Minimum Age To Use The Internet?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

"i say: whoever you consider to be an idiot.....nuke them" -Maligus

Every first-world country has a minimum age for the ability to voice your opinion in an official, legislative capacity, and I think that's for a good reason. It's clear to me, and I think to just about anyone else who would read this, that the majority of a young age group is... lacking in wisdom, let's say, relative to older people.
This isn't to say that adults are always more intelligent, that they are necessarily intelligent at all, or even that all of them are more emotionally equipped to handle some situations that might come up during online usage, but at the very least one can notice that most adults can be reasonable people (shut up, you misanthropes, yes they can) and that most children are incapable of reasoning on the level of an adult or refraining from saying stupid things impulsively. Only in a handful of cases have I ever received something meaningful from a child online (the now-departed user Maniac is a classic example), and I doubt that this is unusual.

Obviously, the internet is extremely useful for educational purposes, and that reason alone is more than enough to even encourage use by children and teenagers. So I'm currently going with the idea that people under a certain age, with exceptions of course, should only be able to interact with the internet in a read-only fashion -- they can go online all they like but can't attempt to contribute. I think it mirrors some other systems we have in place that are based on wisdom with age, such as voting, alcohol consumption, and driving. Without a doubt, there are probably teenagers whose opinions are more informed and intelligent than most adults, just as there are teenagers who can vote more intelligently than many adults were they allowed to do so, but the net benefit (or convenience, really) would exceed that loss.

And obviously, this'll be easier to pull off in some future where everyone has their own computer.

Anyway, this is a completely undeveloped thought on my part, and I want to develop it.
So start talking.

[Aphex]

I actually have to agree with you here

_

unlike a certain topic which may have involved a statement about net hack being better than dungeon crawl >:(

I feel that some websites become spammed with users who are inbetweenies (11-13). At this point they seem to think they are the shit, which coupled with stupidity and a dash of toilet jokes, makes every post/comment by them cause severe RAGE!

Unfortunatly there is no way to stop this, without implementing some style of neo-nazi internet regime, because the internet is all about free speech, so taking away the privilage for children to put there opinions on the internet (even if it is just that yu-gi-oh is awesome, and mudkipz are lolz) is a condradiction to what is basically the fundamental rule of the internet (just before rule 34).

anyways, theres my two pennies worth, make of it what you will :P

[otters~1]

Impractical. And since the internet is, after all, worldwide, this would just lead to pointless arguments--who implements and controls this, and why, and how?

On top of all that, I'm not sure I agree with you--the internet brings out the best in some people (and the worst in others). I get in more rational debates on this site then I do in real life. Most of the kids I know are not worth takling to on any serious level.

[Donfuy]

Most of the kids adolescents I know are not worth talking to on any serious level.

It's pretty damn stupid. They're pretty damn stupid, lacking a lot of general culture.


Anyway, why not have sites rated, like videogames? The fact that there's a ridiculously enormous amount of sites out there? Pff, I'm expecting some kind of revolution on that way (drastic decrease of internet sites), in a couple of years. This thing won't go wild forever!

[Ampersand]

I would tend to agree, but here's the thing - How would it ever be enforced?

I mean, you've seen how well it works at 4chan - How many /b/tards do you really think are *actually* above 18? I've seen people post "im 16 lol" and not get banned for it, so I'd like to veer the topic towards enforcement a bit. Short of webcams and a very strict type of big-brother fingerprinting or retinal scanning and so on, I think the bigger question is how do we eliminate anonymity on the internet? I think the crux of the argument comes entirely down to that. I glance at aphex's post and cringe at the unfathomable memetude incorporated therein - and I just shake my head.

Now with all that said, look at the leadership here - KinGAleX, Dave, LV, Suki, Myself, Keron... All of us at thirteen were probably more world-weary and well-read than the entirety of some internet communities out there. Would it have been fair at all to any of us to be denied access to something that we were entirely ready for simply because the remainder of the world were half-wits? I was having religious debates online before half of these kids were born, and forming cogent arguments long before any of these kids found their first rickroll. I started debating religion when I was twelve, and I'm sure the remainder of the dudes in leadership here did much the same.

You mention maniac, who was a decent member at 11 years old, but he still had that "kiddie" mentality and outlook on life, yeah? So, I dunno - call it elitist if you will, but some people are just better-equipped to handle social situations than others. And as much as I would love to see the regime-like 1984 implementations put immediately and irreversibly on the internet, I still haven't found a good way of doing it - Even age restrictions. I know 45-year olds who are less mature than my kids, and my kids aren't even born yet.

Also, the internet is not at all about free speech, and it never was intended to be about freedom, liberties, or anything of the sort. The demographic who has grown up with the internet has assumed that anonymity and free speech on the internet are somehow "rights" that have been bestowed upon them. Ya'll know that I'm all about the strict controls on internet - whether it be age limitations or what-have-you. This bullshit of Internet being about "Doing what you want to do lulz" has just gotta be stomped out. This is one of the reasons I enjoy being an Admin/Moderator/Game Master/et cetera - I get to control certain aspects of internet and what is and is not acceptable.

Edit: And flagmyidol makes a good point - Without the internet as it currently is, we wouldn't have Metanet. I still think fervently that this is easily the best community on the internet, and I'll defend to the death that what Keron did initially - And what we've done since - Has been able to create an environment where people can learn and grow and make better decisions as people than if their first foray into internet were elsewhere.

Edit Again: Donfuy's idea wouldn't be bad at all. I'd like to see at least some standardization on what Internet is and is not capable of doing. Upon standardization, ratings, and the like, we'd no longer see virus sites at all - Every website and every server worldwide would be held to the same standards of content, and malicious or illegal/immoral information would quickly be squelched. Places like 4chan simply couldn't exist, and perhaps even each user worldwide would have a user ID code that would identify them (Akin to a Social Security Number), and restrict the content they'd be allowed to access/create.

Edit one last time: http://quotes.maestrosync.com/view.php?63

[Cheez]

Tbh I'm only 12.

My bro, lolzers, is only 9.

He acts immature, though, and I think it would be nice if more people had more of a grasp on things, instead of running around posting on forums with grammar like an idiot's.

[Losttortuga]

Seems like you're suggesting an idea that would completely change what the internet consists of now. Sure, there are forums like these with debaters and generally logical people that are better off without people shitting around everywhere, but there are so many sites out in the wide wide interblagz where children wouldn't be a bane. Take gaming sites for example, where it doesn't matter who plays what (excluding online games, but I suppose there are already ways of combating that). Children contributing isn't always bad either, I'm sure there are a handful of communities where the majority of the users are children. Should they be stopped from communicating with themselves, if they can't contribute to any kind of forum/blog/whatnot? There's no gap in the member base's maturity, by your definition of maturity, which causes the problem you're talking about. This definition of mature is a bit shaky, as you pointed out yourself, and that these kind of restrictions would change what the internet is now into some kind of exclusive club.

The closest parallel to what you're talking about are communities like these, with a bunch of close-knit members who can debate and such without too much distraction.

[Atilla]

I feel that some websites become spammed with users who are inbetweenies (11-13). At this point they seem to think they are the shit, which coupled with stupidity and a dash of toilet jokes, makes every post/comment by them cause severe RAGE!

They do that in real life, too. I recommend we keep them in small boxes in the cellar until they are 16, so they can't tarnish society with their idiocy.

Seriously, though, minors are allowed to write to newspapers, publish books, mail letters to the local senator, join the Young Liberals, wave placards, stand on soapboxes and rant about the Rapture, and hand me silly pamphlets about the Lifestream. I don't see why they should be banned from saying stuff everywhere on the internet. If they're being disruptive in your personal corner of the 'net you can always ban them from that.

Also, I think that to learn netiquette they have to get out there in online society. Kids in the real world often make comments which are impolite or non-sequitur because they haven't fully learned or understood social conventions (or because they have a five-minute attention span). I don't think you can teach them to be polite by shutting them away from the world; by the same token, I don't think you can teach kids to be good net citizens by shutting them out of the net.

[Yoshimo]

The best solution would be Age Pinlocks. Basically, whenever you use the internet, the website that you're on checks your E-pin against the sites standards, and if things match up, the site is opne. If things don't, the server administrator would choos to make it read-only or no access.

Given that the Admins preset these when they make/edit the site and that you need a user pin-number to verify yourself.

Edit: Let's say that little Jhonny is 7, browsing the 'net to find cool little flash (or unity, which is better) games, and stumbles into this site. Whoever pays for this site would preset the age to be ten to access, but since there are no mature content, he can still read.

Then, he types the wrong thing in google and 18+ stuff pops up. He doesn't know what it is so he clicks. The site's admin will set 18 and above with no read if younger. Little johnny is saved from embarrassment.

[scythe]

Imposing an age requirement on the Internet seems like imposing an age requirement on caffeine: it'll turn it from something that people don't think to misuse (very often) to something that people think of almost entirely in terms of misuse, and act accordingly. It's a situation of "don't stuff beans up your nose!".

Why not just implement the age restriction on the server end? SomethingAwful is doing great. Ditto for Metafilter. USENET groups have almost no kids. I know that most of the sites I go on are more-or-less entirely devoid of under-16s, and I might have a skewed perspective because of it.

What sites do you go on that have a problem with kids? Aside from, of course, Digg/Youtube et al, which actively encourage stupidity.

[otters~1]

Another, somewhat tangential idea I was thinking of with respect to what I said earlier (that the internet can bring out the best in people) is this: the web is like a giant psychological experiment, in a way. Due to near-complete anonymity, introverts can act extroverted (and vice-versa), and kids (or anyone) who are normally not taken seriously/have no one to talk to can air their opinions and debate. I find this fascinating, especially it's effect on people's characters. I even wrote an English essay about it the other day.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you think it's on-topic enough.

[yungerkid]

*coughs*

well, i don't think that an age block would be proper. i think kids are immature, and are annoying, but we shouldn't just block them from the *entire* internet. certain sites, sure, but kids should be able to use the internet a bit. everyone has their place on the internet. younger kids (*cough*) don't know their places as well as old people do. but that doesn't mean they should be totally restricted.

[scythe]

Another, somewhat tangential idea I was thinking of with respect to what I said earlier (that the internet can bring out the best in people) is this: the web is like a giant psychological experiment, in a way. Due to near-complete anonymity, introverts can act extroverted (and vice-versa), and kids (or anyone) who are normally not taken seriously/have no one to talk to can air their opinions and debate. I find this fascinating, especially it's effect on people's characters. I even wrote an English essay about it the other day.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you think it's on-topic enough.

The Internet took me from being a really quiet, reserved kid who talked to about two or three people ever to a much less anxious, way more social teenager. It did me a lot of good from 12-15. Would I say I'm better off for having discovered messageboards at 12? Hell yes.
Of course, I'm sure dhea/testosterone helped out a lot too.

[Rhekatou]

"i say: whoever you consider to be an idiot.....nuke them" -Maligus

Every first-world country has a minimum age for the ability to voice your opinion in an official, legislative capacity, and I think that's for a good reason. It's clear to me, and I think to just about anyone else who would read this, that the majority of a young age group is... lacking in wisdom, let's say, relative to older people.

Obviously, the internet is extremely useful for educational purposes, and that reason alone is more than enough to even encourage use by children and teenagers... They can go online all they like but can't attempt to contribute. I think it mirrors some other systems we have in place that are based on wisdom with age, such as voting, alcohol consumption, and driving. Without a doubt, there are probably teenagers whose opinions are more informed and intelligent than most adults, just as there are teenagers who can... more intelligent[ly] than many adults were they allowed to do so, but the net benefit (or convenience, really) would exceed that loss.

And obviously, this'll be easier to pull off in some future where everyone has their own computer.

So start talking.

Well, the point is what would we ask these "underagers' not to do. I see them maybe looking on a forum, and randomly spamming it as a six year-old whose parents don't care.
Specifically to forums, I think that the "I am over age 13" option should be also reversed:
say, for any age, a probationary term with a set group of members who must approve the posts they make, and can notify the new members.
In any case, I like this idea, but as scythe put up, it would be ridiculous to have a "minimum age".
Then, like they already do, we would have no proof they were the age that they said they are. It would just become another reason to wreck havoc/mess up all the rules on the internet.
It works on the same principle as cyber-stalking - noone can tell who/what age you are.
All it would do is increase "internet vandilization" - people using proxies to make random accounts and spam to boycott - heck, you might even have government sites crash from too many pings from distributed "boycott" hacking programs where you would overload them.
It would just be a bad idea, even though the thought of 11 year olds looking up porn makes me shudder too, i think it would be an altogether unwise idea. I still like the probationary idea though, and i think it should be discussed (this is the third forum ive put it on).


Ahh well, i still think that would be a bad idea, and would be entirely uncontrollable.
~Rheka

[GamingWolf]

This is an interesting problem seeing how people have attempted to place restrictions before. I point you now to the infamous AOL and its Parental Controls. See what really gets me is that although many children may be stupid, I am starting to believe that there is a significant portion that only have the skill to work around any restrictions placed on them and no seemingly positive characteristics of their personalities or potential.

When a tyrannical organization and various cyberterrorists squabble over what should be done, the people who ultimately get the raw end of the deal are legitimately good people. So then how do you make sure these kids are ready? Agh I'm losing my train of thought. Something about parenting I'm sure. Man don't tell me this is unsolvable.

[T3chno]

They should make two internets. One for 13 and under and one for 14+.

:D:D:D

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I'm only replying to a few things here because I'm still internalizing most of this. Don't think that just because you guys have said something and no one has addressed it that it hasn't been read and considered.

That said, just a few points:

I would tend to agree, but here's the thing - How would it ever be enforced?

I'm really less interested in how it happens as much as whether it should happen at all. If we think it should happen, then we should start worrying about how it's done. Identify the problem first... or in this case, whether there is a problem at all.

Edit: And flagmyidol makes a good point - Without the internet as it currently is, we wouldn't have Metanet. I still think fervently that this is easily the best community on the internet, and I'll defend to the death that what Keron did initially - And what we've done since - Has been able to create an environment where people can learn and grow and make better decisions as people than if their first foray into internet were elsewhere.

You don't ever think that it wouldn't stand out as much if children just didn't flock to online messageboards? I mean, who's bigger but far worse than us? Who is it that makes us look good? Gaia Online? And who's their target demographic?

for any age, a probationary term with a set group of members who must approve the posts they make, and can notify the new members.
In any case, I like this idea, but as scythe put up, it would be ridiculous to have a "minimum age".

Sounds like it'd work, but it'd be such a headache. Besides which, even reasonable, intelligent people are less inclined to join if they have to go through an approval process.

Another, somewhat tangential idea I was thinking of with respect to what I said earlier (that the internet can bring out the best in people) is this: the web is like a giant psychological experiment, in a way. Due to near-complete anonymity, introverts can act extroverted (and vice-versa), and kids (or anyone) who are normally not taken seriously/have no one to talk to can air their opinions and debate.

My mind was actually wandering more toward a forum or chat client (with public chatrooms, even) designed for kids, but somehow official. It'd be there that they could interact with their peers. And while they'll still be able to Google their interests all they like, they wouldn't be able to start threads like "IF EVALUTION IS TRUE HOW COME BABBIES ARNT BORN MONKEYS?????????" If somehow that could encourage them to Google their questions instead of forming the habit of throwing their ignorance around, I think that would be very well worth it.
I actually wonder, now... supposing there was a perfect way to ensure age restrictions, how many (non-pedo) adults would wander into chatrooms where all ages are welcome instead of heading to the adults-only chat? I want to see what proportion of children hang out in the kids-only section versus the public chat, and how many adults are fine talking with and among kids compared to those who only think other adults are worth talking to. And would one group dominate the public chat and chase the rest out?

Imposing an age requirement on the Internet seems like imposing an age requirement on caffeine: it'll turn it from something that people don't think to misuse (very often) to something that people think of almost entirely in terms of misuse, and act accordingly. It's a situation of "don't stuff beans up your nose!".

But I think it would end up being something like USENET. Without appeal to children, it'd be just another thing that boring adults do, like hang out upstairs for hours just sitting around and talking instead of playing with toy trucks (or in the case of today's youth, instead of dropping acid and going to a rave).

[capt_weasle]

It's pretty damn stupid. They're pretty damn stupid, lacking a lot of general culture.

Says the man with a "Your purpose is boobs" quote in his signature.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I don't think it would be entirely acceptable to ban children from the internet. Much of it is out there to entertain, and it's good business for many others. And as much as I would love to not see another "ey guyz hw ur doin 2day?" post, just because what someone does is irritating doesn't mean you can force them to stop. Sure, if it's your message board you can ban them or what have you, but cutting them off has too many limitations. Also, forums such as this one do help certain people to learn how to properly act in such a place, and guides them to being a better poster in general (hooray for operational conditioning!).

[Ampersand]

Seems like you're suggesting an idea that would completely change what the internet consists of now. Sure, there are forums like these with debaters and generally logical people that are better off without people shitting around everywhere, but there are so many sites out in the wide wide interblagz where children wouldn't be a bane. Take gaming sites for example, where it doesn't matter who plays what (excluding online games, but I suppose there are already ways of combating that). Children contributing isn't always bad either, I'm sure there are a handful of communities where the majority of the users are children. Should they be stopped from communicating with themselves, if they can't contribute to any kind of forum/blog/whatnot? There's no gap in the member base's maturity, by your definition of maturity, which causes the problem you're talking about. This definition of mature is a bit shaky, as you pointed out yourself, and that these kind of restrictions would change what the internet is now into some kind of exclusive club.

The closest parallel to what you're talking about are communities like these, with a bunch of close-knit members who can debate and such without too much distraction.

Well, here's the only problem I see with what you're talking about - If "maturity" is measured in the things you post, you can have a number of different levels - Intelligent, well thought-out posts, all the way down to posting "desu desu desu desu desu."

Take the latter - Everyone posting "desu desu desu desu" at one another would be a bunch of folk around the same measured maturity level. But where does that leave us? Monkeys flinging shit at each other. Thus, no. I don't think grouping people into similar maturity levels could work, because those who aren't allowed in the "cool kids club" will end up flinging poo and trying to hack the elite servers for the sole purpose of bringing it down "for the lulz."

But you're right, it would indeed change the way the internet works. And for the better.

Bionic: Unfortunately, there would inevitably be site managers who forego the age requirement (See: 4chan, SomethingAwful, Newgrounds, etc.) for the sole purpose of "Stickin' it to the Man."

Scythe: I think the kind of stupidity those sites run across is less due to age and more due to lack of direction. Parents don't teach their kids netiquette, Admins/Communities don't teach their users netiquette, and they learn this bastardized sense of always-trolling to be the norm.

flag: It's certainly interesting, but as I've worked in retail and been online as much as I have, I've learned quickly that some people just shouldn't be heard. I had a lady in my store the other day who continued jawing on about how her cell-phone is a two-way listening device and how the world is actually flat and the space landings were a sham and how Big Brother already exists, and she actually asked me - In all fucking seriousness - If her new television was watching her. No, that person should not, under any circumstances, have a fucking opinion.

yungerkid: Fitting name for the debate. I find that when parents monitor and/or teach their kids the right things to do and say (And hell, in general - If parents teach their kids to behave the right way), it really doesn't matter.

[Tanner]

Parents don't teach their kids netiquette, Admins/Communities don't teach their users netiquette, and they learn this bastardized sense of always-trolling to be the norm.

I wonder, then, as the generation that grew up with the internet begins to have children, if we will begin to see a new breed of young internet users who have been taught their internet Ps and Qs along with where they were supposed to put their desert forks. I don't know many but I do know a few 12 year olds that seem reasonably mature in real life and I suspect that if I ran in the correct social circles (hanging out in front of the middle school, hanging out in the arcade, hanging out in the McDonald's ball pit) I know even more.

I think it's unreasonable for us to expect young internet users to behave in ways that they have never been taught to behave. Currently, other, older internet users are teaching younger ones how to behave and it sort of works but it's the situation we have now where there's that adaptation time that seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Which is why it would be nice to have parents teach internet manners while they're teaching table manners. Hell, we're teaching kids not to be friends with Suki on Myspace, why can't we teach them where the caps lock button is?

[Donfuy]

It's pretty damn stupid. They're pretty damn stupid, lacking a lot of general culture.

Says the man with a "Your purpose is boobs" quote in his signature.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I don't think it would be entirely acceptable to ban children from the internet. Much of it is out there to entertain, and it's good business for many others. And as much as I would love to not see another "ey guyz hw ur doin 2day?" post, just because what someone does is irritating doesn't mean you can force them to stop. Sure, if it's your message board you can ban them or what have you, but cutting them off has too many limitations. Also, forums such as this one do help certain people to learn how to properly act in such a place, and guides them to being a better poster in general (hooray for operational conditioning!).

It's a quote from iGod -- how can that mean I'm stupid and/or lack general culture? (even if it's a poor...uhm... "joke", or no "joke" at all)

[SkyPanda]

The current system works fine. Moderators/admins of sites can remove content that is illegal or offensive. If unintelligent content is also that undersirable, then it too can be removed. The age of the person posting the content never needs to be a factor. That way, unintelligent content is removed, and intelligent kids can post away to their heart's content.

I don't think you can teach them to be polite by shutting them away from the world; by the same token, I don't think you can teach kids to be good net citizens by shutting them out of the net.

QFE. Wise and eloquent <3

I glance at aphex's post and cringe at the unfathomable memetude incorporated therein - and I just shake my head.

There are worse things than being unintelligent, Ampersand.

[Rhekatou]

Virtually, any way to do that would be a pain, and it is virtually impossible to tell people not to lie.
So, maybe if you had to scan your birth certificate, send in photo id, go to the office, and get a fingerprint locked internet access card it might work. But no one would do that.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think this roots back to my argument in the Wikipedia thread. People on the internet do not have to use their real names or identify themselves, so if they're wrong, no reputation lost, no credibility at stake. Move on to the next website and troll. It'd be pretty cool if you only had one screenname globally and you could be blacklisted for doing shitty things. (And, of course, everyone would throw away their blacklists when you turn eighteen.)

[Spawn of Yanni]

Almost relevant little article.