Schools have adult supervision already and don't need parental surveillance. Kids are most often molested/influenced by someone close, and internet only expands that reach. If you think parents doing their job is the primary problem here, I'm frankly a bit surprised. The truth is nothing is private, so better get used to it.
I never used the internet until my mid-twenties, and it hasn't held my technology career back in the slightest.
Students have a great deal more privacy at school than in digital-surveillance households: conversations at lunch and recess are not normally monitored or reviewable by staff members, for example.
>The truth is nothing is private, so better get used to it.
I think this kind of defeatism is bad, but even as far as it goes, the sense in which "nothing is private" refers to, like, the NSA and advertising bots. That is a very different thing from disclosure to people who have personal relationships and power dynamics with you. I would hope that kids don't "get used to it" and go on to perpetrate or accept that kind of behavior in their future relationships.
>I never used the internet until my mid-twenties, and it hasn't held my technology career back in the slightest.
While most kids using computers have nothing to do with technology careers, it is pretty clearly the case now that programming for the first time in CS101 would put you at an extreme (though not necessarily insurmountable) disadvantage.
> parents doing their job
Parents are reinterpreting "their job" to be much more intense over the last few decades already (helicopter parenting, stranger paranoia, driving everywhere, etc). In a remote-first world, they are poised to have essentially total visibility and control over every aspect of life. At some point their job has got to be to produce adults.
It's almost as if an advertising-surveillance-company is in charge of our school's IT.
> The truth is nothing is private --> defeatism
One of my most painful career lessons was never put sensitive things in email! Wish my parents could have taught me that over something inconsequential a decade earlier.
Never was and never will be private. That is the lesson.
> CS101
Computer science is not software engineering, right? That one trips up a lot of folks. But this comparison stretches even farther, it is not even in the same neighborhood as social media, friends, or fomo.
It's often an applied science class (aka programming) where it is very helpful to know a bit of algebra, typing, and the basics of computer hardware. CS theory often starts the second year. The two sets don't overlap at all, but lay folks tend to think so because computers are "magic":
I never used the internet until my mid-twenties, and it hasn't held my technology career back in the slightest.