5 ms·

As someone whose first job was at an early parental controls company which focused on the first generation of social networks and IM services, I question the us

As someone whose first job was at an early parental controls company which focused on the first generation of social networks and IM services, I question the use of scare quotes in this title. I will be the first to defend the open internet and decentralization generally, but to imply there's no problem here is catastrophically naive. I am still troubled by some of the things I learned about predators in that job. We put people in prison. We should strive to solve both problems, keeping an open internet, and not allowing our children to be destroyed by pretending psychopaths don't exist.

mistrial9 3y ago
similar statements apply to public response to mental health -- some situations actually are dangerous, and need attention that is appropriate. A simplistic response is "present govt ID at all times" but that is neither sufficient, nor the way forward IMHO.
benatkin 3y ago
I’m supposed to believe Facebook cares? Absolutely not.
- importantbrian 3y ago
  This is next-level cynicism. Zuckerberg has 3 kids, most of their execs and a lot of their employees are parents. They've also employed a team to try and keep that stuff off their platform for a long time. The idea that they don't really care about this kind of stuff is asinine.
  - benatkin 3y ago
    OK are you suggesting that people who don't have kids of their own don't care about other peoples' kids as much as those who do? It seems you're pretty deep into logical fallacies. As for "that stuff off their platform" - keep in mind that the Rohingya victims include whole families.
    - importantbrian 3y ago
      > OK are you suggesting that people who don't have kids of their own don't care about other peoples' kids as much as those who do? It seems you're pretty deep into logical fallacies. That's a bit of a leap, but let's pretend for a minute that that is what I was suggesting. What specifically would the logical fallacy be?
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    Hang on, Zuckerman's kids aren't human, they're fnord human-skin-suit-wearing baby lizards. They're just going to be raised and taught to do better at the human act this time than "just out here smoking meats with my human friends!"
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
mulmen 3y ago
I’m not convinced Meta or Google actually care about protecting children. This is all about power. As the article points out these mechanisms are ineffective. And as is well documented Meta has no problem exploiting children on Instagram. I’m sure there are awful things happening online and in the real world. We should try to stop those things with actual honest efforts. Selling our souls to the likes of Meta and Google doesn’t help children. To the contrary, it creates a sick world for them to grow into.
koube 3y ago
Why is this comment downvoted? Outside of internet forums which tend to be very free speech, parental controls would be incredibly popular, and companies that don't have tight content controls receive a lot of scrutiny. As the article notes, Facebook is already being criticized for not tightly enforcing minimum ages, and there was a popular article out just yesterday[0] about Instagram just showing things that are vaguely "risque". If you ask someone on the street if Google and Facebook should have parental controls the answer would be unequivocally yes. This is the normie position the vast majority of the time. Are we able to engage with normie positions? Is it not genuinely concerning if we're unable to? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439280
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  I don’t even like the term “normie” because, honestly, that blinds us into a perspective that we are superior to the perspectives of most people; when there isn’t any actual guarantee of that superiority.
  - koube 3y ago
    Fair point, I can see where you're coming from and I'm aware of the origins of the word on 4chan. I use the term not with the intention of placing anyone above others, but denoting the difference between insular forum culture and every day people you see when you go outside. In the political world this word has taken on a similar meaning for the difference between commentariat and every day people and that's the way I use it in conversation. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/towards-a-normie-politics https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/towards-a-normie-politi... https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-lot-of-the-best-political-messages https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-lot-of-the-best-political-mes...
- mulmen 3y ago
  It’s downvoted because it’s the same tired think of the children argument. It’s a red herring. Age verification doesn’t protect children. Legislation protects incumbents. Meta are experts at manipulating emotions. That’s exactly what the “think of the children” argument does.
ghusto 3y ago
I have a near foolproof solution for parental controls; it's called parenting, 1.0 If you don't have a close enough relationship with your children where they trust and communicate openly with you, no amount of technology is going to keep them safe. It's an arms race you will be losing most of the time.
- munificent 3y ago
  Children with shitty parents don't deserve to be targeted by predators either, though.
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    Can't solve poor parenting with technology or regulation, though.
    - munificent 3y ago
      "Solve" is the entirely wrong verb here. Children are not math problems. The question is whether you can design policies and programs that help children, even children with bad parents, while having downsides small enough that the benefits outweigh them. And, clearly, you can. The history of the US is rife with them: public libraries, public schools, mandatory education, child tax credits, mandatory vaccination, etc. Whether this specific policy is a net win is a separate question that I don't have an opinion on. But the idea that the entire outcome of a person rests and should rest entirely on the shoulders of their parents is deeply flawed and runs counter to almost all of human history.
ChrisKnott 3y ago
The fact you are immediately downvoted for this even handed comment which speaks from personal experience, while worthless "DAE 1984" comments are not, proves how close minded most HN commenters are on this issue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- benatkin 3y ago
  I can't tell if the personal experience is relevant, irrelevant, or a conflict of interest. The parental control companies profited from a sense of security was often false, for which it watered down the experience of using the web in its early days. Back in the 90s if I were subjected to buggy parental control software I couldn't have learned as much as I did. Maybe parental control software was worse back then than it is now, because it took away the experience only afforded to my generation of growing up during the birth of the Web.
csdvrx 3y ago
> We should strive to solve both problems, keeping an open internet I recently looked at HTTP/3 proposals. TLS is required, but you can't use a self-signed certificate: without the CA root it will not connect, and the specifications for HTTP/3 says this should be the default. This is horrible. It's using security and performance as good excuses to remove features, like how in practice, chrome changes result in extra hurdles for ad blockers. In my perfect world, the identity problem (is this website really mybank.com?) would be handled at the DNS level (DNSSEC!), and for a new HTTP format based on UDP (great idea!) it would be the http CLIENTS that would each create their own keys and give public keys to the servers. It would be less risky than a breach of trust down the CA authority, as the traffic would not be decryptable.
- mmvasq 3y ago
  Maybe options for either…people are notoriously bad at key management unless versed in enterprise vaulting. This is why decisions are made to try to help them.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    It could be fully automatized within the browser, or even just create a new key at the beginning of the session, delete it when it's closed. The data would be encrypted and protected.
s1gnp0st 3y ago
It's remarkable how many people replied to this comment with an argument against age verification. I am fully in favor of preserving the (semblance of) anonymity we enjoy on the internet, and even improving upon it. I'll say again more clearly, ignoring the problem of other people's suffering does not make it go away, and one day it spills over into your own life. There are likely solutions which preserve privacy of adult users available for those willing to think.

mistrial9 3y ago

similar statements apply to public response to mental health -- some situations actually are dangerous, and need attention that is appropriate. A simplistic response is "present govt ID at all times" but that is neither sufficient, nor the way forward IMHO.

benatkin 3y ago

I’m supposed to believe Facebook cares? Absolutely not.

importantbrian 3y ago
This is next-level cynicism. Zuckerberg has 3 kids, most of their execs and a lot of their employees are parents. They've also employed a team to try and keep that stuff off their platform for a long time. The idea that they don't really care about this kind of stuff is asinine.
- benatkin 3y ago
  OK are you suggesting that people who don't have kids of their own don't care about other peoples' kids as much as those who do? It seems you're pretty deep into logical fallacies. As for "that stuff off their platform" - keep in mind that the Rohingya victims include whole families.
  - importantbrian 3y ago
    > OK are you suggesting that people who don't have kids of their own don't care about other peoples' kids as much as those who do? It seems you're pretty deep into logical fallacies. That's a bit of a leap, but let's pretend for a minute that that is what I was suggesting. What specifically would the logical fallacy be?
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  Hang on, Zuckerman's kids aren't human, they're fnord human-skin-suit-wearing baby lizards. They're just going to be raised and taught to do better at the human act this time than "just out here smoking meats with my human friends!"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

mulmen 3y ago

I’m not convinced Meta or Google actually care about protecting children. This is all about power. As the article points out these mechanisms are ineffective. And as is well documented Meta has no problem exploiting children on Instagram. I’m sure there are awful things happening online and in the real world. We should try to stop those things with actual honest efforts. Selling our souls to the likes of Meta and Google doesn’t help children. To the contrary, it creates a sick world for them to grow into.

koube 3y ago

Why is this comment downvoted? Outside of internet forums which tend to be very free speech, parental controls would be incredibly popular, and companies that don't have tight content controls receive a lot of scrutiny. As the article notes, Facebook is already being criticized for not tightly enforcing minimum ages, and there was a popular article out just yesterday[0] about Instagram just showing things that are vaguely "risque". If you ask someone on the street if Google and Facebook should have parental controls the answer would be unequivocally yes. This is the normie position the vast majority of the time. Are we able to engage with normie positions? Is it not genuinely concerning if we're unable to? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439280

gjsman-1000 3y ago
I don’t even like the term “normie” because, honestly, that blinds us into a perspective that we are superior to the perspectives of most people; when there isn’t any actual guarantee of that superiority.
- koube 3y ago
  Fair point, I can see where you're coming from and I'm aware of the origins of the word on 4chan. I use the term not with the intention of placing anyone above others, but denoting the difference between insular forum culture and every day people you see when you go outside. In the political world this word has taken on a similar meaning for the difference between commentariat and every day people and that's the way I use it in conversation. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/towards-a-normie-politics https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/towards-a-normie-politi... https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-lot-of-the-best-political-messages https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-lot-of-the-best-political-mes...
mulmen 3y ago
It’s downvoted because it’s the same tired think of the children argument. It’s a red herring. Age verification doesn’t protect children. Legislation protects incumbents. Meta are experts at manipulating emotions. That’s exactly what the “think of the children” argument does.

ghusto 3y ago

I have a near foolproof solution for parental controls; it's called parenting, 1.0 If you don't have a close enough relationship with your children where they trust and communicate openly with you, no amount of technology is going to keep them safe. It's an arms race you will be losing most of the time.

munificent 3y ago
Children with shitty parents don't deserve to be targeted by predators either, though.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  Can't solve poor parenting with technology or regulation, though.
  - munificent 3y ago
    "Solve" is the entirely wrong verb here. Children are not math problems. The question is whether you can design policies and programs that help children, even children with bad parents, while having downsides small enough that the benefits outweigh them. And, clearly, you can. The history of the US is rife with them: public libraries, public schools, mandatory education, child tax credits, mandatory vaccination, etc. Whether this specific policy is a net win is a separate question that I don't have an opinion on. But the idea that the entire outcome of a person rests and should rest entirely on the shoulders of their parents is deeply flawed and runs counter to almost all of human history.

ChrisKnott 3y ago

The fact you are immediately downvoted for this even handed comment which speaks from personal experience, while worthless "DAE 1984" comments are not, proves how close minded most HN commenters are on this issue.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
benatkin 3y ago
I can't tell if the personal experience is relevant, irrelevant, or a conflict of interest. The parental control companies profited from a sense of security was often false, for which it watered down the experience of using the web in its early days. Back in the 90s if I were subjected to buggy parental control software I couldn't have learned as much as I did. Maybe parental control software was worse back then than it is now, because it took away the experience only afforded to my generation of growing up during the birth of the Web.

csdvrx 3y ago

> We should strive to solve both problems, keeping an open internet I recently looked at HTTP/3 proposals. TLS is required, but you can't use a self-signed certificate: without the CA root it will not connect, and the specifications for HTTP/3 says this should be the default. This is horrible. It's using security and performance as good excuses to remove features, like how in practice, chrome changes result in extra hurdles for ad blockers. In my perfect world, the identity problem (is this website really mybank.com?) would be handled at the DNS level (DNSSEC!), and for a new HTTP format based on UDP (great idea!) it would be the http CLIENTS that would each create their own keys and give public keys to the servers. It would be less risky than a breach of trust down the CA authority, as the traffic would not be decryptable.

mmvasq 3y ago
Maybe options for either…people are notoriously bad at key management unless versed in enterprise vaulting. This is why decisions are made to try to help them.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  It could be fully automatized within the browser, or even just create a new key at the beginning of the session, delete it when it's closed. The data would be encrypted and protected.

s1gnp0st 3y ago

It's remarkable how many people replied to this comment with an argument against age verification. I am fully in favor of preserving the (semblance of) anonymity we enjoy on the internet, and even improving upon it. I'll say again more clearly, ignoring the problem of other people's suffering does not make it go away, and one day it spills over into your own life. There are likely solutions which preserve privacy of adult users available for those willing to think.