3 ms·
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 cou
by 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 agoYes, 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.