Should there be limits on who is allowed online?

Essentially, people below a certain age would not be allowed to browse the Web, or play online with games that had that feature (playing offline is still acceptable, however). And perhaps extend that restriction so that you must pass a certain set of prerequisites before you are approved to browse the Web (sort of like getting a driver's license, but a bit different).

The hope would be that this concept would reduce the level of "immaturity" that exists at all levels of Web communication, at all age groups.

Not the right section really.

Also the plan would only really pass in societies that have a government controlled land. The United States wouldn't be able to do something like this let alone many others. There is just no way to really dictate the age of someone once they get on the computer, and most parents won't bother with keeping their kids off all the time.

Anyway parents just need to be parents and learn what locks are for so their child will not browse those inappropriate things. If you have a gaming device and don't want your kid using it then put it up so you can only use it or password protect it. The idea of a limit on age online is just a stupid concept that wouldn't work. Let alone how many kids under the age of 10 are browsing the internet chatting up people?

The internet being an international thing I can't see them regulating it that hard.

Personally no, politics aside it just sounds like a bad idea to limit who is online because it is used for education as well. And it isn't like you can control who is using a computer at any given time. One hour a 40 year old man may be using it to shop for something on amazon and the next it'll be a 14 year old kid watching a youtube video.

If kids need to be kept away from extremely violent content or the cesspools of the internet, the parents need to keep track of where they go.

Deciding on whether or not a child should be able to use the internet is up to the discretion of the parent, plain and simple.

There are already internet blocks in schools and libraries, so for personal use should be up to the parent. There doesn't need to be more things the government babies shitty parents for.

I dont really think the level of immaturity on the web is actually related to a portion of its users being literally immature in terms of age. It is more the nature of the medium itself along with certain locations within it. Certain sites will always be immature but not because their users are young. There are also certain locales where people mostly act civil. /b will never be mature for example but some other parts of 4chan can be.. Mind you, it is still 4chan so not really a good example. I suppose for this site the comparison could be between IB and SD.

I would more think restricting online usage for youth would be meant to protect them as opposed to improve the internet for other users. I guess youre coming from an online gamer perspective dealing with squeeky 10 year olds playing shooters? Ive never felt annoyed by the internet because of another users age. I have been offended because of assholes but that is kind of a different issue.

So yeah, restricting its use really is up to the discretion of parents.

Well, shooters definitely have their fair share of "squeekers", but even then, I could live with that if it was only that. I'm more referring to the people who discriminate racially, and against the mentally challenged really. Some of the more "benign" remarks, I can often turn a blind eye to. But when people start using some of the "harsher" remarks, and even go as far as to put it in their user name, that's when it starts to bother me. And it isn't the usual "nigga be hatin" remarks either (sorry about using that "word", yuck). I don't even want to describe how bad it is, but you can probably figure it out.

Most of those Individuals are trying to get people to say something to them. They must get a kick from pissing people off. To me if I hear someone acting stupid on their mic I mute them. People are always trying to do stuff just to piss people off, but most of those people now are either older teenagers or in their 20s it seems. So even if you could put a limit it just means when kids get to that age they can then act childish on the internet.

Ultimately it's the responsibility of the parents.

Yeah like Blinkgirl said and I attempted to imply in my original post, the individuals taking part in this discrimination are generally not kids but teens and young adults. Banning say everyone under idunno 13 for example would really change nothing about the internet itself. It isnt a problem related to immaturity of that kind. I would even say it is an issue simply of the annonymous and widespread nature of the internet. Jerks exist because lots of people use the internet and its communication is mediated and often annonymous.

There can be report methods implimented and things of that nature to discourage this kind of behaviour. In online games and the like I am certainly for this so long as they arent easy to abuse against people who dont really deserve being reported.

I guess what youre thinking is some sort of test to certify your online usage? I dont really think it would be practical. Nothing would stop a user from passing a test then acting like an asshat the next day. It is possible such a certificate could then be tracked I guess or available to be reported for negative behavior and then fined but this train of thought is really scary to think about. Tieing all of my internet usage to a certification attached to my actual identity like a drivers liscense is an absurd violation of my internet privacy. Also who would review these kind of reports or determine whether someone should be "fined" or "banned" upon reviewing their activity.

Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that it should really be left upto the modderators or server lords of a specific bowel of the internet to enforce such standards not the government. And if these authority figures dont want to enforce any standards of behaviour they should be free to do so as well.

In the case of online games, maybe their should be a bit more obligation on the part of the company to discourage bad behaviour simply because it is a product theyre selling to people. Even then, I think it should be something like esrb rating systems that makes these companies responsible for this and not the government itself.

The best they could do is what China and Japan does. Blocking foreign IP's and/or porn related sites through their services. In this case, the federal government would have to either, buy all the internet providers, or, impose really heavy laws demanding those companies to conform too more government regulations. That of which already comes under fire by internet users. At the very least, if they want to target individuals, it would have to be something similar to South Korea's social security number used for anything and everything online, including mmo's. This allows easier access for the US government to actively monitoring every action committed online.

The internet is a medium where people from around the world, regardless of nationality, race, or political standing can come together for civil discussion. Something government has never been to fond of, for it can easily obscure the lines that divide us and hurt patriotism. That's why North Korea doesn't have it and why China polices theirs, why Russia and US monitors theirs (and in US's case, others), and why Iran went black out... trailing off...

Internet allows us to share and experience with one another, things that would normally be hidden or put up behind pay walls. To make it a conditional opportunity (such as pay walls, comcast and at&t) already holds us back from improving as a whole. Yes we get bad apples in it, but that's because the internet doesn't deny anyone (who can pay for it, with exception to people with a public library, with a open computer connected to the internet, within walking distance).

I already don't like the US government's influence on the internet... giving them anymore power would be... allowing them to tell people what they can and can't view... ya... not a pleasant thought.

Shouldn't this be moved to Serious Discussions?

Anyway, I agree with both the second and fourth options of the poll: everyone should be free to surf the net at their leisure, and the government does NOT need to butt in and start censoring stuff, unless there's a sound reason - the Turkish Government shutting down Twitter and Youtube, for example, is NOT what should happen in a modern, developed nation.

That said, it's also true that, if left unchecked, a young or inexperienced person could be easily scammed or stumble upon sites dealing with, ah, questionable stuff (teh internets is for p0rn). Which is why I believe that kids or newbies should be taught (the former) or learn (the latter) the risks of the net.

Finally, if restrictions would be placed on stuff like auction sites, porn sites or online gaming (example = one has to be a legal adult in his/her country to be able to access to certain stuff), I agree with those, though we all know how easy it would be to bypass them.

PS: I'm speaking from a less specific point of view, so if the thread was aimed at American citizens only, feel free to ignore what I said.

It's just something that's very hard to avoid, parents might not allow their son/daughter to be online at home but they might be able to at a friend's home.

And they're already exposed to a lot of other things such as music, tv, etc. that affects them in many ways.

Dunno I guess, I've been on the internet since I was young, I'm not doing too bad. :P

There are several issues with this.

It would be seriously difficult to accomplish in an effective manner.

Most likely if things WERE limited, it would be limited on an overall basis.

Or it would require constant input of highly sensitive information leading to m ore potential than there already is for identity theft.

The government is already encroaching on the internet in an attempt to control it, do you really want to give them reason to do it?

And in all honesty, the only way you COULD regulate it in an effective manner is as said before, to limit it to EVERYONE. Otherwise there would be too much room for work around that it would just not be effective for the ones that would really need it.