Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's very easy to protect kids online - simply don't allow them online. Banning children from the internet violates fewer people's rights(the number of children) than violating everyone's right to privacy(the total population: adults + children).

The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids must be online. A cursory glance reveals that they in fact do not.



> The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids > must be online.

You haven't listened to a single word of it have you?

https://soundcloud.com/chrismorrisbits/peter-ohanraha-hanrah...

It says precisely the opposite.


The podcast starts with a kid interviewing parents who unanimously support the bill, calling it brilliant.

If the podcast wants to say the thing, they should say the thing rather than its opposite.


I'm sorry you felt tricked by that dramatic device.

Perhaps listen to end of the podcast to get closure.


Ya know, I actually upvoted your very-downvoted comment above, but if you’re going to hand out homework, make sure it’s not 1.25 hours long. If you have a point to make, make it; don’t outsource it to long-winded podcasters.


Thanks. And fair enough, it's a big ask to listen through the whole episode.


Interesting critique considering the podcast says the exact opposite.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: