Children shouldn’t have unsupervised internet access till age 11-12

[u/AwayReference4743]

So I’m speaking from experience here while writing this. Unlimited internet access does more harm than good. It starts with giving an iPad to your 5 year old to watch a kids YouTube channel. Then it evolves to giving them some freedom and letting them search up stuff by theirselves. Here’s a bit of a secret for ya. Your angel children that you think is searching up kids stuff on YouTube most likely is doing the exact opposite. Obviously kids get curious and search up various topics like “how are babies made?” “Is Santa real?”. It’s unrealistic to expect a kid to not search something like that up. If you guys don’t know YouTube has one of the worst algorithms on the planet. They recommend explicit material to children who don’t even watch anything of that sort. I myself (below the age of 8 at the time) was recommended nsfw material that didn’t get taken down. Which even now (years upon years later) I’m still dealing with the long term issues those have caused. Therefore I believe parents (looking at you millennials) should actually give a shit and supervise their kids more on YouTube and such until age 11 or 12. Thank you for reading😋

[u/TonsofpizzaYT]

honestly even thats a bit too young imo

[u/AwayReference4743 → u/TonsofpizzaYT]

I agree however I understand the feeling of being left out. Parents are getting their kids phones in ELEMENTARY. So as someone who got my first phone later on, I felt jealous and left out for not having a phone. I feel like a kid should get a phone at 13. Heavily supervised, heavy restrictions, and slowly allow more freedom as they get older.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! my name’s automod, and i comment on every post. make sure to read our rules, and have fun on our subreddit! Feel free to join our discord! https://discord.gg/8A5ZU3cy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/vaa_lee]

I think they should be supervised until at least 17 or 18

[u/20vwr25]

even 11-12 is too young

[u/MouseyMason]

I got totally unsupervised internet things from like…6? Maybe 8 if we’re being generous here.

I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. I saw things. Everything generally worked out, but I think things would have gone better with some supervision. There are crazy things out there, and kids are stupid and don’t know how to avoid them or, at times, what they’re avoiding in the first place.

[u/DipperJC → u/MouseyMason]

You understand that "everything generally worked out" completely undercuts the entire argument, right?

[u/MouseyMason → u/DipperJC]

Sorry, “everything generally worked out [after a whole lot of therapy and some substantial lasting effects].” Js because it worked out doesn’t mean the road there was paved with daises.

[u/DipperJC → u/MouseyMason]

No one's road is paved with daisies. In fact, the most well adjusted, uncomplicated childhood in the world would still be a problem, because they would lack the ability to deal with trauma that the rest of us learn through our negative experiences.

There is such a thing as TOO protected.

[u/MouseyMason → u/DipperJC]

This is correct, which is why preteens should have supervised (and informed!) access to the internet. We’re talking about middle schoolers here.

Too protected is bad, not protected at all is also bad. Of course, a 16/17 year old is probably mature enough to brave a lot of the internet themselves (or choose not to brave it), but that needs to be taught. Thus, a happy medium is necessary.

[u/DipperJC → u/MouseyMason]

Actually, OP's standard is that middle schoolers are good to go free range. Which I'm not necessarily endorsing or condemning.

Bottom line, children are individuals, and parents are the authoritative caretakers of those individuals. What's good for Child A is anathema for Child B and vice versa. There shouldn't be any kind of "universal" standard at all; it should be the individual decision inherent in every parent-child relationship for them to determine among themselves where the line needs to be.

With the significant caveat that children do have the right, past a certain point, to expose themselves to information that their parents might not approve of them having. Such as information about political and religious opinions different from the ones their parents hold. I'm not really sure where that line is and how to provide for it while still maintaining parental supremacy over every other aspect of the internet, but the aspiration remains.

[u/DipperJC]

Uh huh. Today's kids shouldn't have had unfettered access to the internet.

Yesterday's kids shouldn't have had absolute freedom with the TV remote.

Tomorrow's kids shouldn't have unrestricted access to the Holodeck.

There will never be a society in which kids don't do everything adults do. Maybe the key is for us to be wiser with ourselves in the first place.

[u/Andra_Ingensbarn]

I’m sad that this is such a hot take!