3 ms·

> Those school ipads could also have YouTube locked or restricted to a whitelist of channels. There's so much wrong here. A) there's ways around that stuff th

> Those school ipads could also have YouTube locked or restricted to a whitelist of channels. There's so much wrong here. A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out. B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are basically people off the street that did some basic training and (from my experience) have zero critical thinking. This are not the best and brightest. D) big tech will tell you "this is age appropriate" and the only thing that means is that you probably won't see porn. Anything else, including gambling ads on youtube, you do see. You see, you're trying to discuss the specifics which in this case is a losing approach if your goal is to protect your chidlren from being victimized by the attention economy. The reason is that those benefiting from the attention economy have more lawyers and more engineers to deploy than any individual parent.

coldtea 7mo ago
>A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out. No, there are not for hardware locked devices with the proper controls (what apps, websites, etc to allow). >B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. >C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are basically people off the street that did some basic training and (from my experience) have zero critical thinking. This are not the best and brightest. Again, irrelevant. A common policy can be created (e.g. by ministry of education experts) and shared with schools.
- ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
  > > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. > The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. Just to be clear - do you not understand that a parent might be parenting, but some times their children is in care of a school? Your focus on "a technical solution exists" is missing the real issue here, and it's not a technical one.
  - nrabulinski 7mo ago
    But this thread is discussing the technical solution and how many jurisdictions are pretending there’s no technical solutions just so they can pass surveillance legislation?
  - pbhjpbhj 7mo ago
    >but some times their children is in care of a school? And not only that but some of those times are dinner break, on a school campus with a thousand other kids and barely any supervision. Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan. And some of those times are on a bus carrying at least 50 kids when they're 'supervised' only by a driver ... and so on.
    - coldtea 7mo ago
      >Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan. That would still reduce ther exposure by 1-2 orders of magnitude, which is perfectly acceptable.
    - ericd 7mo ago
      I mean, we all saw the occasional heinous stuff, goatse, lemon party, etc, that doesn't ruin you. I don't think preventing them from ever seeing anything disturbing is a realistic goal. It's more an issue when kids are allowed to be fully addicted on an ongoing basis instead of spending their time doing things that help them grow. I think keeping them from spending all their free time on youtube or in Roblox is more the goal.
      - microtonal 7mo ago
        This, it's the stupid addictive games like Roblox and social media like YouTube. Circling back to schools (not-UK), here even teachers let them play Roblox sometimes in primary school on school hardware. The problem as a parent is that you cannot get upset and fight about everything, you need to pick your battles. This is made worse that you are most likely a minority, most parents will say/think a little Roblox or Tik Tok at school is harmless fun. IMO the problem is twofold: first, younger kid's brains are not developed enough to deal with games and social media that are intentionally made to be addictive. Heck, even a lot of adults have issues limiting their time. Addictive games and social media should just be forbidden under 16 years. Currently our government has only issued a recommendation, which does nada. Second, teachers and parents need to be educated better. Many have no idea that these addictive apps are an issue or just don't fully realize the damage they do.

coldtea 7mo ago

>A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out. No, there are not for hardware locked devices with the proper controls (what apps, websites, etc to allow). >B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. >C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are basically people off the street that did some basic training and (from my experience) have zero critical thinking. This are not the best and brightest. Again, irrelevant. A common policy can be created (e.g. by ministry of education experts) and shared with schools.

ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
> > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. > The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. Just to be clear - do you not understand that a parent might be parenting, but some times their children is in care of a school? Your focus on "a technical solution exists" is missing the real issue here, and it's not a technical one.
- nrabulinski 7mo ago
  But this thread is discussing the technical solution and how many jurisdictions are pretending there’s no technical solutions just so they can pass surveillance legislation?
- pbhjpbhj 7mo ago
  >but some times their children is in care of a school? And not only that but some of those times are dinner break, on a school campus with a thousand other kids and barely any supervision. Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan. And some of those times are on a bus carrying at least 50 kids when they're 'supervised' only by a driver ... and so on.
  - coldtea 7mo ago
    >Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan. That would still reduce ther exposure by 1-2 orders of magnitude, which is perfectly acceptable.
  - ericd 7mo ago
    I mean, we all saw the occasional heinous stuff, goatse, lemon party, etc, that doesn't ruin you. I don't think preventing them from ever seeing anything disturbing is a realistic goal. It's more an issue when kids are allowed to be fully addicted on an ongoing basis instead of spending their time doing things that help them grow. I think keeping them from spending all their free time on youtube or in Roblox is more the goal.
    - microtonal 7mo ago
      This, it's the stupid addictive games like Roblox and social media like YouTube. Circling back to schools (not-UK), here even teachers let them play Roblox sometimes in primary school on school hardware. The problem as a parent is that you cannot get upset and fight about everything, you need to pick your battles. This is made worse that you are most likely a minority, most parents will say/think a little Roblox or Tik Tok at school is harmless fun. IMO the problem is twofold: first, younger kid's brains are not developed enough to deal with games and social media that are intentionally made to be addictive. Heck, even a lot of adults have issues limiting their time. Addictive games and social media should just be forbidden under 16 years. Currently our government has only issued a recommendation, which does nada. Second, teachers and parents need to be educated better. Many have no idea that these addictive apps are an issue or just don't fully realize the damage they do.