2 ms·

ID / verification is a solution in search of a problem. The OS level filters and parental controls exist, and have for years. Though a slight logical tweak or

ID / verification is a solution in search of a problem. The OS level filters and parental controls exist, and have for years. Though a slight logical tweak or a slightly improved system might be more helpful. The Internet, by default, should be free and considered 'unsafe'. Sites and services that claim to be Safe for Children should have to actively tag themselves as such. That might involve metadata. It might involve third party organizations like commercial certificate providers signing that claim; or governments, or insurance program registrations, or groups dedicated to whatever moral police panic is in vogue, etc. Let people Opt In to creating locked down accounts that are nanny state and useless. Don't FORCE it on everyone.

wumpus 5y ago
There already is a standard for declaring a website safe for children, and no one uses it. Also, the concept of what is "safe for children" differs between countries. One major way of oppressing LGBTQI+ people is to outlaw showing anything that promotes LGBTQI+ "lifestyles" to children.
- mjevans 5y ago
  Yes, that standard is what I meant by "OS level features"; no one uses it because they'd rather foist the effort of protecting children to others. Though this is probably more because they dislike free speech and disagree with activities among adults and 'think of the children' is just what gets used to win support. Your second point is an interesting extension: 'safe for children, in all countries' would lead to a race to the most bland, safe, content: "baaaah" - 1984.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    > no one uses it because they'd rather foist the effort of protecting children to others. There's no right way to "protect children" when some countries define any mention of LGBTQI+ to be unsafe for children. There is no way I, as a random website creator, can figure out the appropriate worldwide label for my content. Am I foisting "the effort of protecting children to others"? I don't think so.

wumpus 5y ago

There already is a standard for declaring a website safe for children, and no one uses it. Also, the concept of what is "safe for children" differs between countries. One major way of oppressing LGBTQI+ people is to outlaw showing anything that promotes LGBTQI+ "lifestyles" to children.

mjevans 5y ago
Yes, that standard is what I meant by "OS level features"; no one uses it because they'd rather foist the effort of protecting children to others. Though this is probably more because they dislike free speech and disagree with activities among adults and 'think of the children' is just what gets used to win support. Your second point is an interesting extension: 'safe for children, in all countries' would lead to a race to the most bland, safe, content: "baaaah" - 1984.
- wumpus 5y ago
  > no one uses it because they'd rather foist the effort of protecting children to others. There's no right way to "protect children" when some countries define any mention of LGBTQI+ to be unsafe for children. There is no way I, as a random website creator, can figure out the appropriate worldwide label for my content. Am I foisting "the effort of protecting children to others"? I don't think so.