4 ms·

On one hand, I do think we need to do something about the content children have access to online, but I don't understand why the government believe this is thei

by kypro 3y ago

On one hand, I do think we need to do something about the content children have access to online, but I don't understand why the government believe this is their problem. What content children get exposed to has always been the responsibility of parents. Assuming this bill has honest intentions (I don't believe it does) the issue here is more that parents are giving their children unrestricted access to the internet. What we need to be doing (if anything) is giving parents more ability to regulate what content their kids have access to rather than simply putting that responsibility on the government and service providers. ISPs should be making it much easier to for parents to add global content filters and device-specific filters. Both could easily be managed from an app and in my opinion this should be what the government should be focused on. That said, what this seems to actually be is an attempt to crack down on content and speech the government (and perhaps the public generally) doesn't like. The UK is an extremely authoritarian place, not because people here are generally authoritarian in nature in that we seek to control the behaviours of others, but because we're excessively conformist and polite. This bill exploits this aspect of our nature because few people in the UK are going to stick their necks out in defence online encryption or adult content. For context for those who live the in US, in the UK if you're doing something impolite you're generally breaking the law... Swearing in public? That's a public order offence. Saying something mean online? That's hate speech. Protesting fossil fuels? That's disruptive. And so on...

croutonwagon 3y ago
Im a parent whos kids are burgeoning internet users. Though quite young on the spectrum, but it has gotten me thinking more and more. I also have a lot of technical ability and experience running things like web content filters etc. That said, even beyond a DNS filter theres a lot of stuff on popular sites (ie: Youtube specifically) that is REALLY bad. Seriously just go search some special characters (ie: . or ## or something like that) and you will get some crazy stuff that looks like kids stuff, but with jump cuts of shots from the exorcist or something. If you look at it from the lens of a grade schooler, its disturbing. Not to mention all the porn and stuff the filters dont find. Im struggling to find a way to filter that. Maybe whitelist only some channels etc and just let the blocks work from there.
- Zak 3y ago
  Could you block Youtube generally and allow YoutubeKids, which has its own domain?
  - andrepd 3y ago
    YouTube kids has content that makes those weird videos seem tame, like the hyperconsumerist ryanworld. Curate your content manually, and select by hand what your kids will watch, or don't let them online at all. Since most parents are not willing, or most likely not even capable of doing this, legislation needs to be put in place to restrict what content can be shown to children.
    - croutonwagon 3y ago
      well theres nuance there too> I have to train them to be on the web. Its basically a skill they will need to learn. Amazon actually has pretty solid controls for kids based on age. Its really solid. But as my kids get into gradeschool they cant just be using an amazon firetablet. They are having to learn how to use a laptop, touchpad, typing on a keyboard. My kindergartner literally gets their own login at school. Heck its how they do some testing now (dont get me started) They dont watch a lot of youtube now. I tend to curate shows and put them on plex for them. Or let them go ham on PBS kids which generally has good stuff. But theres a TON of crap out there, some of it really bad. Bad both as in "reinforces or actively encourages asshole behavior" but also as in "im downright trying to scare or expose a child to something way out of bounds". So we have to filter for both. But what my eldest can handle is different from a younger kid. IE: Harry potter gives my younger kid bad dreams. But is fine for my older kid. What i may do and install something like Zenarmor/Sensei or just go full MDM and whitelist only specific videos or something. Frankly it will likely be a combination of tools. And may just have to say no to youtube/youtubekids full stop.
- bennyp101 3y ago
  We ended up just saying no, you aren't allowed to watch youtube - and blocked it on their devices. Even youtubekids seems to have the odd video/ad that is not really young kid friendly.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
I suspect that a significant underlying (ie unspoken) motivation for the bill is to create an environment in which ordinary people know their place because they know they can always be watched. Preserving the status quo that keeps the UK a profitable place for some, while emiserating large parts of the population, requires this. The recent legal changes that criminalise peaceful protest are part of the same pattern. They can see social fracturing coming in the near future - due to austerity, economic mismanagement, climate breakdown, etc. - and they're getting their retribution in early.
kmlx 3y ago
> What content children get exposed to has always been the responsibility of parents. Assuming this bill has honest intentions (I don't believe it does) the issue here is more that parents are giving their children unrestricted access to the internet. true, but the problem a friend of mine has is that he has no control over internet access for his kids outside his home. this matter isn’t black and white. > in the UK if you're doing something impolite you're generally breaking the law... Swearing in public? That's a public order offence. Saying something mean online? That's hate speech. Protesting fossil fuels? That's disruptive. And so on.. it’s exactly the same across europe.
- knome 3y ago
  parents have never had control over what media their kids can get at outside of the home.
  - kmlx 3y ago
    agree, but the internet is a different kind of monster.
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      A different kind of monster that today's parents grew up with almost completely unharmed.
  - kypro 3y ago
    This is basically my position on it. At home my parents were always very careful what content I was exposed to. With very few exceptions I wasn't allowed to watch / play films and video games that were 12+ until I was in secondary school. But outside my home (especially coming from a crappy neighbourhood) I was exposed to a lot of explicit content from other children (and their parents). Obviously the internet exacerbates this problem, but short of outlawing the entire internet there's very little that can actually be done about that. Even with all of the proposed restrictions kids will still be able to access explicit content if their parents allow them to do so. So if what we really want is to empower parents then there are better ways to do this at home via ISPs and routers with configurable content filters. And if we want proof for this then we should remember that this isn't an issue that exists at school because they have the internet locked down. The idea that the only way to we empower parents is by handing control to the government and corporations makes no sense. The issue is that parents either don't care to or don't know how to restrict content. If it's the former, this isn't a problem (assuming you believe rights of the parent trump that of the state), if it's latter, then let's just create regulation for ISPs to ensure they're providing sufficiently easy and capable content filters. Requiring all content providers operating in the UK break encryption and implement their own content filters is beyond absurd. It really only makes sense if you assume the state is doing this intentionally as a power grab.

by kypro 3y ago

croutonwagon 3y ago

Im a parent whos kids are burgeoning internet users. Though quite young on the spectrum, but it has gotten me thinking more and more. I also have a lot of technical ability and experience running things like web content filters etc. That said, even beyond a DNS filter theres a lot of stuff on popular sites (ie: Youtube specifically) that is REALLY bad. Seriously just go search some special characters (ie: . or ## or something like that) and you will get some crazy stuff that looks like kids stuff, but with jump cuts of shots from the exorcist or something. If you look at it from the lens of a grade schooler, its disturbing. Not to mention all the porn and stuff the filters dont find. Im struggling to find a way to filter that. Maybe whitelist only some channels etc and just let the blocks work from there.

Zak 3y ago
Could you block Youtube generally and allow YoutubeKids, which has its own domain?
- andrepd 3y ago
  YouTube kids has content that makes those weird videos seem tame, like the hyperconsumerist ryanworld. Curate your content manually, and select by hand what your kids will watch, or don't let them online at all. Since most parents are not willing, or most likely not even capable of doing this, legislation needs to be put in place to restrict what content can be shown to children.
  - croutonwagon 3y ago
    well theres nuance there too> I have to train them to be on the web. Its basically a skill they will need to learn. Amazon actually has pretty solid controls for kids based on age. Its really solid. But as my kids get into gradeschool they cant just be using an amazon firetablet. They are having to learn how to use a laptop, touchpad, typing on a keyboard. My kindergartner literally gets their own login at school. Heck its how they do some testing now (dont get me started) They dont watch a lot of youtube now. I tend to curate shows and put them on plex for them. Or let them go ham on PBS kids which generally has good stuff. But theres a TON of crap out there, some of it really bad. Bad both as in "reinforces or actively encourages asshole behavior" but also as in "im downright trying to scare or expose a child to something way out of bounds". So we have to filter for both. But what my eldest can handle is different from a younger kid. IE: Harry potter gives my younger kid bad dreams. But is fine for my older kid. What i may do and install something like Zenarmor/Sensei or just go full MDM and whitelist only specific videos or something. Frankly it will likely be a combination of tools. And may just have to say no to youtube/youtubekids full stop.
bennyp101 3y ago
We ended up just saying no, you aren't allowed to watch youtube - and blocked it on their devices. Even youtubekids seems to have the odd video/ad that is not really young kid friendly.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

I suspect that a significant underlying (ie unspoken) motivation for the bill is to create an environment in which ordinary people know their place because they know they can always be watched. Preserving the status quo that keeps the UK a profitable place for some, while emiserating large parts of the population, requires this. The recent legal changes that criminalise peaceful protest are part of the same pattern. They can see social fracturing coming in the near future - due to austerity, economic mismanagement, climate breakdown, etc. - and they're getting their retribution in early.

kmlx 3y ago

> What content children get exposed to has always been the responsibility of parents. Assuming this bill has honest intentions (I don't believe it does) the issue here is more that parents are giving their children unrestricted access to the internet. true, but the problem a friend of mine has is that he has no control over internet access for his kids outside his home. this matter isn’t black and white. > in the UK if you're doing something impolite you're generally breaking the law... Swearing in public? That's a public order offence. Saying something mean online? That's hate speech. Protesting fossil fuels? That's disruptive. And so on.. it’s exactly the same across europe.

knome 3y ago
parents have never had control over what media their kids can get at outside of the home.
- kmlx 3y ago
  agree, but the internet is a different kind of monster.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    A different kind of monster that today's parents grew up with almost completely unharmed.
- kypro 3y ago
  This is basically my position on it. At home my parents were always very careful what content I was exposed to. With very few exceptions I wasn't allowed to watch / play films and video games that were 12+ until I was in secondary school. But outside my home (especially coming from a crappy neighbourhood) I was exposed to a lot of explicit content from other children (and their parents). Obviously the internet exacerbates this problem, but short of outlawing the entire internet there's very little that can actually be done about that. Even with all of the proposed restrictions kids will still be able to access explicit content if their parents allow them to do so. So if what we really want is to empower parents then there are better ways to do this at home via ISPs and routers with configurable content filters. And if we want proof for this then we should remember that this isn't an issue that exists at school because they have the internet locked down. The idea that the only way to we empower parents is by handing control to the government and corporations makes no sense. The issue is that parents either don't care to or don't know how to restrict content. If it's the former, this isn't a problem (assuming you believe rights of the parent trump that of the state), if it's latter, then let's just create regulation for ISPs to ensure they're providing sufficiently easy and capable content filters. Requiring all content providers operating in the UK break encryption and implement their own content filters is beyond absurd. It really only makes sense if you assume the state is doing this intentionally as a power grab.