6 ms·

>Reddit is a company that has products targeted toward both children and adults. If they want to do that, they should act like any other business and ensure tha

by cmh89 3y ago

>Reddit is a company that has products targeted toward both children and adults. If they want to do that, they should act like any other business and ensure that children aren't allowed access to products that are only for adults, or at least enable parents to make that decision. Is Reddit targeted to children? My assumption has always been that due to the nature of having intermingled NSFW content, lack of content filters, or literally any other control that Reddit was squarely aimed at older users. >Grocery stores are free to sell cigarettes and alcohol along with candy, but they're required to not sell the former products to children. We don't just say "don't let your child go to the store alone". Tobacco is a lot less subjective of a thing than 'inappropriate content' or 'porn' and its bad health effects are actually substantiated. Is fine art porn? Is a naked person porn? It might be to you, it isn't to me. Who gets to decide what is porn? The government? Religious activists? >I said companies like reddit should design things such that filters work. If you don't need filtering, you'd be unaffected. I would be affected because there is now a whole system that dictates what content is. How does one do that? How much does it cost? Is it my responsibility to determine that? The site hosts? What if one host has a different labeling system? It's not simple. It's regulatory bloat that would exist solely because people who popped kids out don't want to actually parent. >Similarly, if they move their nsfw images that they've already categorized from i.redd.it to e.g. p.redd.it, DNS filtering could easily block them all while still allowing roblox memes, and users who don't care wouldn't have to do anything. If reddit wants to implement that, that's fine with me. What OP said and what I responded to was this "I think this is a poor solution; a more empowering one would be *to develop a standard for content categorization and require commercial websites and commercially developed browsers (so all of them that are in common use) to implement content blocking via e.g. header exchange*, with criminal penalties for negligently providing pornography without the correct headers (have some provision for vandalism when good-faith moderation is in place). Then parents actually could just configure their OS or browser for what kinds of content should be allowed." >The problem is that parental controls increasingly cannot reasonably exist. You can black list the reddit domain right now. How do they not exist? It might not exist in the form that you want, but that's life. I can't have the government force movie theaters to show edited versions of movies so they are kid appropriate. Some stuff just isn't for kids. > It's not that much to ask that if a company wants to provide both adult-only and child-oriented content, they should at least provide usable metadata for which is which to make sure filters can work. Reddit, for the most part, does not provide content.

ndriscoll 3y ago
> Is Reddit targeted to children? My assumption has always been that due to the nature of having intermingled NSFW content, lack of content filters, or literally any other control that Reddit was squarely aimed at older users. Among other child-oriented boards, they have a teenagers board with 3 million subscribers, so evidently, yes. > Is it my responsibility to determine that? The site hosts? The site host, given that they're the ones providing adult material in a commercial context. > What if one host has a different labeling system? I proposed we should create a standard system for labeling and mandate its use for commercial sites that offer adult material, just like we did with TV. Browsers from commercial entities (i.e. Chrome and its variants, Safari, and Firefox) would be required to implement the filter settings, just as TVs must contain a v-chip. > It's regulatory bloat that would exist solely because people who popped kids out don't want to actually parent. It's requiring site operators to provide the metadata needed for parents to be able to effectively parent without the solution being "lol just don't let your kid use any website at all". > I can't have the government force movie theaters to show edited versions of movies so they are kid appropriate. Some stuff just isn't for kids. But we can force movie theaters to provide ratings of movies and require them to bar children from watching any pornographic films they show. Currently companies self-enforce with ratings, but that's because if they didn't, they were going to have it forced upon them. The problem here is that we don't have any kind of rating system for web content, and clearly tech companies aren't going to develop one on their own, so it's reasonable to make them develop one. > Reddit, for the most part, does not provide content. Of course they do. They don't make it, but they're the ones providing it, and they make plenty of money doing so.
- cmh89 3y ago
  >Among other child-oriented boards, they have a teenagers board with 3 million subscribers, so evidently, yes. Any user can make a subreddit about whatever they want. I'd wager the large majority of those users are not teenagers. Regardless, 'used by teens' != 'targeted for teens'. >The site host, given that they're the ones providing adult material in a commercial context. Which site host? Reddit is primarily a link aggregator. > proposed we should create a standard system for labeling and mandate its use for commercial sites that offer adult material, just like we did with TV. Yes! We need to make sure adults in no way be aware of or responsible for what media their children consume! Of course that's the end game. We start with forcing companies to 'categorize' their content. Then we make it harder and harder to access the content that people like you have determined is undesirable. >It's requiring site operators to provide the metadata needed for parents to be able to effectively parent without the solution being "lol just don't let your kid use any website at all". It's requiring businesses to implement a massively expensive and arbitrary censorship system because parents are unable to tell their kids no. Metata wont be magically created and you know it. What's to stop a host from just refusing to label stuff porn? You full well know that what you are advocating for is the governmental review of all content on the internet. >But we can force movie theaters to provide ratings of movies and require them to bar children from watching any pornographic films they show The MPA is a voluntary rating scheme. You should look into it because it highlights all the obvious problems with what you are presenting. Misogyny, christian norms dictating what content can be shown, it's a disaster. >Of course they do. They don't make it, but they're the ones providing it, and they make plenty of money doing so. hey If that's you're understanding, you don't really understand Reddit in the first place. Look, just be a parent and stop forcing draconian policies on everyone else because you can't tell your kid no or monitor what they do online. Reddit is inappropriate for children, be responsible, don't let your children use it.

by cmh89 3y ago

ndriscoll 3y ago

> Is Reddit targeted to children? My assumption has always been that due to the nature of having intermingled NSFW content, lack of content filters, or literally any other control that Reddit was squarely aimed at older users. Among other child-oriented boards, they have a teenagers board with 3 million subscribers, so evidently, yes. > Is it my responsibility to determine that? The site hosts? The site host, given that they're the ones providing adult material in a commercial context. > What if one host has a different labeling system? I proposed we should create a standard system for labeling and mandate its use for commercial sites that offer adult material, just like we did with TV. Browsers from commercial entities (i.e. Chrome and its variants, Safari, and Firefox) would be required to implement the filter settings, just as TVs must contain a v-chip. > It's regulatory bloat that would exist solely because people who popped kids out don't want to actually parent. It's requiring site operators to provide the metadata needed for parents to be able to effectively parent without the solution being "lol just don't let your kid use any website at all". > I can't have the government force movie theaters to show edited versions of movies so they are kid appropriate. Some stuff just isn't for kids. But we can force movie theaters to provide ratings of movies and require them to bar children from watching any pornographic films they show. Currently companies self-enforce with ratings, but that's because if they didn't, they were going to have it forced upon them. The problem here is that we don't have any kind of rating system for web content, and clearly tech companies aren't going to develop one on their own, so it's reasonable to make them develop one. > Reddit, for the most part, does not provide content. Of course they do. They don't make it, but they're the ones providing it, and they make plenty of money doing so.

cmh89 3y ago
>Among other child-oriented boards, they have a teenagers board with 3 million subscribers, so evidently, yes. Any user can make a subreddit about whatever they want. I'd wager the large majority of those users are not teenagers. Regardless, 'used by teens' != 'targeted for teens'. >The site host, given that they're the ones providing adult material in a commercial context. Which site host? Reddit is primarily a link aggregator. > proposed we should create a standard system for labeling and mandate its use for commercial sites that offer adult material, just like we did with TV. Yes! We need to make sure adults in no way be aware of or responsible for what media their children consume! Of course that's the end game. We start with forcing companies to 'categorize' their content. Then we make it harder and harder to access the content that people like you have determined is undesirable. >It's requiring site operators to provide the metadata needed for parents to be able to effectively parent without the solution being "lol just don't let your kid use any website at all". It's requiring businesses to implement a massively expensive and arbitrary censorship system because parents are unable to tell their kids no. Metata wont be magically created and you know it. What's to stop a host from just refusing to label stuff porn? You full well know that what you are advocating for is the governmental review of all content on the internet. >But we can force movie theaters to provide ratings of movies and require them to bar children from watching any pornographic films they show The MPA is a voluntary rating scheme. You should look into it because it highlights all the obvious problems with what you are presenting. Misogyny, christian norms dictating what content can be shown, it's a disaster. >Of course they do. They don't make it, but they're the ones providing it, and they make plenty of money doing so. hey If that's you're understanding, you don't really understand Reddit in the first place. Look, just be a parent and stop forcing draconian policies on everyone else because you can't tell your kid no or monitor what they do online. Reddit is inappropriate for children, be responsible, don't let your children use it.