zlacker

I must be honest with you, as far as I am pro net-neutrality, I can observe people using internet irresponsibly. As the internet stood up to allow sharing of science publications, now mostly shared is the pornographic type of content. When Tim Berners-Lee was thinking about people sending themselves a book he probably (we still may ask him) haven't predicted people sending boob/dick pics. As the content technical level lowers, amount of people sharing their stupidity increases. Meanwhile other irresponsible people give phones to their children (I am amongst them) hoping the children won't go into the bad places and trusting in freedom.

Currently my kids got already out of my hand, and I really wonder how could I filter the content that goes to them. Internet became something else, so maybe I won't install a VPN to their phones and they won't be able to see the most horrible things anymore.

>>p0w3n3+(OP)
You can just configure their DNS to use 1.1.1.3. No need for the government to step in and manage your child's internet access.

>>p0w3n3+(OP)
> now mostly shared is the pornographic type of content

What is your source? I believe you are incredibly biased. Netflix is one of the biggest user of bandwidth worldwide, and if we're talking about the percentage of "pornographic" IP packets, I think it's even less than the former.

> and I really wonder how could I filter the content that goes to them

Parental control on device and DNS-level blocker (think AdGuard, PiHole, ...). Hosts file could also work as long as they're not admin on their PC. If they're skilled enough to circumvent all of that, then I think your kids will be fine.

>>p0w3n3+(OP)
>When Tim Berners-Lee was thinking about people sending themselves a book he probably (we still may ask him) haven't predicted people sending boob/dick pics.

You are asking tech to solve people problems. That is a recipe for disaster.

>>Pooge+q1
I must admit the amount of pornography in different forms is now apparently everywhere on social media. Including social media I thought was "safe":

I see videos that I think are overtly sexual in nature on YouTube, even if the video is something supposedly "innocent". If you click through to their profiles there is an inevitable link to 18+ content most of the time. I am subscribed to only tech/film/gaming channels on youtube and this content is now always put into my feed. I probably have cursed myself by checking these people's profiles after the fact.

You are right though that by bandwidth, streaming services including Netflix make up the majority of data over the Internet and it is not pornographic/dangerous for children at all.

>>flumpc+Sg
> I probably have cursed myself by checking these people's profiles after the fact

I think you really did. I don't watch much YouTube and don't use social media beside Instagram—which I mostly use for messaging friends and not exchanging photos—but I don't see a lot of erotic content on the mainstream platforms.

>>Pooge+Hm
I wouldn't call it Erotic. It's hard to describe but you just know that it's somehow sexualised. I would think that somehow maybe I am a crazy prude but these profiles then do link to adult content (from their youtube via link aggregators, which is definitely not an 'adult content' platform). I think it's some form of cross platform advertising while skirting around the 'no adult content' rules of youtube.

>>rpdill+R
You obviously have no experience with trying to block a modern teenager from the web. That will stop them for seconds, maybe minutes.

Im not for this bill at all, but I agree with what the government are saying about parents being unable to protect their children because the children know more about the systems than the parents do.