> Still, justices questioned whether that might put the cost of protecting kids from obscene content online on phone makers like Apple or Google rather than th

> Still, justices questioned whether that might put the cost of protecting kids from obscene content online on phone makers like Apple or Google rather than the sites being regulated. Is that even bad? The people who want to impose and use filtering software ought to be be the ones paying the costs (financial and privacy) of building and running it. They can choose to buy devices which advertise the features. When little Abdul's parents are aghast the he can find filth like ladies' bare ankles online, why should Bob's Shoe Fashion Forum have to, er, foot the bill, and why should all their neighbors be forced to give up their privacy too? The simpler, cheaper, vastly less-dystopian approach is that sites are merely required to signal some kind of rating or content information (e.g. via HTTP headers.) Then whoever wants to sell/buy child-lock-mode devices and create individualized "no porn or ankles or evolution" filtering can do so on their own. It also moves the most crucial security check into the real world where non-technical parents have a chance of observing and enforcing it: Which device is your child holding?