3 ms·

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 ag

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.
- gs17 3y ago
  Great, but then the content on the site has to be relatively static. Maybe social media is inherently "unsafe", but what about a news site? Do kids only get to see yesterday's news?
  - codedokode 3y ago
    You do not need to verify every single page. You verify that owner and operator are not foreign entities (so you can catch them and put in jail), review the moderation policies and get a written promise to follow the law.
    - gs17 3y ago
      But if you did, you gain protection from defaced sites (in addition to making "show safe content only" actually true). Most of the worst things I saw online as a kid were on otherwise okay sites attacked in whatever way to show shock images.
      - codedokode 3y ago
        I cannot remember when I saw a defaced website last time. This is very rare nowadays.
        gs17 3y ago
        I can't see this system not giving more motivation to deface websites.
saltminer 3y ago
My thoughts exactly. While there are some categories which are easy to agree on as being unsuitable for kids (and some adults, for that matter), you will inevitably find such content restrictions used to attempt to legislate morality. Look at Florida and their "don't say gay" bill. They want kids to remain oblivious to the existence of LGBT people, using "think of the children" rhetoric, and I have no doubt they would use "child friendly internet" legislation to ban even the most milquetoast acknowledgment of our existence, because they see it all as "indoctrination" and "grooming." As a lesbian, I find this abhorrent, but even if you're not LGBT, you should be afraid of these kinds of laws, because the Christian right will inevitably use them against you, too. If you're atheist (and if you use HN, you probably are), believe in the theory of evolution, believe in climate change, are a person of color...you get the picture. And then there's the fact that the internet is international. Content about women's suffrage, for instance, would likely be deemed "inappropriate for children" in much of the Arab world, both because most of those nations are not democratic, but also because they want to avoid empowering women. The suggestions to "just use the MPA rating system" are bad because, even if those ratings were objective (they're not), the good thing about them is that they're not legislatively enforced. If a child wants to see an R-rated movie, the theater won't sell them a ticket directly, but if they're accompanied by a parent, they can see it, and that's probably the best system we can hope for: a voluntary system where parents can allow their kids access to what they feel is appropriate. And for all the flaws that has, it's better than having CPS take your kids because you let them read the wikipedia page about being trans.
- codedokode 3y ago
  The point is that either there will be locked-down child devices or there will be total surveillance, ban of encryption and much worse things in the name of children safety. Regarding foreign countries, they already block the content they don't like, but for everyone, so this plan won't change anything there.
  - account42 3y ago
    > The point is that either there will be locked-down child devices or there will be total surveillance, ban of encryption and much worse things in the name of children safety. Why is that a given?
Zardoz84 3y ago
I see how this could be uses to censor any website that talk about LGTBQIA+, racial rights, etc... in the name of "safety for kids"
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Speaking as someone who was once a 15 year old, why is pornography "unsuitable" and why in the world would you think we couldn't and didn't get hold of it? Same for alcohol, which amazingly isn't legal in US till 21!!! So let's be clear. We aren't talking about good policy or maximizing safety and minimizing harm. We're talking about trigger issue to make pro and con demographics vote along party lines on this issue instead of having the freedom to vote on relevant issues which would positively impact society.
- afavour 3y ago
  I’m talking about societal norms. Yes, yes, I know teenagers get ahold of porn, I was also a teenager once. But the OP was talking about passing a law for this stuff. You think a politician that stands up and says “porn for 15 year olds is cool by me!” is going to last more than five minutes? Of course they won’t.

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.

gs17 3y ago
Great, but then the content on the site has to be relatively static. Maybe social media is inherently "unsafe", but what about a news site? Do kids only get to see yesterday's news?
- codedokode 3y ago
  You do not need to verify every single page. You verify that owner and operator are not foreign entities (so you can catch them and put in jail), review the moderation policies and get a written promise to follow the law.
  - gs17 3y ago
    But if you did, you gain protection from defaced sites (in addition to making "show safe content only" actually true). Most of the worst things I saw online as a kid were on otherwise okay sites attacked in whatever way to show shock images.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      I cannot remember when I saw a defaced website last time. This is very rare nowadays.
      - gs17 3y ago
        I can't see this system not giving more motivation to deface websites.

saltminer 3y ago

My thoughts exactly. While there are some categories which are easy to agree on as being unsuitable for kids (and some adults, for that matter), you will inevitably find such content restrictions used to attempt to legislate morality. Look at Florida and their "don't say gay" bill. They want kids to remain oblivious to the existence of LGBT people, using "think of the children" rhetoric, and I have no doubt they would use "child friendly internet" legislation to ban even the most milquetoast acknowledgment of our existence, because they see it all as "indoctrination" and "grooming." As a lesbian, I find this abhorrent, but even if you're not LGBT, you should be afraid of these kinds of laws, because the Christian right will inevitably use them against you, too. If you're atheist (and if you use HN, you probably are), believe in the theory of evolution, believe in climate change, are a person of color...you get the picture. And then there's the fact that the internet is international. Content about women's suffrage, for instance, would likely be deemed "inappropriate for children" in much of the Arab world, both because most of those nations are not democratic, but also because they want to avoid empowering women. The suggestions to "just use the MPA rating system" are bad because, even if those ratings were objective (they're not), the good thing about them is that they're not legislatively enforced. If a child wants to see an R-rated movie, the theater won't sell them a ticket directly, but if they're accompanied by a parent, they can see it, and that's probably the best system we can hope for: a voluntary system where parents can allow their kids access to what they feel is appropriate. And for all the flaws that has, it's better than having CPS take your kids because you let them read the wikipedia page about being trans.

codedokode 3y ago
The point is that either there will be locked-down child devices or there will be total surveillance, ban of encryption and much worse things in the name of children safety. Regarding foreign countries, they already block the content they don't like, but for everyone, so this plan won't change anything there.
- account42 3y ago
  > The point is that either there will be locked-down child devices or there will be total surveillance, ban of encryption and much worse things in the name of children safety. Why is that a given?

Zardoz84 3y ago

I see how this could be uses to censor any website that talk about LGTBQIA+, racial rights, etc... in the name of "safety for kids"

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

Speaking as someone who was once a 15 year old, why is pornography "unsuitable" and why in the world would you think we couldn't and didn't get hold of it? Same for alcohol, which amazingly isn't legal in US till 21!!! So let's be clear. We aren't talking about good policy or maximizing safety and minimizing harm. We're talking about trigger issue to make pro and con demographics vote along party lines on this issue instead of having the freedom to vote on relevant issues which would positively impact society.

afavour 3y ago
I’m talking about societal norms. Yes, yes, I know teenagers get ahold of porn, I was also a teenager once. But the OP was talking about passing a law for this stuff. You think a politician that stands up and says “porn for 15 year olds is cool by me!” is going to last more than five minutes? Of course they won’t.