1650
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
1650 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
84143 readers
2136 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
Wow, that really escalated quickly from car damage. These are all crimes you can charge kids with just like adults. You cannot and should not charge their parents, who had abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to do with it. This is insane. Seriously, do you even think of the wider implications of a position that you are arguing, or do you just pick the dumbest fucking stance and stick with it all the way?
And, to go further, we definitely shouldn't have any laws about drinking, smoking, driving, getting tattoos, etc. We just leave it up to the parents to make those decisions too, right? We have to trust them all to make the right decisions and don't bother making any rules or laws, right? 🤡
https://apnews.com/article/james-crumbley-jennifer-crumbley-oxford-school-shooting-e5888f615c76c3b26153c34dc36d5436
These two had "literally nothing" to do with it, and they were charged for it. It's called Neglect.
https://abcnews.com/US/parents-charged-manslaughter-boy-struck-car-gastonia-north-carolina/story?id=122500748
And yes, if your kid commits crimes, then you can be fined and sued for it. You are responsible for the conduct of your child while your child is incapable of being responsible for themselves.
Let's not forget, by your framework of parental responsibility, if your unsupervised child sees porn on discord because they wandered into a community of people talking about porn... Tough shit, that's life.
Drinking and driving can and do harm others. I understand age gating those activities to prevent unresponsible children from hurting other people and themselves. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". The age limits on smoking and also drinking, are there to prevent tobacco and alcohol vendors from hooking children on addictive substances. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". Age requirements to get tattoos are there to prevent children from getting life-long body altering ink from a vendor who had a financial interest in doing the work. Some states do allow teens to get tattoos, with parental consent BTW. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life".
This is exactly what I meant when I said you should think about the wider implications of your argument before you make it and nail your identity to it.
Tell you what. Let's do one more thing here to really test your conviction to this argument that discord should be photo-ID-ing it's users. The Fediverse is an equally open (if not more so) forum where people can communicate in ways that convey NSFW content. I will stick to my guns, and accept the consequences of any child I'm responsible for seeing titties or a live leak murder if I let them on the internet unsupervised. You, on the other hand, need to show us all a photo ID (make it your profile pic, or put it in your bio, to prove you're not a child) before you can post further on any platform? Deal? Or are you going to back out of what you are advocating to force on everyone?
Your entire comment is predicated on a position that I've already told you I do not hold, so good job on making a long and intentional strawman.
Neglect is what I alluded to earlier by saying "demonstrating a pattern of bad parenting".
And to be clear, by "cannot" I was not saying it's impossible, I was saying it's wrong.
Social media and porn also can and do harm others.
Yes, I'm aware of what the purpose of that law is. It sounds like, by your position, we shouldn't have those laws, because that's a parents' responsibility. Is that correct? And if not, please elaborate on how that's different.
I'm sorry. I can't speak with you further. Discussion could include references to material that is not appropriate for children. Please prove you are over 18 years old if you would like to continue this conversation.
I see you're sticking with the strawman strategy.
Please prove you are over 18 years old if you would like to continue this conversation.