If one kid is able to bypass the system it means it's zero percent effective. Same thing with alcohol, and cigarettes. Especially if it means I have to show my ID to buy those things.

> If one kid is able to bypass the system it means it's zero percent effective

No. Like, obviously no. That’s not how effectiveness is ever measured.

It feels more complicated.

Some kids getting access to booze here and there with planning and coordination is different from kids walking into a liquor store or bar whenever they want.

It's literally all or nothing[1]. Either measures are 100 percent effective or they are completely broken and should not exist.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Shit thanks for pointing that out. My door lock isn't 100% effective at stopping thieves, so I guess I can get rid of that annoying thing. Will be nice to never worry about being locked out again!

are you… are you /s-ing right now? it’s unclear to me whether you’re being satirical/sarcastic or not and i want to check before i point out a thing.

There is never a simple solution to a complex problem, although there are many complex solutions to simple problems.

Guess we should get rid of murder and rape laws, right?

I'm not saying parents shouldn't try.

But like your examples, it's not guaranteed to work.

Install a DNS filter. Firefox circumvented that? Smart kid :)

Censorship circumvention might be a good skill to have in the near future.

Well in the past there were laws banning the selling of cigarettes and alcohol to minors. Selling alcohol to a minor can cause you to lose your liquor license. With much of the online content being free and not involving a physical product it has become significantly harder for a parent to protect their children.

> Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol.

I'm sorry, but what? Cigarettes, sure. Alcohol? Binge drinking was absolutely rampant at my school, and I don't think I'm alone. Don't get me wrong, some parents just buried their heads in the sand, but unless you're giving them a breathalyzer when they get home and severely punishing them all the time it's pretty hard to prevent.

Yes, but when I go to the grocery store, U don't buy alcohol or cigarettes (because I don't drink or smoke), and no one cards me. Even if I never accessed a single site like the ones being described, and despite there being no kids who have access to my devices because I don't have any children, according to these laws every OS I install is required to force me to provide proof of my age. That's a huge escalation over any of those other checks, and I'd be similarly against any check that required anyone to present id to literally enter a store that happens to sell alcohol or cigarettes.

(Yes, you might get carded before you can go into a bar or a club, but we're talking about every possible device that can connect to the internet here; that's a lot closer to the grocery store than a bar or club terms of how much of a staple this is for most people's daily lives at this point. Cutting off my ability to access to my bank account, contact doctor, or pay my bills should not be something that should require additional steps because my devices which no children ever used could theoretically be used for a child to try to watch porn).

> but we're talking about every possible device that can connect to the internet here

I agree these proposals are garbage. But if everyone who can credibly say that is busy trying to block any age gating, this is what we’re going to get.

> But if everyone who can credibly say that is busy trying to block any age gating, this is what we’re going to get.

I'm certainly not busy trying to block a bunch of hypothetical policies that no one has proposed when there are garbage ones that are literally getting pushed right now. It sounds more like too many of the people who recognize the harm of this policy are too busy trying to claim that the burden for coming up with a non-garbage policy should be on the people who fundamentally disagree with that framing.

> the burden for coming up with a non-garbage policy should be on the people who fundamentally disagree with that framing

Things a good way to put it. Yes. Regardless of whether you disagree with that framing, that is the frame that’s been set and is being run with. So you can make theoretical arguments against the framing. Or practical arguments against the policies within the frame.