|
|
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Or to get married. Or for consent. Or, often, to be tried and punished as an adult. And lets not forget that most kids are officially taught sex-ed as early as jr. high, so that puts them in their early teens. Of course, "gay" gets thrown (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Firstly, yes, that would more-or-less work for existing usership, but new users would be free to lie all they want. Second, everything I've seen says that making a pointedly "adults only" section is just going to make the situation worse, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Neither does it obligate him. Parents need to start taking paying attention to what their kids are viewing online, and every attempt to make the internet kid-safe only reinforces their false beliefs that there is nothing that their kids can (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) It's kind of funny, but I think that kid-friendly is an awful term for the suggestion that John is propsing. Kid-hostile is closer, but a single term for kid-we-don't-trust-y...-take-part would be better. I don't know, but if my kids found a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) For .admin.nntp: LUGNET has to abide by certain societal restrictions for the sake of liability. In that sense, John's perfectly right. For .o-t.debate: Screw them! Parents withholding what it means to be human by shielding their kids from (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
