> i think websites/pages, like for example movies, should have age restriction in their metadata.

A few friends and I had an idea for voluntary rating back in '97, not long after the CDA of 1996 ("Black Ribbon") debacle.

To be fair, while when we envisioned it, it was something more facetious to get a laugh, but thinking retrospectively about it 21 years later actually made (and still makes) a hell of a lot of sense (now) as the father of a young boy.

Didn't we (sort of) try age restriction metadata during the '90's with P3P? (or a closely related technology.. the name escapes me)

If you tightened the settings in Internet Explorer it would only allow you to access sites with P3P data - which was pretty much _nothing_ on the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

Did you know that adolescent children are clever enough to lie about their age, AND flout rules enforced by simple button clicks and honor systems?

Browser on locked in system honoring the age metadata would go a long way. It is parental decision whether to give locked or unlocked device to the child.

No offense but that sounds like the most likely effect is promoting tech literacy and sneakiness.

  locked in system

Is exactly the system they won’t be using on starbucks wi-fi. Laptops are cheaper than console games.

Chrome books cost less than a PS4. You aren’t going to solve this by locking down the client side. Not at school. Not in the home. Not even in federal prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_in_prison

You are out of your depth.

> free speech just isnt applicable when it comes to children

Are you arguing that free speech must be abandoned, just in case children happen to be listening?

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That isnt what I said. What I said is that children mustn't be allowed to some audiences the same way they aren't allowed in bars, porn movies or making legally binding decisions in corporate boardrooms.

> What I said is [...]

You actually didn't say that, you just said free speech isn't applicable when it comes to children, and left us guessing about how you might want that to be implemented :).

I'm glad you're not advocating for the end of free speech, however.

Of course not. I even against any restrictions on hate and harassing speech. Not that I like it. It is just I think that censorship in any form is worse than any speech it may be trying to censor. So choosing lesser evil out of 2.

note: Censorship above is in the sense of making content decisions for capable adults. Children isnt capable adults.

The post says "age restriction in the metadata" right there. So yes, they did say that, and you didn't need to guess.

This is patently false.