If you support a minimum drinking age enforced by ID checks, you disagree with your own statement. I’m not saying you do, just that it’s a pretty general statement that in practice most people disagree with. Movie tickets and games sold directly to kids will generally have to be rated for the age of kid too. You can disagree with that, but we’re already at a place where that’s happening. I’m not saying it’s the best way to go about it, but people seem fixated on this talking point and I don’t see people mentioning how this is basically already done with lots of media.
The device isn’t sold to the child, it’s sold to the parent. There is zero similarity between a parent buying a phone and handing it to the kid unmonitored, and a bar selling a beer to a 13 year old.
If phones were somehow rated M for mature or something and parents had to be with their child for purchase and there was similar messaging as to with smoking or drinking or video game violence PSAs, I think we’d be in a different place. I bought my own phones with my own money as a kid, not as young as 13, but definitely underage. If my parents thought it was going to lead to the kind of harm people are positing kids are being exposed to now, they would not have allowed much less accompanied me to get one if that was required.
If they’re doing this because they think unrestricted phone access is as harmful as they think violent games or alcohol or smoking are, then it makes sense they want to similarly restrict phone access for children. Phones don’t have as robust a child protection infrastructure as a lot of parents want, or the way to implement it currently is too difficult for parents to understand. I’m not saying this needs to be done, or makes sense, but companies regularly are expected to comply with child protection laws. That’s why no matter what, certain medications come with child resistant packaging. They don’t care if you have a child or if there’s any way a child could get access, they assume it and add that protection in. I don’t think pharmacists or doctors are giving kids drugs directly, and yet the childproof caps are still a thing we all have to deal with. You initially suggested that companies are not responsible for child safety, but obviously they have been previously. These are compromises we make as a society. I’m not saying they are good, just that it’s already a thing.
Who do you think should determine the “m” rating? Let parents parent. And force parents to parent or punish them for spawning. Don’t punish me (society) or the child.
I’m not suggesting they should be rated. Just pointing out that society already expects companies to make accommodations for children so that’s not a great argument. This is not asking for ID or anything. Just asking to select general age group when setting up the device. I’m not saying I support that, I just don’t think most people would call that a “punishment”. Your first comment indicated you thought companies had no responsibility to protect children but current laws and society seem to suggest otherwise. I don’t think yours is a good argument against what is happening and it is unlikely to convince others to your side. Judging by your usage of “spawning” it seems like you probably aren’t aiming to seem well reasoned, so it’s unlikely my statements are relevant to your aims anyway.
If you support a minimum drinking age enforced by ID checks, you disagree with your own statement. I’m not saying you do, just that it’s a pretty general statement that in practice most people disagree with. Movie tickets and games sold directly to kids will generally have to be rated for the age of kid too. You can disagree with that, but we’re already at a place where that’s happening. I’m not saying it’s the best way to go about it, but people seem fixated on this talking point and I don’t see people mentioning how this is basically already done with lots of media.
The device isn’t sold to the child, it’s sold to the parent. There is zero similarity between a parent buying a phone and handing it to the kid unmonitored, and a bar selling a beer to a 13 year old.
If phones were somehow rated M for mature or something and parents had to be with their child for purchase and there was similar messaging as to with smoking or drinking or video game violence PSAs, I think we’d be in a different place. I bought my own phones with my own money as a kid, not as young as 13, but definitely underage. If my parents thought it was going to lead to the kind of harm people are positing kids are being exposed to now, they would not have allowed much less accompanied me to get one if that was required.
If they’re doing this because they think unrestricted phone access is as harmful as they think violent games or alcohol or smoking are, then it makes sense they want to similarly restrict phone access for children. Phones don’t have as robust a child protection infrastructure as a lot of parents want, or the way to implement it currently is too difficult for parents to understand. I’m not saying this needs to be done, or makes sense, but companies regularly are expected to comply with child protection laws. That’s why no matter what, certain medications come with child resistant packaging. They don’t care if you have a child or if there’s any way a child could get access, they assume it and add that protection in. I don’t think pharmacists or doctors are giving kids drugs directly, and yet the childproof caps are still a thing we all have to deal with. You initially suggested that companies are not responsible for child safety, but obviously they have been previously. These are compromises we make as a society. I’m not saying they are good, just that it’s already a thing.
Who do you think should determine the “m” rating? Let parents parent. And force parents to parent or punish them for spawning. Don’t punish me (society) or the child.
I’m not suggesting they should be rated. Just pointing out that society already expects companies to make accommodations for children so that’s not a great argument. This is not asking for ID or anything. Just asking to select general age group when setting up the device. I’m not saying I support that, I just don’t think most people would call that a “punishment”. Your first comment indicated you thought companies had no responsibility to protect children but current laws and society seem to suggest otherwise. I don’t think yours is a good argument against what is happening and it is unlikely to convince others to your side. Judging by your usage of “spawning” it seems like you probably aren’t aiming to seem well reasoned, so it’s unlikely my statements are relevant to your aims anyway.
Don’t let your feelings about a subject interfere with facts and the truth.