4 ms·

When will it be normalized to be able to say "Parents should just be doing their job" before we decide to ruin everything online for everyone else. Although I

• EduardoBautista 9mo ago
  Saying parents should be doing their jobs will lose you votes, that's why. Anything that implies personal responsibility is political suicide.
  • AlexandrB 9mo ago
    Parents need to have personal responsibility, but corporations get to use section 230 to absolve themselves of any. Game seems rigged.
    • ethin 8mo ago
      > Parents need to have personal responsibility, but corporations get to use section 230 to absolve themselves of any. Game seems rigged. This is not at all what section 230 does. All section 230 does is get rid of lawsuits that wouldn't be able to satisfy standing of a first amendment lawsuit or similar. Section 230 has to be one of the most misunderstood and confused laws known in the modern day. Absolutely nowhere in the text of the law does it say or imply that an interactive computer service, or the operator of such service, gets total immunity for anything and everything they do. Yet this myth is constantly perpetuated.
  • bilekas 9mo ago
    As soon as politicians are also included in these acts, then you could see a shift in their opinions.
  • janalsncm 9mo ago
    Passing off responsibility to parents is already the status quo. Hardly political suicide. Saying that companies should face some level of responsibility for their products is the dangerous move. That’s part of why the Internet has barely been regulated.
  • psychoslave 9mo ago
    Are parents also supposed to be blamed if society as a whole would let thrive streets with permanent civil war, drug barrons, organized child prostitution networks and so on? Of course parents must take care of their children. And of themselves. But they are only fragile humans and can bear only that much of a load in a day. Certainly there are people that drawn in negligent or even mistreating behaviors. That's not a valid reason to blame individual in general and abstract the societal constraints they all have to deal with. That's actually nothing special to parents.
• npunt 9mo ago
  Any idea that is based on "If everyone just..." is wishful thinking. Describe the mechanism by which you convince everyone to just do something.
  • blharr 9mo ago
    Sure, but the ID solution is an "if everyone just gives up their privacy / anonymity / sensitive data" and the mechanism is by denial of service In fact its worse. Every site must also implement this security check. Or everyone must agree to just use sites and services that follow this policy. Otherwise anyone can just use another, often 'less safe' website.
    • npunt 9mo ago
      I'm not advocating for that either, I'm only pointing out that "if everyone just" is a collective action problem that is a non-solution because it doesn't describe the mechanism by which everyone does something. Your example confuses the locus of control. The platform is making the choice and relies on user inaction rather than action. Users as a whole basically always descend gradients, and if they like / are addicted to the service, they'll descend with enough momentum to carry them over one-time friction like an ID check. The null hypothesis is they continue using the service. For it to be an "if everyone just" answer, it would be "if everyone just decided to stop using these extremely sticky services" because that is the de facto choice they are presented with. And it similarly suffers from an "if everyone just" lack of plausible mechanism. The point of calling out non-solutions masquerading as solutions is to keep people's energy focused on possible but unstated solutions, rather than spending time blaming people for behavior largely determined by myriad immovable circumstances.
  • terribleperson 9mo ago
    Pass a law that requires devices and software to support a per-device or per user account 'child' or 'minor' flag. The flag must be lockable with a password or another account. Pass a law that mandates that websites and content handle the flag appropriately, whether that means denying service or limiting access. This would protect children while only minimally infringing on privacy. The mechanism by which we make everyone 'just' is laws. The laws that are being passed are telling of the actual goals.
• janalsncm 9mo ago
  I have a friend who is a social worker. Hearing stories from them, I think people severely overestimate the level of involvement that many parents have with their kids. Social workers who are checking in on middle school kids at the hospital with burn marks on their arms or elementary school kids who showed up under the influence of cannabis aren’t also going to have time to enforce online safety. If this is what it means for a parent to “do their job” then what do you propose happens to parents who are unwilling or unable to police their kids’ Discord account? For this reason, I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of low-trust social media. They can’t tell if a user is a child or even a human. People will move to things like group chats because they don’t rely on sending your ID to a verification service in the Philippines.
  • bunderbunder 9mo ago
    Parents are just burnt out, I think. Online spaces have become so consolidated and enshittified that it’s seriously a choice between basically keeping them offline - which is a very socially isolating thing to be these days - and letting a small number of faux-accountable monopolies ranging from Discord to Google and Meta call the shots. It’s kind of a no-win situation. I’d love to have my kids in relatively small, intimate online spaces where I can’t necessarily assume they will be perfect (nor do I want them to be - they deserve to have some room to learn to navigate problems for themselves) but I can at least assume they won’t be overwhelmed by the impossibility of successfully navigating life in a globalized fishbowl. But if there’s one thing late stage capitalism abhor, it’s a self-contained community of real humans from which the powers that be can’t extract “value”.
    • bilekas 9mo ago
      > Parents are just burnt out, I think. I'm sorry but I don't buy this. We have been parenting forever, parents get burnt out. That doesn't mean you just ignore what your kids are doing. It's your responsibility to be their guardians, not the government.
      • antonymoose 9mo ago
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 9mo ago
  What's ruined by this? Honestly asking
  • bilekas 9mo ago
    It's giving my identification to a no face company, that I don't know will handle the data correctly. And if they don't I have absolutely no recourse. Also, why should I need to identify myself at all ? I used to use IRC for the better part of my life, I still do infact. So to have to Identify myself by sending my ID to a random company is insulting to me.
    • Gigachad 9mo ago
      You don't have to ID after this, you just won't be able to access NSFW discord servers.
    • dyauspitr 8mo ago
      Then don’t give it to them. Stop using the platforms that require this.
• SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
  The amount of time and energy that I have to put in to keep my 3 individual kids safe online while still allowing some access is mind-blowingly high. It shouldn’t be as hard as it is. It’s so hard, in fact, 99.9% of parents give up on it. I’m not one to do that but I’ve strongly considered it many times. Parental controls are fractured across every platform, they can’t enforce everything in one place, domain filtering isn’t practical, some sites (like YouTube) are needed for schoolwork and they include adult content intermingled with no sane way to bifurcate those. It’s also impossible to disable the forced short-form video push onto toddlers and teens.
  • ReliantGuyZ 9mo ago
    This only addresses one axis of your concern, but if they are accessing YouTube via desktop browser (or Firefox on Android!), the "Youtube-shorts block" extension gets rid of the Shorts UI. You can still watch Shorts, it will just display them in the normal video UI without infinite scrolling. It's a huge quality of life boost. Although obviously this does nothing for those using the mobile or TV apps.
  • Gonxa6282 9mo ago
    Even though it's a bit easy to disable, you can use the "Unhook" extension to turn off Shorts.
    • SlightlyLeftPad 8mo ago
      It will take a 15 year old less than 5 minutes to figure out how to disable it.
  • terribleperson 9mo ago
    There is a simple and better way to do this, which is device-wide age status attestation. That is, the whole device or user account has a 'minor' flag set, and passes it on to software, and so on. Governments are not pushing for this because this is not about protecting children, it is about removing privacy and increasing control.
• riku_iki 9mo ago
  > When will it be normalized to be able to say "Parents should just be doing their job" you can say this, but it is not enforced, so this part of discussion is not really productive.
  • dmix 9mo ago
    The UK/US haven't even spent widely on internet addiction education or built widescale programs like they did for drugs or even speech therapy. Jumping immediately to banning and gatekeeping everything on the internet is silly and naive. The world won't be a better place because we fear other kids parenting skills, it will be highly locked down and these ID checks/bans will hit every part of the internet.
• azernik 8mo ago
  That article is making quite a stretch from "the laws have exceptions for intelligence agencies, police, and the military" to "EU politicians will use those exceptions for themselves". It does this with zero evidence.
• dyauspitr 8mo ago
  Parents can’t do this. Kids need to be kept off this as a monolith otherwise they just get left out and become outcasts.