13 ms·

>Regardless, I am still opposed to this service, and opposed to all forms of internet censorship I'm genuinely confused as to where your complaint is coming fr

by jasode 7y ago

>Regardless, I am still opposed to this service, and opposed to all forms of internet censorship I'm genuinely confused as to where your complaint is coming from. Isn't this Cloudflare DNS server "opt in" for families? Why would voluntary filters be censorship? Censorship is more "top down" (e.g. government) that you can't opt out of. Likewise, I just "opted into" into NextDNS a few days ago to block ads so I didn't have to set up a Raspberry Pi-hole. Is NextDNS "censoring" ads? Well yes, because that's what I want.

ddevault 7y ago
A "family" is not a single entity. It's not voluntary for those who are being blocked.
- gcthomas 7y ago
  It is not voluntary for my children to leave their phones downstairs and go to bed at a bedtime I picked myself, but I think that's OK. It is entirely commonplace for a family to impose restrictions on its children — anything less is neglect.
  - ddevault 7y ago
    Bullshit. If you resort to coersion, it's quite the opposite of neglect. And it's not going to work - it is extremely easy to find porn if that's what your kids want to find, and there is nothing you can do about it.
    - gcthomas 7y ago
      The second half of your comment is true, and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise so the strength of your assertion is unnecessary. On the first half, children need boundaries set for them. And unless you are yourself a child rebelling against parental rules, you will find yourself on the barely populated side of the argument.
      - ddevault 7y ago
        I fundamentally disagree with you on the philosophy of parenting. You're not setting boundaries, you're incentivizing them to break rules and teaching your children not to trust you. Children are people, not property, and they ought to be treated as such.
        gcthomas 7y ago
        I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children to break unjust rules, but obey just ones based their moral judgement. The DNS filtering is for their protection, not their control. ps. you REALLY ought to make your children wear their seat-belts in the back of the car, freedom be damned. ;)
        ddevault 7y ago
        >I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children to break unjust rules, but obey just ones based their moral judgement. The DNS filtering is for their protection, not their control. If your children know how to break the filters, and they wouldn't get in trouble for doing so, then I retract my statements. >ps. you REALLY ought to make your children wear their seat-belts in the back of the car, freedom be damned. ;) This is not a fair comparison, you are legally obliged to wear a seatbelt in the car. I would not drive my adult friends around if they refused to wear their seatbelt.
        enitihas 7y ago
        For a better comparison, do you not force your children to take not legally mandatory vaccines, and leave it to their judgement?
        TheNorthman 7y ago
        Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines?
    - joezydeco 7y ago
      It's also easy for my children to find poison and sharp objects out there in the world, but because of that it doesn't mean I should leave those things lying around the house unsecured. Are you a parent? It's a bit easier to understand if you are.
      - kick 7y ago
        You can't impale yourself on information.
        recursive 7y ago
        Traumatizing experiences are real, and they're made out of information.
        mjfisher 7y ago
        It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of online communities that e.g. normalize and encourage eating disorders or suicide, for example. It's our duty to educate our children well enough that they'll eventually be able to make smart decisions themselves - but that takes time and guidance.
        kick 7y ago
        Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.
        woofcat 7y ago
        >You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
    - mturmon 7y ago
      I think the argument is that it's possible for a kid browsing to, in a succession of clicks, go from (for example) a surfing website to something they really shouldn't be looking at. These clicks may be naive curiosity on the part of the kid, rather than intentional seeking. Some of this porny drift would be encouraged by affiliate links and ads. Our society is broken in many ways - who could disagree? - and this tendency is one of them. One of my burdens as a parent is to provide a counter to this porny drift, and to the other broken aspects of our society for that matter.
      - moonchild 7y ago
        Lest anyone think this is pure hypothetical, this happened to me. When I was 6 or 7 years old, my parents let me have an account on the family computer. I couldn't do anything particularly destructive, and didn't spend an overt amount of time on it. Mostly, I would press random keyboard keys into the browser's URL bar. One day, I ended up at a website that said 'must be 18 or over to access'. (I suspect it was a credit card scam, not porn, but the point still stands.) Next time I logged into that computer, I found myself unable to start the webbrowser.
      - Corrado 7y ago
        One of the teachers in my wife's school was having the students research the government and asked them to find the address of the President of the United States. Well, most of them typed in "whitehouse.com", which at the time was a porn site. The teacher had to rush around the room turning off the monitors and dealing with the chaos. The site they should have visited was "whitehouse.gov" but they didn't know that. Something like 1.1.1.1 for Families would have prevented this from happening. I work closely with the school and am keenly aware of the dangers of censorship. We do NOT want to block access to some things that sound like they could be "bad" (ie. Essex England, breast cancer, etc.) However, that doesn't mean its a free for all where you can go anywhere and see anything. The Internet is a really, really big place for a 1st grader.
  - kick 7y ago
    If your children are young enough that they need a specific time to go to bed, why did you give them phones in the first place? Surely they'd be too young for them? It also seems very strange to deem not restricting information as neglect. Why not just have a conversation about them as to why they shouldn't do whatever you want them not to do? Advice doesn't breed distrust, but censorship and other regulations do.
- igetspam 7y ago
  My kid is 2.5 and especially now when we can't get her out of the house, we're relying on a tablet for some of her socializing (seeing friends and family on video chat). We often use this while we're cooking and cleaning. Amazon looooooves to push ads to her tablet and the kid friendly mode they offer is a nightmare to try and use. I filter content for her because as much as we'd like to, we can't always be watching. She's 2.5. Lots of things in her life aren't voluntary. It's my responsibility and choice to keep her safe. You can let your kids watch all the lemon parties they want but I'll just keep that stuff blocked.
  - ddevault 7y ago
    At 2.5 you probably shouldn't even be letting her roam the public internet on 1.1.1.3 - you need a whitelist, not a blacklist. And at the age where it becomes suitable for children to be on the public internet, it is no longer ethical to be filtering their content imo.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      What you say here makes sense to me at least - but haven't you been arguing against just about any form of parent-set boundaries/rules elsewhere in this thread?
      - ddevault 7y ago
        Well, let's say we find a compromise. You're paying for the internet, so you're entitled to set rules as to how people use it. But, if your child wants to pony up to, for example, buy a mobile hotspot, it's up to them to set their own rules for how it's used. If your 2.5 year old is mature enough to manage that, then yeah, maybe they ought to be able to have unfettered internet access, too.
        GordonS 7y ago
        So parents only get to set boundaries in relation to things they pay for? Got to be honest, I'm struggling to take your arguments seriously.
- Youden 7y ago
  I think you're looking at this as keeping porn from young adults who actively seek it but I don't think that's a major use-case. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, teenagers will quickly be told to use a free VPN or something by their friends and get around your DNS filtering in minutes. Or hell, someone can just give them some on a USB stick or send them a ZIP file on whatever messaging app they use these days. What's more important is protecting children (think <10) from coming across pornography accidentally while browsing the internet and looking at kid stuff. It's not only fairly well-accepted by society but in many jurisdictions, allowing children to see pornography is considered neglect.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool I think you need to speak to more parents.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    I don't think kids today are as "hacky" as before, or rather, systems of today are just more polished and there's less reason to understand underlying details vs. abstractions. For a DNS service that could become a kind of LetsEncrypt of DNS, its use case will be a little bit of everything. Cloudflare already has to make moral and social policing decisions, but then again, the bigger your company, the more morally interesting decisions it has to consider. This is especially the case when you're the kind of infrastructure company that serves the world. Moral filters are going to be about the enforcement of moral norms. Are sites about condom usage, abortion, STD's, premarital sex, and homosexuality an adult topic? Are race relations an adult topic? Are shootings an adult topic? Is this going to be the kind of filter you lift at precisely the age of 12? There's naturally going to be a lot of questions about how a filter is going to interact with situations, because it's going to be Cloudflare's vision of the web. In my view, DNS settings are often things other people set up for you and you don't really think about it.
    - Youden 7y ago
      > I don't think kids today are as "hacky" as before, or rather, systems of today are just more polished and there's less reason to understand underlying details vs. abstractions. I think you're partially right but kids don't need to understand the underlying reasoning, they just need to be told what to do. When I was in school, everyone used PHP-based proxy sites to access restricted material on the school network. Nobody had a clue what a "proxy" was or how it worked, they just knew that's what they had to Google to get at whatever they wanted to get at. Kids these days are the same. They don't need to know what "DNS" is or how a VPN works, they just need to know that a friend told them to look for a VPN app on the app store. > Are sites about condom usage, abortion, STD's, premarital sex, and homosexuality an adult topic? Are race relations an adult topic? The question isn't so much "are these adult topics" as "are these topics parents will want small children to encounter on the internet" and I'd say that's a definite "no". That isn't to say small children shouldn't learn about them, they'll definitely need to be taught, however I don't think that many parents would be comfortable with their children being taught by whatever resources their child happens to stumble upon. And to be clear, I'm not saying that homosexuality or interracial relations are morally any different to regular relationships, I'm saying that internet material isn't likely to be suitable for educating small children. It'll be very easy for them to stumble across material that's overly sexual in nature, racist or homophobic. FWIW I come from a country where sex education is covered fairly well by both primary and secondary school curricula, which may colour my response here. > Are shootings an adult topic? That one's difficult and depends on the specific cultural norms you live under I think. > Is this going to be the kind of filter you lift at precisely the age of 12? That's a decision for the parents.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I see my job as a parent as including the following: 1. Protecting my child sufficiently that they will grow up to be a relatively non-traumatized adult. 2. Teaching them about life 3. Protecting others from my child Obviously #1 and #3 are in tension with #2, as harm is part of life, and natural consequences are great teachers. In public school where I live, the internet is required for at least some of their work starting around 2nd or 3rd grade. No reasonable filter is going to let me give them otherwise unfettered access to the internet at that age. I find having the computer in an area where I can see the screen is good. It's possible that 1.1.1.3 might be helpful in making it a bit harder for them to stumble something while my back is turned for 2 minutes cooking dinner or helping out a sibling. Obviously there are limits to what I can do. I have one kid with PTSD that we closely monitored internet usage for at home, told the school she ought not be on any internet connected evice in class, but still managed to cyberbully a classmate to the point where the victim withdrew from school by editing a shared google-document during classtime. Another kid was shown some fairly extreme pornography in 2nd grade by an older student who had a cell-phone.
rsync 7y ago
"Likewise, I just "opted into" into NextDNS a few days ago to block ads so I didn't have to set up a Raspberry Pi-hole." This is a fantastic idea - I can't believe I never thought of this ... I'm sorry to hijack, but about the nextDNS product ... how do they determine who is a paying customer ? Do you have to log your IP-space with them ? I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is[1]. It seems quite large to me - as if even my entire household would never possibly produce 300k DNS queries each month ... but perhaps I underestimate how many queries modern web pages produce ? Can I run my own very simple local resolver and use NextDNS as my upstream such that only one of my systems (my DNS server) is talking to NextDNS ? This would allow me to use NextDNS globally without them tracking me all over the world ... [1] https://nextdns.io/pricing https://nextdns.io/pricing
- samename 7y ago
  I'm the only one using my NextDNS configuration, and run about 100,000 queries a day. Granted, I have IPv4 and IPv6 setup, so each request is duplicated for both. If I only used IPv4, it would be closer to 50,000 each day. They determine which configuration to use for you by the endpoint you've configured, whether it's the app or using their specific endpoint.
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  > I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is. FWIW, here at home, my DNS servers are reporting a combined total of ~138k (from 21 unique clients) over the last (rolling) 24 hour period. (Of course, mine probably isn't indicative of a "typical" American household when it comes to browsing habits and such.)
- jasode 7y ago
  >I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is[1]. It seems quite large to me - as if even my entire household would never possibly produce 300k DNS queries each month ... but perhaps I underestimate how many queries modern web pages produce ? I just looked at my NextDNS stats dashboard for the previous 6 hours and it says 5900 queries. I was surprised by that high number. The intuition is to count in terms of manual clicks on urls but the part I underestimated is how "chatty" many web pages are with Javascript (e.g. analytics, ads, etc). In my case, I see about 1000 hits in 6 hours to just 2 urls: msh.amazon.com, content.googleapis.com. Based on being awake 16 hours a day over 30 days, I extrapolate ~540,000 queries per month. This is for 2 people with no kids at home at the moment. If my modest internet usage is ~540k queries per month, I'm guessing NextDNS definitely did the spreadsheet modeling to come up with 300k threshold so most people easily pass it after mid-month and therefore enticed to pay for the service to continue the ad blocking. When I get to that point, I'll re-evaluate the idea of setting up a Raspberry Pi-Hole. I really don't want to mess with hardware. Maybe if I'm more aggressive with a local "hosts" file to locally block more sites to 127.0.0.1, I can drastically cut down the number of DNS queries hitting NextDNS.
yarrel 7y ago
Families consist of more than one person. It's more accurate to say that this is opt in for the head of the family. Which may start to show why this is such a bad idea.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Or, perhaps, it is opt in for the people whose names are on the internet bill and who own the router.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    Who are potentially abusers using it to cause untold damage to gay kids.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      How would gay kids be particularly harmed by this service?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by jasode 7y ago

ddevault 7y ago

A "family" is not a single entity. It's not voluntary for those who are being blocked.

gcthomas 7y ago
It is not voluntary for my children to leave their phones downstairs and go to bed at a bedtime I picked myself, but I think that's OK. It is entirely commonplace for a family to impose restrictions on its children — anything less is neglect.
- ddevault 7y ago
  Bullshit. If you resort to coersion, it's quite the opposite of neglect. And it's not going to work - it is extremely easy to find porn if that's what your kids want to find, and there is nothing you can do about it.
  - gcthomas 7y ago
    The second half of your comment is true, and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise so the strength of your assertion is unnecessary. On the first half, children need boundaries set for them. And unless you are yourself a child rebelling against parental rules, you will find yourself on the barely populated side of the argument.
    - ddevault 7y ago
      I fundamentally disagree with you on the philosophy of parenting. You're not setting boundaries, you're incentivizing them to break rules and teaching your children not to trust you. Children are people, not property, and they ought to be treated as such.
      - gcthomas 7y ago
        I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children to break unjust rules, but obey just ones based their moral judgement. The DNS filtering is for their protection, not their control. ps. you REALLY ought to make your children wear their seat-belts in the back of the car, freedom be damned. ;)
        ddevault 7y ago
        >I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children to break unjust rules, but obey just ones based their moral judgement. The DNS filtering is for their protection, not their control. If your children know how to break the filters, and they wouldn't get in trouble for doing so, then I retract my statements. >ps. you REALLY ought to make your children wear their seat-belts in the back of the car, freedom be damned. ;) This is not a fair comparison, you are legally obliged to wear a seatbelt in the car. I would not drive my adult friends around if they refused to wear their seatbelt.
        enitihas 7y ago
        For a better comparison, do you not force your children to take not legally mandatory vaccines, and leave it to their judgement?
        TheNorthman 7y ago
        Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines?
  - joezydeco 7y ago
    It's also easy for my children to find poison and sharp objects out there in the world, but because of that it doesn't mean I should leave those things lying around the house unsecured. Are you a parent? It's a bit easier to understand if you are.
    - kick 7y ago
      You can't impale yourself on information.
      - recursive 7y ago
        Traumatizing experiences are real, and they're made out of information.
      - mjfisher 7y ago
        It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of online communities that e.g. normalize and encourage eating disorders or suicide, for example. It's our duty to educate our children well enough that they'll eventually be able to make smart decisions themselves - but that takes time and guidance.
        kick 7y ago
        Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.
        woofcat 7y ago
        >You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
  - mturmon 7y ago
    I think the argument is that it's possible for a kid browsing to, in a succession of clicks, go from (for example) a surfing website to something they really shouldn't be looking at. These clicks may be naive curiosity on the part of the kid, rather than intentional seeking. Some of this porny drift would be encouraged by affiliate links and ads. Our society is broken in many ways - who could disagree? - and this tendency is one of them. One of my burdens as a parent is to provide a counter to this porny drift, and to the other broken aspects of our society for that matter.
    - moonchild 7y ago
      Lest anyone think this is pure hypothetical, this happened to me. When I was 6 or 7 years old, my parents let me have an account on the family computer. I couldn't do anything particularly destructive, and didn't spend an overt amount of time on it. Mostly, I would press random keyboard keys into the browser's URL bar. One day, I ended up at a website that said 'must be 18 or over to access'. (I suspect it was a credit card scam, not porn, but the point still stands.) Next time I logged into that computer, I found myself unable to start the webbrowser.
    - Corrado 7y ago
      One of the teachers in my wife's school was having the students research the government and asked them to find the address of the President of the United States. Well, most of them typed in "whitehouse.com", which at the time was a porn site. The teacher had to rush around the room turning off the monitors and dealing with the chaos. The site they should have visited was "whitehouse.gov" but they didn't know that. Something like 1.1.1.1 for Families would have prevented this from happening. I work closely with the school and am keenly aware of the dangers of censorship. We do NOT want to block access to some things that sound like they could be "bad" (ie. Essex England, breast cancer, etc.) However, that doesn't mean its a free for all where you can go anywhere and see anything. The Internet is a really, really big place for a 1st grader.
- kick 7y ago
  If your children are young enough that they need a specific time to go to bed, why did you give them phones in the first place? Surely they'd be too young for them? It also seems very strange to deem not restricting information as neglect. Why not just have a conversation about them as to why they shouldn't do whatever you want them not to do? Advice doesn't breed distrust, but censorship and other regulations do.
igetspam 7y ago
My kid is 2.5 and especially now when we can't get her out of the house, we're relying on a tablet for some of her socializing (seeing friends and family on video chat). We often use this while we're cooking and cleaning. Amazon looooooves to push ads to her tablet and the kid friendly mode they offer is a nightmare to try and use. I filter content for her because as much as we'd like to, we can't always be watching. She's 2.5. Lots of things in her life aren't voluntary. It's my responsibility and choice to keep her safe. You can let your kids watch all the lemon parties they want but I'll just keep that stuff blocked.
- ddevault 7y ago
  At 2.5 you probably shouldn't even be letting her roam the public internet on 1.1.1.3 - you need a whitelist, not a blacklist. And at the age where it becomes suitable for children to be on the public internet, it is no longer ethical to be filtering their content imo.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    What you say here makes sense to me at least - but haven't you been arguing against just about any form of parent-set boundaries/rules elsewhere in this thread?
    - ddevault 7y ago
      Well, let's say we find a compromise. You're paying for the internet, so you're entitled to set rules as to how people use it. But, if your child wants to pony up to, for example, buy a mobile hotspot, it's up to them to set their own rules for how it's used. If your 2.5 year old is mature enough to manage that, then yeah, maybe they ought to be able to have unfettered internet access, too.
      - GordonS 7y ago
        So parents only get to set boundaries in relation to things they pay for? Got to be honest, I'm struggling to take your arguments seriously.
Youden 7y ago
I think you're looking at this as keeping porn from young adults who actively seek it but I don't think that's a major use-case. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, teenagers will quickly be told to use a free VPN or something by their friends and get around your DNS filtering in minutes. Or hell, someone can just give them some on a USB stick or send them a ZIP file on whatever messaging app they use these days. What's more important is protecting children (think <10) from coming across pornography accidentally while browsing the internet and looking at kid stuff. It's not only fairly well-accepted by society but in many jurisdictions, allowing children to see pornography is considered neglect.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool I think you need to speak to more parents.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  I don't think kids today are as "hacky" as before, or rather, systems of today are just more polished and there's less reason to understand underlying details vs. abstractions. For a DNS service that could become a kind of LetsEncrypt of DNS, its use case will be a little bit of everything. Cloudflare already has to make moral and social policing decisions, but then again, the bigger your company, the more morally interesting decisions it has to consider. This is especially the case when you're the kind of infrastructure company that serves the world. Moral filters are going to be about the enforcement of moral norms. Are sites about condom usage, abortion, STD's, premarital sex, and homosexuality an adult topic? Are race relations an adult topic? Are shootings an adult topic? Is this going to be the kind of filter you lift at precisely the age of 12? There's naturally going to be a lot of questions about how a filter is going to interact with situations, because it's going to be Cloudflare's vision of the web. In my view, DNS settings are often things other people set up for you and you don't really think about it.
  - Youden 7y ago
    > I don't think kids today are as "hacky" as before, or rather, systems of today are just more polished and there's less reason to understand underlying details vs. abstractions. I think you're partially right but kids don't need to understand the underlying reasoning, they just need to be told what to do. When I was in school, everyone used PHP-based proxy sites to access restricted material on the school network. Nobody had a clue what a "proxy" was or how it worked, they just knew that's what they had to Google to get at whatever they wanted to get at. Kids these days are the same. They don't need to know what "DNS" is or how a VPN works, they just need to know that a friend told them to look for a VPN app on the app store. > Are sites about condom usage, abortion, STD's, premarital sex, and homosexuality an adult topic? Are race relations an adult topic? The question isn't so much "are these adult topics" as "are these topics parents will want small children to encounter on the internet" and I'd say that's a definite "no". That isn't to say small children shouldn't learn about them, they'll definitely need to be taught, however I don't think that many parents would be comfortable with their children being taught by whatever resources their child happens to stumble upon. And to be clear, I'm not saying that homosexuality or interracial relations are morally any different to regular relationships, I'm saying that internet material isn't likely to be suitable for educating small children. It'll be very easy for them to stumble across material that's overly sexual in nature, racist or homophobic. FWIW I come from a country where sex education is covered fairly well by both primary and secondary school curricula, which may colour my response here. > Are shootings an adult topic? That one's difficult and depends on the specific cultural norms you live under I think. > Is this going to be the kind of filter you lift at precisely the age of 12? That's a decision for the parents.
aidenn0 7y ago
I see my job as a parent as including the following: 1. Protecting my child sufficiently that they will grow up to be a relatively non-traumatized adult. 2. Teaching them about life 3. Protecting others from my child Obviously #1 and #3 are in tension with #2, as harm is part of life, and natural consequences are great teachers. In public school where I live, the internet is required for at least some of their work starting around 2nd or 3rd grade. No reasonable filter is going to let me give them otherwise unfettered access to the internet at that age. I find having the computer in an area where I can see the screen is good. It's possible that 1.1.1.3 might be helpful in making it a bit harder for them to stumble something while my back is turned for 2 minutes cooking dinner or helping out a sibling. Obviously there are limits to what I can do. I have one kid with PTSD that we closely monitored internet usage for at home, told the school she ought not be on any internet connected evice in class, but still managed to cyberbully a classmate to the point where the victim withdrew from school by editing a shared google-document during classtime. Another kid was shown some fairly extreme pornography in 2nd grade by an older student who had a cell-phone.

rsync 7y ago

"Likewise, I just "opted into" into NextDNS a few days ago to block ads so I didn't have to set up a Raspberry Pi-hole." This is a fantastic idea - I can't believe I never thought of this ... I'm sorry to hijack, but about the nextDNS product ... how do they determine who is a paying customer ? Do you have to log your IP-space with them ? I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is[1]. It seems quite large to me - as if even my entire household would never possibly produce 300k DNS queries each month ... but perhaps I underestimate how many queries modern web pages produce ? Can I run my own very simple local resolver and use NextDNS as my upstream such that only one of my systems (my DNS server) is talking to NextDNS ? This would allow me to use NextDNS globally without them tracking me all over the world ... [1] https://nextdns.io/pricing https://nextdns.io/pricing

samename 7y ago
I'm the only one using my NextDNS configuration, and run about 100,000 queries a day. Granted, I have IPv4 and IPv6 setup, so each request is duplicated for both. If I only used IPv4, it would be closer to 50,000 each day. They determine which configuration to use for you by the endpoint you've configured, whether it's the app or using their specific endpoint.
jlgaddis 7y ago
> I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is. FWIW, here at home, my DNS servers are reporting a combined total of ~138k (from 21 unique clients) over the last (rolling) 24 hour period. (Of course, mine probably isn't indicative of a "typical" American household when it comes to browsing habits and such.)
jasode 7y ago
>I also have no idea, in the context of modern web browsing, how large or small 300,000 DNS queries per month is[1]. It seems quite large to me - as if even my entire household would never possibly produce 300k DNS queries each month ... but perhaps I underestimate how many queries modern web pages produce ? I just looked at my NextDNS stats dashboard for the previous 6 hours and it says 5900 queries. I was surprised by that high number. The intuition is to count in terms of manual clicks on urls but the part I underestimated is how "chatty" many web pages are with Javascript (e.g. analytics, ads, etc). In my case, I see about 1000 hits in 6 hours to just 2 urls: msh.amazon.com, content.googleapis.com. Based on being awake 16 hours a day over 30 days, I extrapolate ~540,000 queries per month. This is for 2 people with no kids at home at the moment. If my modest internet usage is ~540k queries per month, I'm guessing NextDNS definitely did the spreadsheet modeling to come up with 300k threshold so most people easily pass it after mid-month and therefore enticed to pay for the service to continue the ad blocking. When I get to that point, I'll re-evaluate the idea of setting up a Raspberry Pi-Hole. I really don't want to mess with hardware. Maybe if I'm more aggressive with a local "hosts" file to locally block more sites to 127.0.0.1, I can drastically cut down the number of DNS queries hitting NextDNS.

yarrel 7y ago

Families consist of more than one person. It's more accurate to say that this is opt in for the head of the family. Which may start to show why this is such a bad idea.

lliamander 7y ago
Or, perhaps, it is opt in for the people whose names are on the internet bill and who own the router.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  Who are potentially abusers using it to cause untold damage to gay kids.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    How would gay kids be particularly harmed by this service?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]