[DRAFT] Regulating Child Internet Access

[Alkzine]

can't have any gore in any media after all.

“depictions of mutilated bodies or sadistic torture”

Please read before commenting.

[Zetaopalatopia]

Would religious texts fall under violent content? The Bible alone has depictions of sacrifice and stoning as well as depictions on the intentional drowning of large populations which could be read as supporting genocide. How about war history resources?

Fixed. Thanks for the feedback!

I see you only added an exception for historical records for education and not an exception for religious texts. Can I take this to mean the bill would support censorship of religious texts that include depictions of violent acts such as the mention of stoning or sacrifice? Most religious texts also include depictions of fetishistic acts, the primary example being incest so I could see religious texts being banned under the restriction of sexual content as well.

[Alkzine]

Fixed. Thanks for the feedback!

I see you only added an exception for historical records for education and not an exception for religious texts. Can I take this to mean the bill would support censorship of religious texts that include depictions of violent acts such as the mention of stoning or sacrifice? Most religious texts also include depictions of fetishistic acts, the primary example being incest so I could see religious texts being banned under the restriction of sexual content as well.

Please properly read the full definition provided, and you’ll see why religious texts wouldn’t factor in. Furthermost, you’re confusing “mention of” for “depiction”—they’re not the same thing, unfortunately.

[New Westmore]

I think it is blatantly clear that this proposal is a non-starter.

[Alkzine]

I think it is blatantly clear that this proposal is a non-starter.

Please clarify what you mean, if you’re going to comment on our thread.

[The Ice States]

I think it is blatantly clear that this proposal is a non-starter.

Please clarify what you mean, if you’re going to comment on our thread.

For the record, who is the "our" here?

[Alkzine]

Please clarify what you mean, if you’re going to comment on our thread.

For the record, who is the "our" here?

Our nation’s WA Mission coupled with whomever supports this Legislation

[Elyreia]

Such a disingenuous poll, by a disingenuous delegate. At least they're consistent.

Point to Point data encryption does not anonymize data, nor does it prevent the data from being intercepted, nor from where it is stored from being compromised. A VPN will bypass your attempt at security every time.

I think it is blatantly clear that this proposal is a non-starter.

Please clarify what you mean, if you’re going to comment on our thread.

They're allowed to comment on the feasibility and not give you feedback why.

[Alkzine]

Such a disingenuous poll, by a disingenuous delegate. At least they're consistent.

Apologies, but please don’t attack the poll just because you don’t like the way delegates voted.

Point to Point data encryption does not anonymize data

No. Data anonymization does.

A VPN will bypass your attempt at security every time.

Thanks for this one—will be fixing imminently.

[Alkzine]

VPN issue addressed. Is it fixed?

[Kasdados]

Humble opinion: Minors shouldn’t have pornographic material. I’m terrified that I even have to say this, but the poll is always right.

[New Westmore]

Humble opinion: Minors shouldn’t have pornographic material. I’m terrified that I even have to say this, but the poll is always right.

They shouldn't, but they do. Regardless, I still believe no amount of legislating is ever going to properly stop minors from accessing things they shouldnt be seeing - this is a matter of family at best, and the obligation to prevent children from accessing porn/etc. should lie on both the parents and the children themselves.

[Cessarea]

VPN issue addressed. Is it fixed?

You can't juzt say "compliance will be ensured by the WACC" when it's so obvious that enforcing compliance is exceesingly dofficult, if not impossible. You have to at least attempt to describe how that committee is supposed to enforce that mandate.

Otherwise you could write a resolution banning all bad things and say that the WACC can enforce it!

[Alkzine]

Humble opinion: Minors shouldn’t have pornographic material. I’m terrified that I even have to say this, but the poll is always right.

They shouldn't, but they do. Regardless, I still believe no amount of legislating is ever going to properly stop minors from accessing things they shouldnt be seeing - this is a matter of family at best, and the obligation to prevent children from accessing porn/etc. should lie on both the parents and the children themselves.

It’s not right for multimillion-dollar corporations to make this content accessible to minors and then claim it the child’s responsibility to avoid it. They don’t have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and this is the same with knives, vapes, alcohol etc; we don’t just say “it's the parents/kids responsiblity”

[Alkzine]

VPN issue addressed. Is it fixed?

You can't juzt say "compliance will be ensured by the WACC" when it's so obvious that enforcing compliance is exceesingly dofficult, if not impossible. You have to at least attempt to describe how that committee is supposed to enforce that mandate.

Otherwise you could write a resolution banning all bad things and say that the WACC can enforce it!

“Virtual private network (VPN) services have a legal responsibility to ensure their services are not used by children to bypass these content safeguards, by requiring accurate verification of client age if sexually explicit or shockingly violent content is being attempted to be accessed. Compliance will be ensured through the World Assembly Compliance Commission through periodic audits of VPN providers; noncompliance will result in escalating punishment action from the World Assembly, including fines and enforced closure.”


How is that ?

[New Westmore]

They shouldn't, but they do. Regardless, I still believe no amount of legislating is ever going to properly stop minors from accessing things they shouldnt be seeing - this is a matter of family at best, and the obligation to prevent children from accessing porn/etc. should lie on both the parents and the children themselves.

It’s not right for multimillion-dollar corporations to make this content accessible to minors and then claim it the child’s responsibility to avoid it. They don’t have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and this is the same with knives, vapes, alcohol etc; we don’t just say “it's the parents/kids responsiblity”

This is the thing: it's not made to be accessible to minors on purpose. It is made to be accessible... to adults. We literally cannot enforce anything on the internet because everyone is anonymous and everyone can see what they want. You cannot stop a zeitgeist as immense as the Internet from doing what it does best, you can only hope to encourage healthy opinions at the very most.

[Cessarea]

You can't juzt say "compliance will be ensured by the WACC" when it's so obvious that enforcing compliance is exceesingly dofficult, if not impossible. You have to at least attempt to describe how that committee is supposed to enforce that mandate.

Otherwise you could write a resolution banning all bad things and say that the WACC can enforce it!

“Virtual private network (VPN) services have a legal responsibility to ensure their services are not used by children to bypass these content safeguards, by requiring accurate verification of client age if sexually explicit or shockingly violent content is being attempted to be accessed. Compliance will be ensured through the World Assembly Compliance Commission through periodic audits of VPN providers; noncompliance will result in escalating punishment action from the World Assembly, including fines and enforced closure.”


How is that ?

It'd be wholly ineffective, but that is marginally better.

[Alkzine]

It’s not right for multimillion-dollar corporations to make this content accessible to minors and then claim it the child’s responsibility to avoid it. They don’t have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and this is the same with knives, vapes, alcohol etc; we don’t just say “it's the parents/kids responsiblity”

This is the thing: it's not made to be accessible to minors on purpose. It is made to be accessible... to adults. We literally cannot enforce anything on the internet because everyone is anonymous and everyone can see what they want. You cannot stop a zeitgeist as immense as the Internet from doing what it does best, you can only hope to encourage healthy opinions at the very most.

Several IRL nations have implemented age restrictions on porn sites very similar to what’s being suggested here, so that should translate into feasible possibility for our multiverse as well.

[Alkzine]

“Virtual private network (VPN) services have a legal responsibility to ensure their services are not used by children to bypass these content safeguards, by requiring accurate verification of client age if sexually explicit or shockingly violent content is being attempted to be accessed. Compliance will be ensured through the World Assembly Compliance Commission through periodic audits of VPN providers; noncompliance will result in escalating punishment action from the World Assembly, including fines and enforced closure.”


How is that ?

It'd be wholly ineffective, but that is marginally better.

“6. World Assembly-based financial institutions, payment processors, and advertisers are prohibited from supporting or conducting business with companies in non-member nations that host or facilitate access to sexually explicit content without the requirements mandated by this resolution.”

Thanks. This should help too.

[Zetaopalatopia]

VPNs aside. It will be impossible to regulate or censor deep/dark websites. With how tech literate people are at younger ages it would be a simple matter for them to simply bypass any and all attempts to restrict content by using what is effectively the lawless majority of uncataloged sites.

Due to the risk that this proposal will encourage youth to seek the content they wish to see from less safe areas of the internet I can't in good faith support it.

[Alkzine]

VPNs aside. It will be impossible to regulate or censor deep/dark websites. With how tech literate people are at younger ages it would be a simple matter for them to simply bypass any and all attempts to restrict content by using what is effectively the lawless majority of uncataloged sites.

Due to the risk that this proposal will encourage youth to seek the content they wish to see from less safe areas of the internet I can't in good faith support it.

Sorry, but young people can purchase drugs through the dark web—that doesn’t mean we enable them to do so through “legitimate” businesses too

[Cessarea]

VPNs aside. It will be impossible to regulate or censor deep/dark websites. With how tech literate people are at younger ages it would be a simple matter for them to simply bypass any and all attempts to restrict content by using what is effectively the lawless majority of uncataloged sites.

Due to the risk that this proposal will encourage youth to seek the content they wish to see from less safe areas of the internet I can't in good faith support it.

Sorry, but young people can purchase drugs through the dark web—that doesn’t mean we enable them to do so through “legitimate” businesses too

Frankly, you seem to be willing to trade in a huge deal of anonymity for something that I'm not sure is worth it. You'd be asking every single inhabitant of WA member-nations to have to identify themselves when consuming any sort of violent or sexual content (which is dangerous, no matter how many data protection clauses you include, as we've seen with real-life data leaks) and for what? Keeping minors from viewing violent imagery. Great, that's good, I'd rather not have minors being able to access gore. But this is not something that can be regulated like this.

This kind of content is almost exclusive to the internet nowadays - there's no physical stores we can shut down, which is why attempting to regulate this is silly. Prohibiting alcohol from being sold to minors works (in part) because it puts in a sufficient roadblock - it prevents them from directly, immediately buying it. Very, very few things are actually able to prevent minors from watching shocking content. It's just there, on the internet, for free, a few links away at most. Parents should talk to their children about the internet and be responsible about their upbringing when they make the decision to let their child have unrestricted access to internet. I am not willing to massively reduce data privacy and anonymity for the sake of doing something individual parents should already be doing in the first place.

Let the parents sort it out, they're more than capable to, and if they're not they're also capable of physically restricting their child's internet access. This cause is not severe enough to merit such measures. If little Timmy finds himself watching a Mexican Cartel video, he'll surely be scarred, but so will anyone else that has ever watched one of those. He'll get over it, especially if his parents are actually there to protect him and explain to him what these things are and why he should avoid them. Children are curious but they do listen to good parents. Until they reach puberty, but that's a different problem.

I'm opposed to this on principle. And on author too, given that your past behaviour has made me (and plenty of others) believe that you really shouldn't be drafting anything to the General Assembly until you have a radical change of heart. Good day.

[Alkzine]

-snip-.

This perennial invocation of "parental responsibility" presumes every household is equally equipped to erect impenetrable digital fortresses around their children. This argument, while rhetorically elegant, fails to account for the profound disparities in technological literacy, economic stability, and sheer available time among parents. It assumes an idealized domestic sphere where vigilance is a universal luxury rather than a privilege. In reality, many families—particularly those navigating financial precarity or working multiple jobs—simply do not have the means to provide constant oversight. To suggest that this challenge can be solved solely through parental intervention implies a certain privileged ignorance as to the extent to which such vigilance is, for many, a practical impossibility.

[Cessarea]

-snip-.

This perennial invocation of "parental responsibility" presumes every household is equally equipped to erect impenetrable digital fortresses around their children. This argument, while rhetorically elegant, fails to account for the profound disparities in technological literacy, economic stability, and sheer available time among parents. It assumes an idealized domestic sphere where vigilance is a universal luxury rather than a privilege. In reality, many families—particularly those navigating financial precarity or working multiple jobs—simply do not have the means to provide constant oversight. To suggest that this challenge can be solved solely through parental intervention implies a certain privileged ignorance as to the extent to which such vigilance is, for many, a practical impossibility.

Perhaps instead of merely accepting that poverty is going to be a thing forever, we should be taking steps to ensuring parents are actually able to be parents and not just workers, hm? Perhaps we should root out the causes of economic, social, and technological instead of advocating for half-baked countermeasures to remedy the symptoms?Measures that, need I remind you, are wholly ineffective at mitigating any symptoms?

Notice as well that you've not once addressed how ineffective this measure was, and instead chose which argument to attack.

[Alkzine]

Notice as well that you've not once addressed how ineffective this measure was, and instead chose which argument to attack.

The fixation on anonymity in this context is even more conspicuous in its omissions. For all the lofty appeals to digital privacy, the question remains: why this particular domain? Why does the mere prospect of accountability provoke such singular unease, when countless other spheres of life require identity verification without inspiring such existential dread? It is a curious hierarchy of priorities—one that suggests the secrecy of one’s viewing habits is a weightier concern than ensuring children are shielded from content they cannot possibly understand. That this is framed as a battle for civil liberties, rather than a question of proportion and responsibility, is perhaps the most concerning aspect of all.

Regarding the claims surrounding viability, we utterly reject the suggestion that, if some criminals may attempt to continue to provide inappropriate content to minors, that means we should abandon all responsibility and allow them to do so in full support of the law.

Our response to the notion that any legislation catering to less privileged children should be placed on the backburner until “poverty is fixed” is, we trust, self-evident. Needless to say, neglectful or nonperfect parents can occur amongst the rich, as well.