15 ms·

There is an easier way to protect everyone from kids. Make an OS-level setting ("show safe content only") that only parents can change. With this setting, the b

There is an easier way to protect everyone from kids. Make an OS-level setting ("show safe content only") that only parents can change. With this setting, the browser would open only pages that declare that they are safe for kids, by using an HTTP header (safe-content: yes). Any other websites are blocked by the browser. Make it a legal requirement for parents to set up this option for their children on every device they use. Make it illegal to send invalid "safe content" headers. Also, with "safe content" setting OS should allow running and installing only apps that are verified to be safe (for example, it should not allow installing messengers like Telegram or browsers that do not respect safe content settings). This way there is no need to verify anything and make life complicated for adult people.

adverbly 3y ago
Interesting idea... Opt in to opting out of adult content... Some potential issues: 1. Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... They have a hard enough time with copyright content, and there's a much larger financial incentive in that case. 2. Need to agree on what is safe and what isn't. Bit of a can of worms there...
- codedokode 3y ago
  > Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... You don't need to enforce it. Sites without this header will not be accessible from a browser when "safe content" setting is active. > Need to agree on what is safe and what isn't There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch.
  - gs17 3y ago
    And when sites outside of the jurisdictions that can take legal action put "safe-content: very yes" on whatever non-safe content?
    - codedokode 3y ago
      Let there be an government-assigned organization that verifies website owner, content and issues a cryptographic signature proving that the site has been verified. The browser shall not open any page without the signature.
      - adverbly 3y ago
        This is what I mean by enforcement though. It is going to be hard to enforce for that government assisted organization. They either allow everyone who wants to set the header to do it, in which case they need to spend a lot on policing, or they need to actually have someone review. Either case, it is a huge undertaking with a lot of staff and regulations and decisions to be made about how to handle gray areas. Additionally, things can change over time and sites kind of evolve . You need to decide what would trigger a new review.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch. The existing ratings are terrible, though, and as a parent I think they allow things that I very much object to my children seeing, and prohibit things that I don't.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      Having imperfect restrictions for children is better than having none.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        That's a bit of a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between blanket restrictions that are bad or no restrictions at all. There's also the option of giving some sort of mechanism to allow parents to set the restrictions they consider appropriate.
- jaco6 3y ago
  You're right. Safe content header is a relatively weak solution. Strongest solution is either Microsoft or Apple stepping up to develop a child designed device from the ground up. It would have access to a limited walled garden of the Internet. The device itself is marketed specifically to children and has no advertising allowed on it. It also incorporates health guidelines and screen time limits, etc. that cannot be changed by the device owner or user, only by Apple/Microsoft. It is essentially a fascist phone. Admittedly, this would make an adult, unlocked smart phone a hot item on the youth black market, but hopefully most kids will be too lazy to save up the money needed to buy a black market unlocked phone before they're ready to watch porn and be inundated with endless advertising and doomscrolls.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Neither MS nor Apple will want to spend lot of money for designing devices where they cannot even show ads.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      I agree with the former but I definitely wonder about the latter. If anyone can do a secure, child-safe device that’s so expensive they don’t need to show ads to be profitable, it’s them.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > so expensive they don’t need to show ads to be profitable Yes, but there is no company that feels they are profitable enough so they still shows ads. Apple shows ads and makes decent profits from it, they are just a massive company like all the others.
jaco6 3y ago
This solution is the lowest cost solution and I am in favor. Will OS developers (because their market power is obviously more relevant here than the viewpoint of web developers) see it the same way?
- codedokode 3y ago
  Every computer, laptop or smartphone imported, or sold, must have this setting. If OS developers do not want their OS to be pre-installed they don't need to implement the setting.
  - jaco6 3y ago
    Apologies, my above remark was a bit unclear. When I said "will OS developers see it the same way" what I meant was whether OS developers will lobby against this law or be in favor.
ok123456 3y ago
Didn't this already exist with PICS on Windows 98?
Kinrany 3y ago
This may very well be worse: children would have no access to internet except for websites designed with the single goal of extracting money from parents.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Majority of websites are made with sole purpose to extract money.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    Don't we just call those "businesses" ?
afavour 3y ago
What does “safe for kids” mean, though? How do you imagine that being codified in law? What about different age ranges? Or does it all flip from off to on at age 18? There are obvious examples of unsuitable content like pornography but there’s also a wide variety of content out there at varying levels of suitability. And a lot of people with different opinions about what is suitable (e.g. non pornographic nudity). Good luck finding universal agreement on that. And how would anyone act on a violator? Would the police have access to a universal blocklist in all ISPs? There are already a number of voluntary systems that operate the way you describe. Legally mandating it would be very difficult.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > What does “safe for kids” mean, though? There are ratings for movies and games, just use any of them, for example, "General Audiences" rating.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Those ratings are only advisory, though, which allows parents who disagree with how the ratings are determined to ignore them. If we're going to use a rating system that has teeth, then we still smack directly into "who gets to decide what 'safe for kids' means".
    - pauldenton 3y ago
      Yes. There will be a fight and a status quo will emerge. Like movies rated G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17. Like video games rated E, E-10+, T, M, AO. Like the nebulous Parental Advisory:Explicit Lyrics you will find on certain records.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- codedokode 3y ago
  > And how would anyone act on a violator? Would the police have access to a universal blocklist in all ISPs? Another user suggested that there should be an organization that issues or revokes the cryptographic signatures after verifying website's content. The site displays the signature proving that it was checked to be safe, in HTTP headers.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
It's trivial to boot from a live USB to circumvent this.
- codedokode 3y ago
  If you are a programmer.
  - gs17 3y ago
    No, if you even know anyone tech savvy enough (within several degrees of separation) to figure it out. Kids are very good at getting around things like this and the solutions go viral. You would have to restrict a lot more than just the browser.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      Yes but kids who do not want to see porn (or people cut in pieces) will not see it accidentally. Isn't that good?
      - gs17 3y ago
        But now the promise goes from "kids can only see safe things" to "kids can only see safe things unless they want to see a single unsafe thing, then they see everything". With "safe things" being a government-created whitelist, it's going to be pretty easy for almost every kid to want "unsafe things" that aren't porn or gore. They'll want to play games (by your standards, even a T rated game is unsafe since it's T for Teen, not T for Twelve-Year-Old), watch whatever videos (zero anime/cartoon/whatever streaming sites would be deemed safe), and use social media. This whole filter would be pointless if you accept it being easy to get around.
        codedokode 3y ago
        What you are describing are small issues. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent the regulations (like children who drink alcohol or smoke). Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. Regarding movie sites, there are paid sites where you can legally watch anime or cartoons, and I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content.
darkarmani 3y ago
> Make it a legal requirement for parents to set up this option for their children on every device they use. Why? Let the parents decide -- they now have the controls they need. > Make it illegal to send invalid "safe content" headers. Just make them cryptographically signed. Anything without a valid signed header is "adult".
- codedokode 3y ago
  > Just make them cryptographically signed. Yes this is better, let some organisation issue these signatures.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    For a ‘reasonable’ fee of course.
zffr 3y ago
How do you define "safe"? What is the process for amending this definition in the future? What if different countries have different definitions? At what point is a person allowed to view not "safe" web content? How do you enforce this policy? How do you identify violations of the policy? What is the penalty for violating the policy? ... and this is just the tip of the iceberg IMO a policy like this would not be easy to pull off at all.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > How do you define "safe"? There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them. > What if different countries have different definitions? Then browser will refuse to open pages from that countries. For example, there could be an organization assigning rating to websites and issuing them a cryptographic signature as a proof. The browser will refuse to open any page without this signature, including pages from countries with different standards. > How do you enforce this policy? With jail terms. > At what point is a person allowed to view not "safe" web content? At the age of 18.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    >There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them These are provided by a private entity. What we clearly need is an official government morality commission.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    > There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them. much of social media is unrated, and no organization is going to rate every tiktok before releasing it to the wild. Even rated Video Games with online (even as family friendly as Nintendo) have the same "online interactions are not rated", because you cannot predict what activity will happen between two people in real time. >At the age of 18. TV and movie ratings have multiple age gates. 6+, 10+, and 17+ are the most common (and there are all kinds of 12/13/14/16+ ratings). This is exactly why "for kids" is such a asinine binary to base things on. the government doesn't define any age gates, but pretty much every single piece of media that rates content recognizes that a 5 year old is different from a 16 year old. >The browser will refuse to open any page without this signature, including pages from countries with different standards. neat, more region locking. just what everyone wanted. I guess NordVPN is going to campaign hard for this.
jaco6 3y ago
Safe content header is a relatively weak solution. Strongest solution is either Microsoft or Apple stepping up to develop a child designed device from the ground up. It would have access to a limited walled garden of the Internet. The device itself is marketed specifically to children and has no advertising allowed on it. It also incorporates health guidelines and screen time limits, etc. that cannot be changed by the device owner or user, only by Apple/Microsoft. It is essentially a fascist phone. Admittedly, this would make an adult, unlocked smart phone a hot item on the youth black market, but hopefully most kids will be too lazy to save up the money needed to buy a black market unlocked phone before they're ready to watch porn and be inundated with endless advertising and doomscrolls.
- codedokode 3y ago
  I agree it would be nice but it requires more investment than my plan and companies really do not want to spend an extra cent for children safety.
  - jaco6 3y ago
    It is an investment. You build brand loyalty by selling a safe device. Train kids to only use your OS. Then when they're 18 hopefully they stick with your OS. Furthermore, OS makers could lobby for additional age gates. I.e. a child phone for ages 15 and under, a teenager phone for ages 16-17, an adult phone for 21.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      I doubt that. For example, look at iOS "parental controls". Judging by screenshots [1] here, it is a complicated system that requires a parent to be a system administrator not to get lost in hundreds of settings. For example, you might have to manually compile a white list of websites, white list of apps etc. The system is so complicated that I think many parents simply get confused and do not want to use it. Instead there should be a single checkbox: "allow safe content only on this device". That's all (and you can leave detailed settings for system administrators). [1] https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphones-and-other-devices/apple-iphone-and-ipad-parental-control-guide/ https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphone...
JohnFen 3y ago
> the browser would open only pages that declare that they are safe for kids Safe according to who? There is no actual consensus outside of a core of extreme things about what is "safe for kids" and what is not.
- codedokode 3y ago
  The government will decide what is safe of not. There already are ratings for movies, for example "General Audiences" rating.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    Those movie ratings are not performed by the government.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      Probably they are made to comply with some laws or regulations (or to avoid being regulated by laws), so the government has a say here anyway.
      - polski-g 3y ago
        It would be unconstitutional for the government to regulate film content. So no.
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Agreed. It's really only based on a focus group of various audiences and surveys on what parents (dis)agree regarding certain content and how old you should be to view it. The closest thing to government intervention is the FCC, since the govt. does have some regulations on how TV and Radio can run (since the govt. infrastructure is used to broadcast). e.g.: >Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. So the only things really controlled are profanity (i.e. a relatively tiny list of words you must not say or bleep out) and "obscenity" (feel free to look up that govt. definition. Enjoy the rabbit hole). As for "indecency" >Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that is patently offensive but does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity. so, not really much for radio. Mostly prevents non-artistic/educational genitalia for TV's sake. ----- but all that was a tangent. The internet is not under FCC protocol and the FCC only endorses certain advertising, spam, and malware related issues, not content.
ThinkBeat 3y ago
We need this for tv content as well. A tv should show zero content until it has fully verified the identity / age of the viewer(s) and sense if someone new arrives and then stop programming until that person is verified. This could also be done by transmitting scrambled content, that can only be fixed by wearing identity ensured glasses genetically locked to the wearer.
- gs17 3y ago
  Don't forget refusing to continue showing content if you look away from ads!
  - mlvljr 3y ago
    [dead]
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    this brings back the old school meme of "please drink verification can"[1]. I don't even think they were called memes back in the day, or at least these were the days where memes were a very specific caption. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/1ggg4u/please_drink_a_verification_can/ https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/1ggg4u/please_drink_... (since you know. 4chan doesn't exactly archive itself)
- wierd-eye-loser 3y ago
  [dead]
hedora 3y ago
Here's a simpler, equally effective solution: The parents buy a laptop, and they have the admin password. You need the admin password to change the setting. If parents want to enable this or not for their kids, it's up to the parents to decide. Also, if adults want to enable the filters for their own personal use, that's fine too. There's literally an entire industry doing a bad job of this right now. If Google actually cared about improving the status quo, then instead of trying to mandate adults use cryptographically signed advertising identities to browse the web, they could use their web crawl and influence over web standards to improve the quality of opt-in content filters (by producing better site ratings lists, in the style of adblock lists, for example). Device-level protection doesn't work for kids that can break into the bootloader or jailbreak the machine their parents got for them, but not many things realistically will. Also, the scheme's failure to work against sophisticated users is a feature: at some point, kids turn into adults. These mechanisms shouldn't be capable of censoring adults' internet feeds.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Today there is no legal requirement for laptop manufacturers to implement "safe content" setting and, as I am aware, there is no such OS-level settings in any OS. iOS seems to have "parental controls", but they are implemented in the worst way possible. For example, to restrict access to websites, you have to manually enter the domains into black or white lists [1]. It seems like Apple tried to comply with some kind of regulations the cheapest way. There should be just a single checkbox, because I don't think there are many people who are ready to manually compile white lists of websites and browse through those complicated settings. [1] https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphones-and-other-devices/apple-iphone-and-ipad-parental-control-guide/#manage-web-content-iOS https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphone...
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >there is no such OS-level settings in any OS. windows does have parental controls, but they of course can only extend to Edge. I'm sure you can control whether a non-admin can install Chrome/Firefox or really anything non-authorized if you need to. >There should be just a single checkbox. because I don't think there are many people who are ready to manually compile white lists of websites and browse through those complicated settings. And who compiles the list? why do we trust them to turn a switch on or off? Also, I hope you can understand why I think "because parents are stupid/lazy" is the worst kind of reasoning you can give to enforce control over the entire internet. We solve laziness with awareness and stupidity with education. Why are we giving up on that?
brvsft 3y ago
I'm not against this, but I do believe such a header would give parents a false sense of security in what they can allow their children to do on the internet. Then again, for those of us who are skeptical that such a program can work, I'm guessing we already aren't or do not plan to allow our kids on the internet without supervision, so it's a bit of a moot point for me. I'm just annoyed that there is a certain set of incentives that allow for people to ignorantly trust the security and safety of various websites and applications, and then get some sort of reward/handout in the form of a class-action lawsuit against these services when they're finally caught failing to live up to the proposed safety regulations. So every idiot who had an account can line up for $20, and I get zero reward for correctly avoiding the situation by not signing up. These are perverse incentives IMO, and I'll just continue to be annoyed with all solutions that continue to allow this sort of thing to happen. Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header. Sure, they got sued, but a bunch of kids got goatse'd in the process, and their parents got $20. Cool future, I guess.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header There could be an organization that reviews site content and moderation policies, ensures that site operator and owner are not foreigners (so that they can be put to jail) and issues cryptographic proof of verification that the website would display in an HTTP header. As website owners are not anonymous they will not risk a jail term to put unsafe content on the site.
bsder 3y ago
> With this setting, the browser would open only pages that declare that they are safe for kids What is safe content? Is the Bible safe content? Is the Koran? etc. What about news stories about Israel? Hamas? etc.
npteljes 3y ago
>There is an easier way to protect everyone from kids. Love the phrasing.
npteljes 3y ago
Here's the fail in your plan: I'll register "mommylookaway.com", make it a simple web proxy like proxysite.com, and set the content flag to child safe. Making it illegal does nothing, just as law doesn't stop spreading other illegal material over the internet, right at this moment. Telegram etc can also have web frontends that do the same. There's no easy way around this, and that's because of a totally different reason. The reason being that the cause for all this is control, namely government control and surveillance over the populace. Companies profit from this and governments can increase their power with this, so they are natural allies in this scenario - government has the will and power over law, and companies have the know-how and the technical means, and of course a similar thirst of power. Situations like this must not be mistaken for the technicalities that they present. It's simply the next step in the power grab.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Yes, this part wasn't thought out well enough. Let there be an organization that verifies site owners (to verify that they are not abroad and can be put in jail if needed), content and moderation policies and issues a cryptographic signature. The website displays the signature in HTTP headers.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    I'm sorry, but this is still similarly handwave-y. Content moderation is contentious enough as it is, and on top of that, there is already persistent outright illegal content on the internet. There is illegal content on the clear web, and also a lot of illegal activity on instant messaging platforms, even on highly non-anonymous ones like Facebook. This issue is not technical, and so, we should stop trying to fix it with technical solutions. The proposal is only relevant because it's an effective smokescreen. There is real abuse happening, people are understandably, but overly anxious about that abuse, and a corporation sees an opportunity for power in this situation. That's all there is to it.
babypuncher 3y ago
I like some aspects of this approach, but two points don't work well with me. 1. It shouldn't be a legal requirement for parents to enable this on their kids devices. This should mearly be an option available to parents. Do not tell me how to raise my kids. 2. "Safe for kids" is pretty nebulous, and you already know certain dumpy states would abuse the hell out of this (i.e. declaring content "unsafe for kids" if it features a man with effeminate characteristics). Maybe a solution to the latter problem would be to use content descriptors instead of a blanket "safe for kids" flag. i.e. individual flags for pornography, graphic violence, naughty words, etc.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > Do not tell me how to raise my kids. The government is already doing it, depending on the country, you can get prosecuted if for example you buy alcohol for children or let them do something dangerous. > Maybe a solution to the latter problem would be to use content descriptors instead of a blanket "safe for kids" flag. i.e. individual flags for pornography, graphic violence, naughty words, etc. Maybe, but this increases possibility for fingerprinting.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    > The government is already doing it, depending on the country, you can get prosecuted if for example you buy alcohol for children or let them do something dangerous. The difference is that alcohol can cause immediate and even irreversible harm to anyone, especially children. Alcohol is heavily regulated even for use by full grown adults, specifically because of its capacity for harm. Evidence that seeing nudity or hearing dirty words does the same is incredibly sketchy at best. But even then, in most states, it is perfectly legal to let your own kids drink alcohol on your own private property. > Maybe, but this increases possibility for fingerprinting. Maybe, I think that depends on the implementation. But either way, I doubt it is much of a concern for parents who just want better control over what their kids see and do online.
- godshatter 3y ago
  I like the idea of a set of tags that can be used to filter content, if so desired. It would need a set of agreed-upon tags with the option to add others. And yes, voluntary would have to be a requirement.
notfed 3y ago
Sounds like we need to bring back the Evil Bit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
> Make an OS-level setting ("show safe content only") that only parents can change. > Also, with "safe content" setting OS should allow running and installing only apps that are verified to be safe This is hard to do on PCs where you can install your own operating system and have full control, but they're not the dominant Internet device anymore. You would have to make those illegal or illegal for children to have. But this is effectively possible on modern phones. > Make it illegal to send invalid "safe content" headers. A. This requires all states and all countries to agree what is and is not safe content B. Enforcement across national borders will be inefficient unless the two countries are tightly coupled. Disagreements could be leveraged for political ends (just think of current conflicts). C. Unless a site that hosts user-generated content reviews every single item of content before allowing it to be published, it can't guarantee that all content on its platform is safe. Therefore it would have to be marked unsafe unless a special provision is made here.
- codedokode 3y ago
  > This requires all states and all countries to agree what is and is not safe content There could be an organization that reviews site content and moderation policies and assigns a rating, issuing a cryptographic signature to the website. > Enforcement across national borders will be inefficient The rating will not be assigned to foreign-owned websites. Also, the enforcement is pretty efficient, there are police raids on sites with illegal content, and people get arrested for it. > Unless a site that hosts user-generated content reviews every single item of content before allowing it to be published, it can't guarantee that all content on its platform is safe. Then it doesn't get a "safe" rating.
g-b-r 3y ago
Ok the long message I wrote got lost, great. In short people, there's no need for cryptography certification security etc, what the governments push for would require websites and services to make at most exactly the same decisions!!! There's no certification required that I'm aware about, websites operators are required to make the decisions themselves exactly like in this proposal !! Conundrums with user content, hosted services, legal responsibility, same!!! The only difference is that with age verification the website would have to decide if he needs to prompt the age verification system, with this if he wants to send the header! Once there's a header (good old PICS) in a tls connection that's it! (of course the huge difference with this system is that here only the services that explicitly want to be offered to minors would need to do something, as opposed to everyone - and as an aside this would limit immensely what's accessible to minors)
makeitdouble 3y ago
> no need to make life complicated for adult people. I like that it's the main goal for all these huge and pervasive legal changes. I know there's all the cultural "can't show a nipple to my pure innocent girl", but it still amazes me our societies as a whole have to deal with the radicalism of a few.

adverbly 3y ago

Interesting idea... Opt in to opting out of adult content... Some potential issues: 1. Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... They have a hard enough time with copyright content, and there's a much larger financial incentive in that case. 2. Need to agree on what is safe and what isn't. Bit of a can of worms there...

codedokode 3y ago
> Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... You don't need to enforce it. Sites without this header will not be accessible from a browser when "safe content" setting is active. > Need to agree on what is safe and what isn't There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch.
- gs17 3y ago
  And when sites outside of the jurisdictions that can take legal action put "safe-content: very yes" on whatever non-safe content?
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Let there be an government-assigned organization that verifies website owner, content and issues a cryptographic signature proving that the site has been verified. The browser shall not open any page without the signature.
    - adverbly 3y ago
      This is what I mean by enforcement though. It is going to be hard to enforce for that government assisted organization. They either allow everyone who wants to set the header to do it, in which case they need to spend a lot on policing, or they need to actually have someone review. Either case, it is a huge undertaking with a lot of staff and regulations and decisions to be made about how to handle gray areas. Additionally, things can change over time and sites kind of evolve . You need to decide what would trigger a new review.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch. The existing ratings are terrible, though, and as a parent I think they allow things that I very much object to my children seeing, and prohibit things that I don't.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Having imperfect restrictions for children is better than having none.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      That's a bit of a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between blanket restrictions that are bad or no restrictions at all. There's also the option of giving some sort of mechanism to allow parents to set the restrictions they consider appropriate.
jaco6 3y ago
You're right. Safe content header is a relatively weak solution. Strongest solution is either Microsoft or Apple stepping up to develop a child designed device from the ground up. It would have access to a limited walled garden of the Internet. The device itself is marketed specifically to children and has no advertising allowed on it. It also incorporates health guidelines and screen time limits, etc. that cannot be changed by the device owner or user, only by Apple/Microsoft. It is essentially a fascist phone. Admittedly, this would make an adult, unlocked smart phone a hot item on the youth black market, but hopefully most kids will be too lazy to save up the money needed to buy a black market unlocked phone before they're ready to watch porn and be inundated with endless advertising and doomscrolls.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Neither MS nor Apple will want to spend lot of money for designing devices where they cannot even show ads.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    I agree with the former but I definitely wonder about the latter. If anyone can do a secure, child-safe device that’s so expensive they don’t need to show ads to be profitable, it’s them.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > so expensive they don’t need to show ads to be profitable Yes, but there is no company that feels they are profitable enough so they still shows ads. Apple shows ads and makes decent profits from it, they are just a massive company like all the others.

jaco6 3y ago

This solution is the lowest cost solution and I am in favor. Will OS developers (because their market power is obviously more relevant here than the viewpoint of web developers) see it the same way?

codedokode 3y ago
Every computer, laptop or smartphone imported, or sold, must have this setting. If OS developers do not want their OS to be pre-installed they don't need to implement the setting.
- jaco6 3y ago
  Apologies, my above remark was a bit unclear. When I said "will OS developers see it the same way" what I meant was whether OS developers will lobby against this law or be in favor.

ok123456 3y ago

Didn't this already exist with PICS on Windows 98?

Kinrany 3y ago

This may very well be worse: children would have no access to internet except for websites designed with the single goal of extracting money from parents.

codedokode 3y ago
Majority of websites are made with sole purpose to extract money.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Don't we just call those "businesses" ?

afavour 3y ago

What does “safe for kids” mean, though? How do you imagine that being codified in law? What about different age ranges? Or does it all flip from off to on at age 18? There are obvious examples of unsuitable content like pornography but there’s also a wide variety of content out there at varying levels of suitability. And a lot of people with different opinions about what is suitable (e.g. non pornographic nudity). Good luck finding universal agreement on that. And how would anyone act on a violator? Would the police have access to a universal blocklist in all ISPs? There are already a number of voluntary systems that operate the way you describe. Legally mandating it would be very difficult.

codedokode 3y ago
> What does “safe for kids” mean, though? There are ratings for movies and games, just use any of them, for example, "General Audiences" rating.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Those ratings are only advisory, though, which allows parents who disagree with how the ratings are determined to ignore them. If we're going to use a rating system that has teeth, then we still smack directly into "who gets to decide what 'safe for kids' means".
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    Yes. There will be a fight and a status quo will emerge. Like movies rated G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17. Like video games rated E, E-10+, T, M, AO. Like the nebulous Parental Advisory:Explicit Lyrics you will find on certain records.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
codedokode 3y ago
> And how would anyone act on a violator? Would the police have access to a universal blocklist in all ISPs? Another user suggested that there should be an organization that issues or revokes the cryptographic signatures after verifying website's content. The site displays the signature proving that it was checked to be safe, in HTTP headers.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

It's trivial to boot from a live USB to circumvent this.

codedokode 3y ago
If you are a programmer.
- gs17 3y ago
  No, if you even know anyone tech savvy enough (within several degrees of separation) to figure it out. Kids are very good at getting around things like this and the solutions go viral. You would have to restrict a lot more than just the browser.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Yes but kids who do not want to see porn (or people cut in pieces) will not see it accidentally. Isn't that good?
    - gs17 3y ago
      But now the promise goes from "kids can only see safe things" to "kids can only see safe things unless they want to see a single unsafe thing, then they see everything". With "safe things" being a government-created whitelist, it's going to be pretty easy for almost every kid to want "unsafe things" that aren't porn or gore. They'll want to play games (by your standards, even a T rated game is unsafe since it's T for Teen, not T for Twelve-Year-Old), watch whatever videos (zero anime/cartoon/whatever streaming sites would be deemed safe), and use social media. This whole filter would be pointless if you accept it being easy to get around.
      - codedokode 3y ago
        What you are describing are small issues. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent the regulations (like children who drink alcohol or smoke). Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. Regarding movie sites, there are paid sites where you can legally watch anime or cartoons, and I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content.

darkarmani 3y ago

> Make it a legal requirement for parents to set up this option for their children on every device they use. Why? Let the parents decide -- they now have the controls they need. > Make it illegal to send invalid "safe content" headers. Just make them cryptographically signed. Anything without a valid signed header is "adult".

codedokode 3y ago
> Just make them cryptographically signed. Yes this is better, let some organisation issue these signatures.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  For a ‘reasonable’ fee of course.

zffr 3y ago

How do you define "safe"? What is the process for amending this definition in the future? What if different countries have different definitions? At what point is a person allowed to view not "safe" web content? How do you enforce this policy? How do you identify violations of the policy? What is the penalty for violating the policy? ... and this is just the tip of the iceberg IMO a policy like this would not be easy to pull off at all.

codedokode 3y ago
> How do you define "safe"? There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them. > What if different countries have different definitions? Then browser will refuse to open pages from that countries. For example, there could be an organization assigning rating to websites and issuing them a cryptographic signature as a proof. The browser will refuse to open any page without this signature, including pages from countries with different standards. > How do you enforce this policy? With jail terms. > At what point is a person allowed to view not "safe" web content? At the age of 18.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  >There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them These are provided by a private entity. What we clearly need is an official government morality commission.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  > There are ratings for movies and games, we can use them. much of social media is unrated, and no organization is going to rate every tiktok before releasing it to the wild. Even rated Video Games with online (even as family friendly as Nintendo) have the same "online interactions are not rated", because you cannot predict what activity will happen between two people in real time. >At the age of 18. TV and movie ratings have multiple age gates. 6+, 10+, and 17+ are the most common (and there are all kinds of 12/13/14/16+ ratings). This is exactly why "for kids" is such a asinine binary to base things on. the government doesn't define any age gates, but pretty much every single piece of media that rates content recognizes that a 5 year old is different from a 16 year old. >The browser will refuse to open any page without this signature, including pages from countries with different standards. neat, more region locking. just what everyone wanted. I guess NordVPN is going to campaign hard for this.

jaco6 3y ago

Safe content header is a relatively weak solution. Strongest solution is either Microsoft or Apple stepping up to develop a child designed device from the ground up. It would have access to a limited walled garden of the Internet. The device itself is marketed specifically to children and has no advertising allowed on it. It also incorporates health guidelines and screen time limits, etc. that cannot be changed by the device owner or user, only by Apple/Microsoft. It is essentially a fascist phone. Admittedly, this would make an adult, unlocked smart phone a hot item on the youth black market, but hopefully most kids will be too lazy to save up the money needed to buy a black market unlocked phone before they're ready to watch porn and be inundated with endless advertising and doomscrolls.

codedokode 3y ago
I agree it would be nice but it requires more investment than my plan and companies really do not want to spend an extra cent for children safety.
- jaco6 3y ago
  It is an investment. You build brand loyalty by selling a safe device. Train kids to only use your OS. Then when they're 18 hopefully they stick with your OS. Furthermore, OS makers could lobby for additional age gates. I.e. a child phone for ages 15 and under, a teenager phone for ages 16-17, an adult phone for 21.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    I doubt that. For example, look at iOS "parental controls". Judging by screenshots [1] here, it is a complicated system that requires a parent to be a system administrator not to get lost in hundreds of settings. For example, you might have to manually compile a white list of websites, white list of apps etc. The system is so complicated that I think many parents simply get confused and do not want to use it. Instead there should be a single checkbox: "allow safe content only on this device". That's all (and you can leave detailed settings for system administrators). [1] https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphones-and-other-devices/apple-iphone-and-ipad-parental-control-guide/ https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphone...

JohnFen 3y ago

> the browser would open only pages that declare that they are safe for kids Safe according to who? There is no actual consensus outside of a core of extreme things about what is "safe for kids" and what is not.

codedokode 3y ago
The government will decide what is safe of not. There already are ratings for movies, for example "General Audiences" rating.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Those movie ratings are not performed by the government.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Probably they are made to comply with some laws or regulations (or to avoid being regulated by laws), so the government has a say here anyway.
    - polski-g 3y ago
      It would be unconstitutional for the government to regulate film content. So no.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Agreed. It's really only based on a focus group of various audiences and surveys on what parents (dis)agree regarding certain content and how old you should be to view it. The closest thing to government intervention is the FCC, since the govt. does have some regulations on how TV and Radio can run (since the govt. infrastructure is used to broadcast). e.g.: >Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. So the only things really controlled are profanity (i.e. a relatively tiny list of words you must not say or bleep out) and "obscenity" (feel free to look up that govt. definition. Enjoy the rabbit hole). As for "indecency" >Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that is patently offensive but does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity. so, not really much for radio. Mostly prevents non-artistic/educational genitalia for TV's sake. ----- but all that was a tangent. The internet is not under FCC protocol and the FCC only endorses certain advertising, spam, and malware related issues, not content.

ThinkBeat 3y ago

We need this for tv content as well. A tv should show zero content until it has fully verified the identity / age of the viewer(s) and sense if someone new arrives and then stop programming until that person is verified. This could also be done by transmitting scrambled content, that can only be fixed by wearing identity ensured glasses genetically locked to the wearer.

gs17 3y ago
Don't forget refusing to continue showing content if you look away from ads!
- mlvljr 3y ago
  [dead]
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  this brings back the old school meme of "please drink verification can"[1]. I don't even think they were called memes back in the day, or at least these were the days where memes were a very specific caption. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/1ggg4u/please_drink_a_verification_can/ https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/1ggg4u/please_drink_... (since you know. 4chan doesn't exactly archive itself)
wierd-eye-loser 3y ago
[dead]

hedora 3y ago

Here's a simpler, equally effective solution: The parents buy a laptop, and they have the admin password. You need the admin password to change the setting. If parents want to enable this or not for their kids, it's up to the parents to decide. Also, if adults want to enable the filters for their own personal use, that's fine too. There's literally an entire industry doing a bad job of this right now. If Google actually cared about improving the status quo, then instead of trying to mandate adults use cryptographically signed advertising identities to browse the web, they could use their web crawl and influence over web standards to improve the quality of opt-in content filters (by producing better site ratings lists, in the style of adblock lists, for example). Device-level protection doesn't work for kids that can break into the bootloader or jailbreak the machine their parents got for them, but not many things realistically will. Also, the scheme's failure to work against sophisticated users is a feature: at some point, kids turn into adults. These mechanisms shouldn't be capable of censoring adults' internet feeds.

codedokode 3y ago
Today there is no legal requirement for laptop manufacturers to implement "safe content" setting and, as I am aware, there is no such OS-level settings in any OS. iOS seems to have "parental controls", but they are implemented in the worst way possible. For example, to restrict access to websites, you have to manually enter the domains into black or white lists [1]. It seems like Apple tried to comply with some kind of regulations the cheapest way. There should be just a single checkbox, because I don't think there are many people who are ready to manually compile white lists of websites and browse through those complicated settings. [1] https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphones-and-other-devices/apple-iphone-and-ipad-parental-control-guide/#manage-web-content-iOS https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphone...
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >there is no such OS-level settings in any OS. windows does have parental controls, but they of course can only extend to Edge. I'm sure you can control whether a non-admin can install Chrome/Firefox or really anything non-authorized if you need to. >There should be just a single checkbox. because I don't think there are many people who are ready to manually compile white lists of websites and browse through those complicated settings. And who compiles the list? why do we trust them to turn a switch on or off? Also, I hope you can understand why I think "because parents are stupid/lazy" is the worst kind of reasoning you can give to enforce control over the entire internet. We solve laziness with awareness and stupidity with education. Why are we giving up on that?

brvsft 3y ago

I'm not against this, but I do believe such a header would give parents a false sense of security in what they can allow their children to do on the internet. Then again, for those of us who are skeptical that such a program can work, I'm guessing we already aren't or do not plan to allow our kids on the internet without supervision, so it's a bit of a moot point for me. I'm just annoyed that there is a certain set of incentives that allow for people to ignorantly trust the security and safety of various websites and applications, and then get some sort of reward/handout in the form of a class-action lawsuit against these services when they're finally caught failing to live up to the proposed safety regulations. So every idiot who had an account can line up for $20, and I get zero reward for correctly avoiding the situation by not signing up. These are perverse incentives IMO, and I'll just continue to be annoyed with all solutions that continue to allow this sort of thing to happen. Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header. Sure, they got sued, but a bunch of kids got goatse'd in the process, and their parents got $20. Cool future, I guess.

codedokode 3y ago
> Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header There could be an organization that reviews site content and moderation policies, ensures that site operator and owner are not foreigners (so that they can be put to jail) and issues cryptographic proof of verification that the website would display in an HTTP header. As website owners are not anonymous they will not risk a jail term to put unsafe content on the site.

bsder 3y ago

> With this setting, the browser would open only pages that declare that they are safe for kids What is safe content? Is the Bible safe content? Is the Koran? etc. What about news stories about Israel? Hamas? etc.

npteljes 3y ago

>There is an easier way to protect everyone from kids. Love the phrasing.

npteljes 3y ago

Here's the fail in your plan: I'll register "mommylookaway.com", make it a simple web proxy like proxysite.com, and set the content flag to child safe. Making it illegal does nothing, just as law doesn't stop spreading other illegal material over the internet, right at this moment. Telegram etc can also have web frontends that do the same. There's no easy way around this, and that's because of a totally different reason. The reason being that the cause for all this is control, namely government control and surveillance over the populace. Companies profit from this and governments can increase their power with this, so they are natural allies in this scenario - government has the will and power over law, and companies have the know-how and the technical means, and of course a similar thirst of power. Situations like this must not be mistaken for the technicalities that they present. It's simply the next step in the power grab.

codedokode 3y ago
Yes, this part wasn't thought out well enough. Let there be an organization that verifies site owners (to verify that they are not abroad and can be put in jail if needed), content and moderation policies and issues a cryptographic signature. The website displays the signature in HTTP headers.
- npteljes 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is still similarly handwave-y. Content moderation is contentious enough as it is, and on top of that, there is already persistent outright illegal content on the internet. There is illegal content on the clear web, and also a lot of illegal activity on instant messaging platforms, even on highly non-anonymous ones like Facebook. This issue is not technical, and so, we should stop trying to fix it with technical solutions. The proposal is only relevant because it's an effective smokescreen. There is real abuse happening, people are understandably, but overly anxious about that abuse, and a corporation sees an opportunity for power in this situation. That's all there is to it.

babypuncher 3y ago

I like some aspects of this approach, but two points don't work well with me. 1. It shouldn't be a legal requirement for parents to enable this on their kids devices. This should mearly be an option available to parents. Do not tell me how to raise my kids. 2. "Safe for kids" is pretty nebulous, and you already know certain dumpy states would abuse the hell out of this (i.e. declaring content "unsafe for kids" if it features a man with effeminate characteristics). Maybe a solution to the latter problem would be to use content descriptors instead of a blanket "safe for kids" flag. i.e. individual flags for pornography, graphic violence, naughty words, etc.

codedokode 3y ago
> Do not tell me how to raise my kids. The government is already doing it, depending on the country, you can get prosecuted if for example you buy alcohol for children or let them do something dangerous. > Maybe a solution to the latter problem would be to use content descriptors instead of a blanket "safe for kids" flag. i.e. individual flags for pornography, graphic violence, naughty words, etc. Maybe, but this increases possibility for fingerprinting.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  > The government is already doing it, depending on the country, you can get prosecuted if for example you buy alcohol for children or let them do something dangerous. The difference is that alcohol can cause immediate and even irreversible harm to anyone, especially children. Alcohol is heavily regulated even for use by full grown adults, specifically because of its capacity for harm. Evidence that seeing nudity or hearing dirty words does the same is incredibly sketchy at best. But even then, in most states, it is perfectly legal to let your own kids drink alcohol on your own private property. > Maybe, but this increases possibility for fingerprinting. Maybe, I think that depends on the implementation. But either way, I doubt it is much of a concern for parents who just want better control over what their kids see and do online.
godshatter 3y ago
I like the idea of a set of tags that can be used to filter content, if so desired. It would need a set of agreed-upon tags with the option to add others. And yes, voluntary would have to be a requirement.

notfed 3y ago

Sounds like we need to bring back the Evil Bit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

> Make an OS-level setting ("show safe content only") that only parents can change. > Also, with "safe content" setting OS should allow running and installing only apps that are verified to be safe This is hard to do on PCs where you can install your own operating system and have full control, but they're not the dominant Internet device anymore. You would have to make those illegal or illegal for children to have. But this is effectively possible on modern phones. > Make it illegal to send invalid "safe content" headers. A. This requires all states and all countries to agree what is and is not safe content B. Enforcement across national borders will be inefficient unless the two countries are tightly coupled. Disagreements could be leveraged for political ends (just think of current conflicts). C. Unless a site that hosts user-generated content reviews every single item of content before allowing it to be published, it can't guarantee that all content on its platform is safe. Therefore it would have to be marked unsafe unless a special provision is made here.

codedokode 3y ago
> This requires all states and all countries to agree what is and is not safe content There could be an organization that reviews site content and moderation policies and assigns a rating, issuing a cryptographic signature to the website. > Enforcement across national borders will be inefficient The rating will not be assigned to foreign-owned websites. Also, the enforcement is pretty efficient, there are police raids on sites with illegal content, and people get arrested for it. > Unless a site that hosts user-generated content reviews every single item of content before allowing it to be published, it can't guarantee that all content on its platform is safe. Then it doesn't get a "safe" rating.

g-b-r 3y ago

Ok the long message I wrote got lost, great. In short people, there's no need for cryptography certification security etc, what the governments push for would require websites and services to make at most exactly the same decisions!!! There's no certification required that I'm aware about, websites operators are required to make the decisions themselves exactly like in this proposal !! Conundrums with user content, hosted services, legal responsibility, same!!! The only difference is that with age verification the website would have to decide if he needs to prompt the age verification system, with this if he wants to send the header! Once there's a header (good old PICS) in a tls connection that's it! (of course the huge difference with this system is that here only the services that explicitly want to be offered to minors would need to do something, as opposed to everyone - and as an aside this would limit immensely what's accessible to minors)

makeitdouble 3y ago

> no need to make life complicated for adult people. I like that it's the main goal for all these huge and pervasive legal changes. I know there's all the cultural "can't show a nipple to my pure innocent girl", but it still amazes me our societies as a whole have to deal with the radicalism of a few.