5 ms·

Parents can't easily prevent their kids from going to those kinds of stores once they're at the age where the parent doesn't need to keep an eye on them all the

Parents can't easily prevent their kids from going to those kinds of stores once they're at the age where the parent doesn't need to keep an eye on them all the time and they can travel about on their own. The difference though is that parents are generally the ones to give their kids their phones and devices. These devices could send headers to websites saying "I'm a kid" -- but this system doesn't exist, and parents apparently don't use existing parental controls properly or at all.

srmatto 8mo ago
Or people who aren't parents are yet again sharing strong opinions that are not based in reality. Plenty of parental controls are deployed, how long they last against a determined child is the real question. Here's a concrete example for you. Spotify has a web browser built in so that you can watch music videos, kids have figured out a way to use that to watch any video on YouTube--a 12 year old told me this. If you search on this subject you'll quickly learn this is well known and is generally being ignored by Spotify. Why not allow parents to disable the in-app web browser / video function? It's not as easy as you may believe to prevent that type of access.
Forgeties79 8mo ago
So what’s the alternative? Pretend we don’t live in a digitally connected society and set our kids up for failure when they get one years after their peers?
- ajam1507 8mo ago
  Keeping your kids off social media is setting them up for success.
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    I’m talking about phones specifically. Agree re: social media.
    - ajam1507 8mo ago
      The problem isn't with phones. We should have robust parental controls and the responsibility of parenting should be left to, wait for it... the parents.
      - Forgeties79 8mo ago
        The person before me is the one who brought up phones. > The difference though is that parents are generally the ones to give their kids their phones and devices. But either way I disagree. This comment sums up my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122715#47128105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122715#47128105
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  Let's assume for the sake of argument that social media is extremely harmful to children. Which means the answer to your question is "yes, obviously". If people were running around giving their kids fentanyl, you wouldn't say "but my kid's friends all use fentanyl and he'll be an outcast if he can't". You would say "any friends that he loses over this are well worth avoiding the damage". Why would it be different just because it's social media?
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    Phones, I mean. Sorry for the confusion there. I’m for holding off on social media.
palata 8mo ago
> These devices could send headers to websites saying "I'm a kid" -- but this system doesn't exist And there would be ways to work around it. If people find that privacy-preserving age verification is not good enough because "some kids will work around it", then nothing is good enough, period. Some will always work around anything.
- cowboylowrez 8mo ago
  if a parent gives a kid a full on smartphone, charge the parent with child abuse just like feeding the kid alcohol, cigarettes or having sex with them. people will catch on.

srmatto 8mo ago

Or people who aren't parents are yet again sharing strong opinions that are not based in reality. Plenty of parental controls are deployed, how long they last against a determined child is the real question. Here's a concrete example for you. Spotify has a web browser built in so that you can watch music videos, kids have figured out a way to use that to watch any video on YouTube--a 12 year old told me this. If you search on this subject you'll quickly learn this is well known and is generally being ignored by Spotify. Why not allow parents to disable the in-app web browser / video function? It's not as easy as you may believe to prevent that type of access.

Forgeties79 8mo ago

So what’s the alternative? Pretend we don’t live in a digitally connected society and set our kids up for failure when they get one years after their peers?

ajam1507 8mo ago
Keeping your kids off social media is setting them up for success.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  I’m talking about phones specifically. Agree re: social media.
  - ajam1507 8mo ago
    The problem isn't with phones. We should have robust parental controls and the responsibility of parenting should be left to, wait for it... the parents.
    - Forgeties79 8mo ago
      The person before me is the one who brought up phones. > The difference though is that parents are generally the ones to give their kids their phones and devices. But either way I disagree. This comment sums up my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122715#47128105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122715#47128105
bigstrat2003 8mo ago
Let's assume for the sake of argument that social media is extremely harmful to children. Which means the answer to your question is "yes, obviously". If people were running around giving their kids fentanyl, you wouldn't say "but my kid's friends all use fentanyl and he'll be an outcast if he can't". You would say "any friends that he loses over this are well worth avoiding the damage". Why would it be different just because it's social media?
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  Phones, I mean. Sorry for the confusion there. I’m for holding off on social media.

palata 8mo ago

> These devices could send headers to websites saying "I'm a kid" -- but this system doesn't exist And there would be ways to work around it. If people find that privacy-preserving age verification is not good enough because "some kids will work around it", then nothing is good enough, period. Some will always work around anything.

cowboylowrez 8mo ago
if a parent gives a kid a full on smartphone, charge the parent with child abuse just like feeding the kid alcohol, cigarettes or having sex with them. people will catch on.