4 ms·

Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a healthy government regulatory framework looks like.

by mslate 9mo ago

JasonADrury 9mo ago
What does healthy parenting look like then?
- mslate 9mo ago
  When did "healthy parenting" become a full-time cybersecurity job with no training, adversaries backed by infinite capital, teams of PhDs optimizing for addiction, and sexual predators from around the globe dialoguing with your child through any glass surface your child can get their hands on?
  - jajuuka 9mo ago
    This is riddled with fearmongering. You don't need to be a cybersecurity expert to take interest in your own child. It doesn't take a PhD to enable parental controls or tell your child "no" if they want something that is inappropriate for them. You might as well have said that you need to be a police officer to make sure your child isn't hit by a drunk driver, kidnapped by creeps or attacked by someone on the street. Children are under the care of parents or guardians for a reason. It's not to fist fight criminals or design their own security system.
    - mslate 9mo ago
      Your analogy about drunk drivers actually makes my point: we don't just tell parents "be vigilant". We have DUI laws, road design standards, and enforcement--systemic solutions, not just individual responsibility. With tech, we've largely abdicated that, placing the entire burden on parents to defend against industrial-scale manipulation. Expecting individual parents to successfully counter industrial-scale behavioral engineering is a systems failure, not a parenting failure.
      - JasonADrury 9mo ago
        [dead]
jimbob45 9mo ago
Cherry picking the foreign company with the deepest pockets for “crimes” every game developer commits these days? Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget.
- mslate 9mo ago
  Should Apple/Google be liable as platform? I'm trying to imagine how you envision regulation without going after the biggest individual apps that enable child financial fraud & sexual grooming.
- amlib 9mo ago
  Considering how much big tech gets for defrauding their customers, even if the EU is only applying fines in bad faith (which they aren't) it is only a drop in the bucket in comparison...
- BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago
  > Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget Am I supposed to be upset at this?
- Hamuko 9mo ago
  Can you show me the graph that shows the relationship between "EU budget shortfalls" and "Meta/MS fines".
- throw20251220 9mo ago
  Hey, Donald! Just don’t send tanks. It’s okay with tariffs but tanks are a no no.
jajuuka 9mo ago
This is a toxic government regulatory framework. Treating all consumers as suspect children first and foremost not only makes the experience worse but it defeats the purpose it was created for. I shouldn't need to submit my ID every time I want to watch a rated R movie on Netflix or cable. I shouldn't need to scan and submit my face to view a wikipedia article about anatomy. This is the end goal of such suspicious treatment. The tools currently exist to "protect" children in game. Abdicating your responsibility as a parent is not a problem for the state to solve.
- xgbi 9mo ago
  What are you talking about ? It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default: - buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction online - play without interruption for long time I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me. It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".
  - jajuuka 9mo ago
    I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. I am not talking about the argument from the person above them. You seem to be forgetting a crucial part of this. The parent. If a parent is buying their child a gambling game then that's on them. Not on the government to force everyone to submit their IDs and face scans to play a game for adults. Parental controls are not a phony feature at all. That's like saying accessibility options are phony features. It's an option for people who need it. Just because it isn't default in every scenario doesn't mean it's disingenuous.
    - justinclift 9mo ago
      > I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. Which government's way of doing things would you suggest is "healthy"? Hopefully you're not serious saying the US [appears to be healthy]?

Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a healthy government regulatory framework looks like.

by mslate 9mo ago

Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a healthy government regulatory framework looks like.

JasonADrury 9mo ago

What does healthy parenting look like then?

mslate 9mo ago
When did "healthy parenting" become a full-time cybersecurity job with no training, adversaries backed by infinite capital, teams of PhDs optimizing for addiction, and sexual predators from around the globe dialoguing with your child through any glass surface your child can get their hands on?
- jajuuka 9mo ago
  This is riddled with fearmongering. You don't need to be a cybersecurity expert to take interest in your own child. It doesn't take a PhD to enable parental controls or tell your child "no" if they want something that is inappropriate for them. You might as well have said that you need to be a police officer to make sure your child isn't hit by a drunk driver, kidnapped by creeps or attacked by someone on the street. Children are under the care of parents or guardians for a reason. It's not to fist fight criminals or design their own security system.
  - mslate 9mo ago
    Your analogy about drunk drivers actually makes my point: we don't just tell parents "be vigilant". We have DUI laws, road design standards, and enforcement--systemic solutions, not just individual responsibility. With tech, we've largely abdicated that, placing the entire burden on parents to defend against industrial-scale manipulation. Expecting individual parents to successfully counter industrial-scale behavioral engineering is a systems failure, not a parenting failure.
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      [dead]

jimbob45 9mo ago

Cherry picking the foreign company with the deepest pockets for “crimes” every game developer commits these days? Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget.

mslate 9mo ago
Should Apple/Google be liable as platform? I'm trying to imagine how you envision regulation without going after the biggest individual apps that enable child financial fraud & sexual grooming.
amlib 9mo ago
Considering how much big tech gets for defrauding their customers, even if the EU is only applying fines in bad faith (which they aren't) it is only a drop in the bucket in comparison...
BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago
> Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget Am I supposed to be upset at this?
Hamuko 9mo ago
Can you show me the graph that shows the relationship between "EU budget shortfalls" and "Meta/MS fines".
throw20251220 9mo ago
Hey, Donald! Just don’t send tanks. It’s okay with tariffs but tanks are a no no.

jajuuka 9mo ago

This is a toxic government regulatory framework. Treating all consumers as suspect children first and foremost not only makes the experience worse but it defeats the purpose it was created for. I shouldn't need to submit my ID every time I want to watch a rated R movie on Netflix or cable. I shouldn't need to scan and submit my face to view a wikipedia article about anatomy. This is the end goal of such suspicious treatment. The tools currently exist to "protect" children in game. Abdicating your responsibility as a parent is not a problem for the state to solve.

xgbi 9mo ago
What are you talking about ? It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default: - buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction online - play without interruption for long time I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me. It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".
- jajuuka 9mo ago
  I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. I am not talking about the argument from the person above them. You seem to be forgetting a crucial part of this. The parent. If a parent is buying their child a gambling game then that's on them. Not on the government to force everyone to submit their IDs and face scans to play a game for adults. Parental controls are not a phony feature at all. That's like saying accessibility options are phony features. It's an option for people who need it. Just because it isn't default in every scenario doesn't mean it's disingenuous.
  - justinclift 9mo ago
    > I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. Which government's way of doing things would you suggest is "healthy"? Hopefully you're not serious saying the US [appears to be healthy]?