5 ms·

Meh, I'm usually overly opinionated on this stuff but hard to form a strong sentiment on this one. On one hand I applaud them wanting to address this, on the ot

by _8j50 3y ago

Meh, I'm usually overly opinionated on this stuff but hard to form a strong sentiment on this one. On one hand I applaud them wanting to address this, on the other, book authors and in persons stores don't have to do this and I also strongly believe it is a parent's responsibility to protect kids like this. How about this, thinking of it as if it was a security problem, I would focus on who is the admin, what do they control and where is the protected data/resource and the answer is: the parent, their home and devices, their kids' devices/data. If you think about it, kids can just use sites outside of the US and avoid all this hassle. So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content and notify parents who can the council their kids or restrict access and content as they see fit. That way, all the privacy/eff people don't have to worry about tech megacorps spending money on this or them having to age verify and hire more staff and lawyers. Kids don't have a right to privacy from their parents, although as they get older and show responsibility and maturity they should get more privacy rights. The pattern I see here is similar to how schooling is done where the school basically raises kids instead of parents. Hold parents responsible and accountable but give them tools and training to succeed instead of expecting tech companies to do the raising for them. I will say this though, there is nothing at all more valuable that a parent can give their child than discipline. A close second to that might showing them how to be in a healthy relationship first hand, by being the actual parent and carefully teaching them to be realonsible and then trusting them with rights like privacy and making life changing decisions for themselves.

scarface_74 3y ago
> So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content And certain people would classify “undesirable content” as publicizing the fact that gay people exist and that there are other ways to prevent teenage pregnancies than abstinence.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Exactly. And more generally, some would classify it as "undesirable" that kids can get access to any information their parents don't want them to have. Sometimes that's a feature, and can help change someone's life for the better. "Oh, I'm not actually evil and sinful, it turns out my parents are just hyper-religious nuts and now I have sufficient access to understand what more normal and accepting society is like." (I'm deeply thankful that that was not a problem I had myself. I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.)
  - _8j50 3y ago
    That's the parent's rights to be hyper-religious nuts which in the US is not just parental right but the 1st amendment, the first right anyone gets to have (religion along with freespeech). Indoctrinating kids with whatever wild and extreme view is their right. The only thing they can't do is compromise the safety and wellbeing of their child, if you think belief you don't like qualifies then forget their internet access, have the kids taken from them! Nazis are raising murderous traitorus kids and religious children is your worry! What an insane world we live in. Parent's aren't handed their children by society or the state, they brought them into the world and have both rights as well as responsibilities over them. And you don't get to say you have the right to free speech or have beliefs like the one you are holding now and be allowed to raise your kids one way and them try to legislate away the rights of other people to raise their children their own way no matter how vile it is. This society thing is a two way street. > I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity. You don't have the right. You can discourse with adults and change their views though and provide them the opportunity of your alternate viewpoint. Influencing other people's minor children is no one's right. Not even the government. No matter how correct your view is. This is what libery looks like, because today you speak from a position of power with your views, tomorrow others get to do the same with your children. Exigent circumstances aside, it is your civic duty to respect the rights of others and appreciate that right while vocally disagreeing with it.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      > That's the parent's rights to be hyper-religious nuts which in the US No one is arguing otherwise. The argument is about giving the government the power to decide how information should be surfaced to users.
      - _8j50 3y ago
        My suggestion is the government doesn't decide what content should be surfaced but and neither shoulf it set what categories content filters use, it simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, policies what categories and methods they can't use (not the other way around). Using legally protected groups as a category, or using ML or private data to measure browing habits/intent or sharing browing habits to third parties are some examples of what the FTC would prohibit. The rest is up to parents,not the government. That would make everyone happy. Worsr case, social media companies might be forced to cooperate with third party content filtering services to help them identify things like cyberbullying or groomong and notify parents before their kids self-harm (again, final decision or even the decision to collect/use that info is up to parents). Give parents tools instead of expanding surveillance powers and using kids as an excuse is my message, if they are serious about helping kids. I feel like everyone in tech is engaging in a culture war instead of fighting for what they believe in by using their strength: technical solutions to supposed problems like this and leaving would be government abusers without an excuse.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Oh please, certain people is parents and I don't care what their views are, they are parents. If you don't like it them take their kids away from them for holding that view. A parent is a parent not the government, schools, society, you or I. They can forbid them from touching electronics entirely right along some internet content. How do you think it went with books, radio and tv/movies before the internet? Parents were given tools and they used that to police their kids. And btw, I said the FTC regulates the tools, so why is the FTC allowing stuff you disagree with here? And you do know doing what you said is possible today with plenty of tools right? I believe the domain reputation category is somethinf like "alternative sexuality" there is a category for everything. Every domain older than a few month has dozens of vendors categorizing it.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > Oh please, certain people is parents and I don't care what their views are, they are parents No one is saying that parents shouldn’t be allowed to let innocent little Johny see two men holding hands because they are afraid it might turn him gay. The issue is giving government that power. > And btw, I said the FTC regulates the tools, so why is the FTC allowing stuff you disagree with here? The FTC regulates content categorization for filtering software on the internet???
    - _8j50 3y ago
      > The FTC regulates content categorization for filtering software on the internet??? Yes! It can make sure categories can't be harmful things or things banned by law(e.g.: "whites only website") but moreover, they regulate the security, accuracy and content coverage standards for such applications. They don't however get to categorize sites themselves. > No one is saying that parents shouldn’t be allowed to let innocent little Johny see two men holding hands because they are afraid it might turn him gay. The issue is giving government that power. The government doesn't get that power, it uses existing powers to regulate contentu filtering apps and educate parents to use them, parents get to have that power, as they should!
      - 3y ago

by _8j50 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

> So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content And certain people would classify “undesirable content” as publicizing the fact that gay people exist and that there are other ways to prevent teenage pregnancies than abstinence.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
Exactly. And more generally, some would classify it as "undesirable" that kids can get access to any information their parents don't want them to have. Sometimes that's a feature, and can help change someone's life for the better. "Oh, I'm not actually evil and sinful, it turns out my parents are just hyper-religious nuts and now I have sufficient access to understand what more normal and accepting society is like." (I'm deeply thankful that that was not a problem I had myself. I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.)
- _8j50 3y ago
  That's the parent's rights to be hyper-religious nuts which in the US is not just parental right but the 1st amendment, the first right anyone gets to have (religion along with freespeech). Indoctrinating kids with whatever wild and extreme view is their right. The only thing they can't do is compromise the safety and wellbeing of their child, if you think belief you don't like qualifies then forget their internet access, have the kids taken from them! Nazis are raising murderous traitorus kids and religious children is your worry! What an insane world we live in. Parent's aren't handed their children by society or the state, they brought them into the world and have both rights as well as responsibilities over them. And you don't get to say you have the right to free speech or have beliefs like the one you are holding now and be allowed to raise your kids one way and them try to legislate away the rights of other people to raise their children their own way no matter how vile it is. This society thing is a two way street. > I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity. You don't have the right. You can discourse with adults and change their views though and provide them the opportunity of your alternate viewpoint. Influencing other people's minor children is no one's right. Not even the government. No matter how correct your view is. This is what libery looks like, because today you speak from a position of power with your views, tomorrow others get to do the same with your children. Exigent circumstances aside, it is your civic duty to respect the rights of others and appreciate that right while vocally disagreeing with it.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > That's the parent's rights to be hyper-religious nuts which in the US No one is arguing otherwise. The argument is about giving the government the power to decide how information should be surfaced to users.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      My suggestion is the government doesn't decide what content should be surfaced but and neither shoulf it set what categories content filters use, it simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, policies what categories and methods they can't use (not the other way around). Using legally protected groups as a category, or using ML or private data to measure browing habits/intent or sharing browing habits to third parties are some examples of what the FTC would prohibit. The rest is up to parents,not the government. That would make everyone happy. Worsr case, social media companies might be forced to cooperate with third party content filtering services to help them identify things like cyberbullying or groomong and notify parents before their kids self-harm (again, final decision or even the decision to collect/use that info is up to parents). Give parents tools instead of expanding surveillance powers and using kids as an excuse is my message, if they are serious about helping kids. I feel like everyone in tech is engaging in a culture war instead of fighting for what they believe in by using their strength: technical solutions to supposed problems like this and leaving would be government abusers without an excuse.
_8j50 3y ago
Oh please, certain people is parents and I don't care what their views are, they are parents. If you don't like it them take their kids away from them for holding that view. A parent is a parent not the government, schools, society, you or I. They can forbid them from touching electronics entirely right along some internet content. How do you think it went with books, radio and tv/movies before the internet? Parents were given tools and they used that to police their kids. And btw, I said the FTC regulates the tools, so why is the FTC allowing stuff you disagree with here? And you do know doing what you said is possible today with plenty of tools right? I believe the domain reputation category is somethinf like "alternative sexuality" there is a category for everything. Every domain older than a few month has dozens of vendors categorizing it.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > Oh please, certain people is parents and I don't care what their views are, they are parents No one is saying that parents shouldn’t be allowed to let innocent little Johny see two men holding hands because they are afraid it might turn him gay. The issue is giving government that power. > And btw, I said the FTC regulates the tools, so why is the FTC allowing stuff you disagree with here? The FTC regulates content categorization for filtering software on the internet???
  - _8j50 3y ago
    > The FTC regulates content categorization for filtering software on the internet??? Yes! It can make sure categories can't be harmful things or things banned by law(e.g.: "whites only website") but moreover, they regulate the security, accuracy and content coverage standards for such applications. They don't however get to categorize sites themselves. > No one is saying that parents shouldn’t be allowed to let innocent little Johny see two men holding hands because they are afraid it might turn him gay. The issue is giving government that power. The government doesn't get that power, it uses existing powers to regulate contentu filtering apps and educate parents to use them, parents get to have that power, as they should!
    - 3y ago