Controling Internet Access for Children

Vain Jangling
You can’t control what I allow my children to do.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) is recommending the following regulations aimed at “limit[ing] the amount of smartphone screen time for children.”

] Most minors would not be allowed to use the majority of internet services on mobile devices from 10 p.m. through 6 a.m. in “minor mode.” 
] Children between the ages of 16 and 18 would only be able to use the internet for two hours a day.
] Children between the ages of 8 and 15 would only be allowed an hour a day on the internet.
] Children under 8 years old would only be allowed 40 minutes.

However, “platforms deemed suitable for the physical and mental development of minors and emergency products and services, would be exempted.” We could all use more time with “platforms deemed suitable for the physical and mental development” instead of where most of our “free” time is spent. (maybe read a nonfiction book)

Some nations are governed by communist dictatorship, while America enjoys more freedom. We do not like the government stepping in trying to tell us what we can (must) and cannot do with our children. Yet sometimes our freedoms cause us to be lazy (yes, lazy) in parenting. It would be easy to dismiss these ideas as merely another way to “control the people.” That would be mere vain jangling

The truth is, there is some good insight here, on how better to protect and influence our children, our next generations of intelligent, mature, prepared leaders and workers here in America. We should not need the government to propose or regulate it. As parents, we already know this. Too much time and brain power is wasted online.

Fear of Debate

Vain Jangling
unnecessary debates

It should be quite telling when persons (political or otherwise) who spout accusations, information (or mis/disinformation) from their (political/media) platforms —where they can ignore or control the narrative and questions— yet refuse to debate with those who disagree with them. Especially, if they feel empowered enough to call out their “opponent” (by name or association) in their rhetoric.

If there is a conversation in church, society, political arena, important enough to be expressed via platform/media, etc., important enough to name call or warn, then why is it not important enough to have dialogue in an open forum where persons can hear the information, listen to the arguments, and draw their own conclusions? This would encourage thinking, involvement, communication.

To claim such discussions are “unnecessary debates”, while indulging them in a “safety bubble” is mere vain jangling.