I think that the kids know more in terms of accessing what they want to access and filtering out the junk (the silly chain messages etc) than adults do. I do think though that the kids need more training in how to protect themselves on line. Some are really quite naive.
Om another thread here on the forum, It was pointed out to me some concern about my use of the word stupid. The definition of that word refers to the type of person who operates out of a lack of intelligence, (meaning knowledge or information) and/or common sense. In this case a less mature person can be or cause a problem because they lack sufficient information or knowledge about something yet have no problem with common sense. On the other hand a person might have a tremendous amount of knowledge but with an immature level of common sense and still make poor choices.. Either case have the tendency to produce stupid results and thus a problem.
Therefore you are correct in that naivete and/or lack of understanding is not a situation one wishes to put young people into without proper knowledge (which many already have) but without a sufficient level of common sense to be able to make choices about it in a more mature manner.
When it comes to the cyber world, one needs both to protect themselves and those around them. It's a new frontier which has appeared only in recent years and our young people have yet to develop an appropriate level of common sense to go along with the ever growing knowledge that has presented itself.
When I work with the cyber world, or the world of strangers, or dealing with situations in the "real world" in which others live, developing mature character in our young men it requires me to be attentive to both the knowledge and the common sense to use that information wisely. People are trusting me to provide them with the proper knowledge so they can further develop or at least guide them through the years of early maturity to be able to make good choices.
When I tell a 5 year old the stove is hot, they may understand that, but like any other inquisitive child, learning to deal with the world around them, may not have built sufficient trust in the person telling them a stove is hot and will then further explore for themselves and test out that by touching the stove anyway. It's all a natural part of a person's development. Now if the child tests the stove when it's not on they conclude the person was not trustworthy and will correctly conclude the stove is not hot. However if the stove is hot they get a boost of common sense. and will conclude that even when cold they may not wish to choose to touch it. Either way they have not acquired the knowledge as to when the stove is off or on and further instruction in information is still needed. It's a process, not a snapshot in time.