this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
175 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
83094 readers
3192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I agree that your situation isn't an edge case (I found dads locked porn collection of VHS tapes and learned that that lock could be circumvented with a fridge magnet) at the age of 9?
But on the other hand, let's say you post something to the internet that may be considered not okay for children. And let's say that thing is about gun powder (which you absolutely can make from foraging natural ingredients). It's your personal website, it's labeled as not intended for children and you aren't a big company so you don't have the ability to just hire another company for things like age verification.
Then you get sued by a regulatory body in another country because you didn't adhere to their laws? Does that sound reasonable to you?
If a parent or guardian is taking every precaution to keep their kid safe that is reasonable within the law and that kid still gains access to something that can harm them that's an accident. If the parent takes no precautions and allows their child that they are legally responsible for the well being and safety of to raw dog life with no precautions whatsoever because that's too hard, or they don't care or whatever, then it seems reasonable to me that they be held responsible under the law.
Their right to have a third party protect their children ends at my right to privacy which to me extends to my right to anonymity specifically because it has already been shown that without anonymity privacy just doesn't exist in this age of the internet.
What does that mean? It means that companies that collect your data but promise "privacy" cannot be trusted to uphold that promise, which means the only option left is to be as anonymous as possible.
I want you to understand that I do agree that when one kid figures out the loophole, that loophole spreads like wild fire.
But on the other hand, if a child figured out how to turn off the security system to the family car, grabbed the keys and went for a joyride with their friends, is it the fault of the parents or the fault of the car manufacturer? Because one of them is legally liable under the law.
Would it be acceptable to have to send your thumbprint to BMW every time you wanted to drive your car?