5 ms·

One question - where the heck are these kids' parents? I think most people on dating apps are under the impression that other users are of legal age. If your c

One question - where the heck are these kids' parents? I think most people on dating apps are under the impression that other users are of legal age. If your child is searching for adult partners, complete strangers, over the Internet, you as a parent have a lot to answer for. That being said, none of that justifies what happened to the minors mentioned in the article. Ultimately, there are a lot of bad people out there. It would be great for children to not be exposed to such people. But I think the necessary change is parental supervision, not government intervention.

klodolph 8y ago
How is this different from, for example, requiring age verification to purchase alcohol? Or are you also opposed to that? I think we understand that parents are not in complete control over their children, and in the interest of harm reduction, we don't give parents the entire burden of keeping their children safe but spread parts of it out among the community. This doesn't seem like a particularly burdensome request, here. Some parents are terrible parents, some kids are complete terrors, sometimes there are circumstances outside your control. Parents are not gods.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Did you read the article? It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort. What lawmakers want is ID required. This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon. Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not. The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING." Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death. The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.
  - klodolph 8y ago
    > Did you read the article? That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future. > What lawmakers want is ID required. Yes, like for alcohol. > This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location. The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction. > And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective? > The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies. > The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party. You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing. If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.
- jliptzin 8y ago
  The difference is you can install a dating app and create a profile without providing a picture or providing a fake picture. This is what I did when I was 15 and just wanted to meet other gay people my age at a time when I was closeted and knew none. To the site operators, the profile looks just like any other. Unless they are actively reading private conversations between users, there is no way to tell a user is actually underage unless reported. Even then it may be difficult because oftentimes people don’t use the dating app itself to communicate but immediately take the conversation off the app to Snapchat or text, for example. So to truly keep minors off adult dating apps you’d have to require everyone to submit photo ID and also somehow check that they haven’t just taken a picture of someone else’s ID and used that and I’m not sure how you’d enforce that.
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    The same way any highly regulated company does when ID needs to be 100% confirmed Put on today's news/put up today's newspaper/generate a unique, time sensitive code the person needs to write down and display, have them take a picture while holding up ID and the date proof using a live webcam. But when authoritarian people want other people to do things, they generally don't think about how much effort it takes, or if it does take effort it is brushed off as if nothing with no concept of cost benefit. It's easy when you just shift the burden of proof by making vague insinuating statements to appeal to the majority of the population which is highly emotive.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      You'd better hope their ID/webcam matching software (or employee) isn't racist. Why are there no dark-skinned people on your platform? Oh, turns out they're all held up in ID verification…
- tracker1 8y ago
  Require a $5 CC payment and a photo ID where the picture matches their profile ID in order to create the account... The $5 would cover the cost of HUMAN verification. Not every aspect of every interaction online needs to automate out human interaction. The other aspect is to actively encourage REPORT for minors on the platform. Another possibility is to allow 16+yo and wall them off from those over ~21 with a big fat banner on the account that it's a minor.
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    People like you have existed for a while. They want to tie internet use to verified ID offline. And that is great; there are clearly good things that will come. But there are also bad things will come with that. Ignoring that second part makes your post seem shallow and not very well thought out.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      I'm not saying all internet activity should be tied to a real identification... but, just perhaps, dating sites/apps should be.
      - towelr34dy 8y ago
        Well the article mentions instagram. Facebook is a dating site for many. Many people use all kinds of platforms to hook up. Especially when you look internationally. Exactly what do you define as 'dating site'? Craigslist has a dating section. Please, you have suggestions, I'll be glad to reconsider my position in favor of reasonable suggestions that are based on a well thought out position. Also, please let me know about how we are going to deal with leaks. Like, when X person's sexuality is leaked and he/she is beaten to death for it or maybe for an infidelity (and you know those things get hacked/leaked), who do we apply for remuneration to? How many people do you think that will be? And why do those people not count vs the 15 kids in 5 years? I'm truly open to solutions. I don't think they could possibly justify the tiny issue (statistically) that would probably not be fully mitigated by the solution anyway, but... I'm open. The burden is on you, who wishes to make changes, to prove that the change that you wish is preferable than the situation we have.
purple_ducks 8y ago
> where the heck are these kids' parents? What about the internet suddenly absolves the company from being diligent and responsible? If this was shops selling alcohol & cigarettes to 14 year olds, would your response be "where the hell are the parents?" Parents aren't going to monitor their kids 24/7. > If your child is searching for adult partners, complete strangers, over the Internet, you as a parent have a lot to answer for. I don't have children yet I think this is a very uninformed comment. Sexuality and attraction (and even more-so perceived attraction) are complex and multi faceted things so I think jumping to blaming the parents is _very_ simple minded.
- blancheneige 8y ago
  >Parents aren't going to monitor their kids 24/7. It's not about monitoring your kids 24/7. It's about instilling values in them precisely so they can monitor themselves. This is what differentiates good upbringing and clueless parenting looking for scapegoats.
  - jnty 8y ago
    Are you a parent? Of a child over ten?
    - blancheneige 8y ago
      No. I happen to have been ten once, however, with good parents.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Same place your grandparents were when dad was hiding adult mags or the topless polaroids of girlfriend under the mattress or watching 4th gen copy videos of some 18 horror film with friends. I had fairly old-school strict parents and still managed to get around supervision. ;p I'm going to hazard a guess you don't have kids. Short of bringing up children in a panopticon that gives no privacy, ever, and continual spot checks of what apps and usage, or a feature phone only until 18, what do you expect? Watch over shoulder the entire time they use a device? Bolt down the home router and rely on network 18+ limiting, and they can still use their friend's or Costa's wifi. I might prefer to limit younger children from access, I can advise and try and give them a degree of common sense, and advise against blind trust. I can't as a parent prevent them doing some very daft things. It's part of the rite of passage of every teen. I'd aim to be supportive enough that they can come to me when they fuck up for support and help. I can't in good conscience blame other parents for every lapse.
- klenwell 8y ago
  For a comprehensive scholarly treatment of this argument (with which I wholly concur), see Judith Rich Harris and The Nurture Assumption. Her Wikipedia article offers a quick summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris In short, kids, especially teenagers, aren't out to be like their parents. They want to be like their peers. And what we often see as the effects of good parental influence or supervision may simply be heritable behavior.
sidlls 8y ago
Human beings are clever, and kids often are much more clever than adults partly because they lack the filter of having had experience. It's simply not possible to have the level of control you describe without effectively imprisoning children and stunting their growth.
protonfish 8y ago
I'll tell you where this parent is. He is trying to find tools to make phone use safe for his kids and finding nothing except excuses and denial from telecoms, phone manufacturers, and app developers. Smartphones are a playground filled with jagged edges and predators behind an entrance of flashing lights and music. People made it, profit from it, and those same people should be held liable for their actions.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Actually, this parent is demanding 100% certainty in an uncertain world. He is also shifting burden from himself to others. This parent isn't understanding that there are cost benefits and diminishing returns. We already filter kids from such platforms and it works to 99.999%, so exactly where should it be? And at what cost? This parent is also filled with innuendo, seemingly unable to make points that stand on their own with actual dialectics.

klodolph 8y ago

How is this different from, for example, requiring age verification to purchase alcohol? Or are you also opposed to that? I think we understand that parents are not in complete control over their children, and in the interest of harm reduction, we don't give parents the entire burden of keeping their children safe but spread parts of it out among the community. This doesn't seem like a particularly burdensome request, here. Some parents are terrible parents, some kids are complete terrors, sometimes there are circumstances outside your control. Parents are not gods.

towelr34dy 8y ago
Did you read the article? It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort. What lawmakers want is ID required. This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon. Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not. The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING." Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death. The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.
- klodolph 8y ago
  > Did you read the article? That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future. > What lawmakers want is ID required. Yes, like for alcohol. > This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location. The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction. > And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective? > The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies. > The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party. You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing. If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.
jliptzin 8y ago
The difference is you can install a dating app and create a profile without providing a picture or providing a fake picture. This is what I did when I was 15 and just wanted to meet other gay people my age at a time when I was closeted and knew none. To the site operators, the profile looks just like any other. Unless they are actively reading private conversations between users, there is no way to tell a user is actually underage unless reported. Even then it may be difficult because oftentimes people don’t use the dating app itself to communicate but immediately take the conversation off the app to Snapchat or text, for example. So to truly keep minors off adult dating apps you’d have to require everyone to submit photo ID and also somehow check that they haven’t just taken a picture of someone else’s ID and used that and I’m not sure how you’d enforce that.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  The same way any highly regulated company does when ID needs to be 100% confirmed Put on today's news/put up today's newspaper/generate a unique, time sensitive code the person needs to write down and display, have them take a picture while holding up ID and the date proof using a live webcam. But when authoritarian people want other people to do things, they generally don't think about how much effort it takes, or if it does take effort it is brushed off as if nothing with no concept of cost benefit. It's easy when you just shift the burden of proof by making vague insinuating statements to appeal to the majority of the population which is highly emotive.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    You'd better hope their ID/webcam matching software (or employee) isn't racist. Why are there no dark-skinned people on your platform? Oh, turns out they're all held up in ID verification…
tracker1 8y ago
Require a $5 CC payment and a photo ID where the picture matches their profile ID in order to create the account... The $5 would cover the cost of HUMAN verification. Not every aspect of every interaction online needs to automate out human interaction. The other aspect is to actively encourage REPORT for minors on the platform. Another possibility is to allow 16+yo and wall them off from those over ~21 with a big fat banner on the account that it's a minor.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  People like you have existed for a while. They want to tie internet use to verified ID offline. And that is great; there are clearly good things that will come. But there are also bad things will come with that. Ignoring that second part makes your post seem shallow and not very well thought out.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    I'm not saying all internet activity should be tied to a real identification... but, just perhaps, dating sites/apps should be.
    - towelr34dy 8y ago
      Well the article mentions instagram. Facebook is a dating site for many. Many people use all kinds of platforms to hook up. Especially when you look internationally. Exactly what do you define as 'dating site'? Craigslist has a dating section. Please, you have suggestions, I'll be glad to reconsider my position in favor of reasonable suggestions that are based on a well thought out position. Also, please let me know about how we are going to deal with leaks. Like, when X person's sexuality is leaked and he/she is beaten to death for it or maybe for an infidelity (and you know those things get hacked/leaked), who do we apply for remuneration to? How many people do you think that will be? And why do those people not count vs the 15 kids in 5 years? I'm truly open to solutions. I don't think they could possibly justify the tiny issue (statistically) that would probably not be fully mitigated by the solution anyway, but... I'm open. The burden is on you, who wishes to make changes, to prove that the change that you wish is preferable than the situation we have.

purple_ducks 8y ago

> where the heck are these kids' parents? What about the internet suddenly absolves the company from being diligent and responsible? If this was shops selling alcohol & cigarettes to 14 year olds, would your response be "where the hell are the parents?" Parents aren't going to monitor their kids 24/7. > If your child is searching for adult partners, complete strangers, over the Internet, you as a parent have a lot to answer for. I don't have children yet I think this is a very uninformed comment. Sexuality and attraction (and even more-so perceived attraction) are complex and multi faceted things so I think jumping to blaming the parents is _very_ simple minded.

blancheneige 8y ago
>Parents aren't going to monitor their kids 24/7. It's not about monitoring your kids 24/7. It's about instilling values in them precisely so they can monitor themselves. This is what differentiates good upbringing and clueless parenting looking for scapegoats.
- jnty 8y ago
  Are you a parent? Of a child over ten?
  - blancheneige 8y ago
    No. I happen to have been ten once, however, with good parents.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Same place your grandparents were when dad was hiding adult mags or the topless polaroids of girlfriend under the mattress or watching 4th gen copy videos of some 18 horror film with friends. I had fairly old-school strict parents and still managed to get around supervision. ;p I'm going to hazard a guess you don't have kids. Short of bringing up children in a panopticon that gives no privacy, ever, and continual spot checks of what apps and usage, or a feature phone only until 18, what do you expect? Watch over shoulder the entire time they use a device? Bolt down the home router and rely on network 18+ limiting, and they can still use their friend's or Costa's wifi. I might prefer to limit younger children from access, I can advise and try and give them a degree of common sense, and advise against blind trust. I can't as a parent prevent them doing some very daft things. It's part of the rite of passage of every teen. I'd aim to be supportive enough that they can come to me when they fuck up for support and help. I can't in good conscience blame other parents for every lapse.

klenwell 8y ago
For a comprehensive scholarly treatment of this argument (with which I wholly concur), see Judith Rich Harris and The Nurture Assumption. Her Wikipedia article offers a quick summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris In short, kids, especially teenagers, aren't out to be like their parents. They want to be like their peers. And what we often see as the effects of good parental influence or supervision may simply be heritable behavior.

sidlls 8y ago

Human beings are clever, and kids often are much more clever than adults partly because they lack the filter of having had experience. It's simply not possible to have the level of control you describe without effectively imprisoning children and stunting their growth.

protonfish 8y ago

I'll tell you where this parent is. He is trying to find tools to make phone use safe for his kids and finding nothing except excuses and denial from telecoms, phone manufacturers, and app developers. Smartphones are a playground filled with jagged edges and predators behind an entrance of flashing lights and music. People made it, profit from it, and those same people should be held liable for their actions.

towelr34dy 8y ago
Actually, this parent is demanding 100% certainty in an uncertain world. He is also shifting burden from himself to others. This parent isn't understanding that there are cost benefits and diminishing returns. We already filter kids from such platforms and it works to 99.999%, so exactly where should it be? And at what cost? This parent is also filled with innuendo, seemingly unable to make points that stand on their own with actual dialectics.