3 ms·

> > 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

> > 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.
- ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
  That's a good point. But you know, I find it frustrating that the people we're talking to clearly have no experience with the subject but they come in here and state with confidence they're opinion on something which is for them a hypothetical. They don't know what's going on.
- fc417fc802 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. Age verification doesn't solve that though.
coldtea 7mo ago
I'm talking about both parents and schools: the technical solution exists. If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them. This answers your objection A and B. C is also a non-probem with a trivial fix, as I showed. What we're discussing is whether age verification is needed. Based on the existence of other, perfectly fine solutions, it's not. "But schools don't bother implementing those other solutions" is not a counter-argument to this discussion.
- throwaway27448 7mo ago
  > If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them Well that's not much of a solution is it now? More like an attempt that we all can see will fail. Harm reduction is not the same as a solution.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    But it is an argument against age restrictions since you could just as easily pass a law that instead required schools to enable various filters. You could even require mainstream devices from major manufacturers to support certain filtering standards. And you could require websites to send self categorization headers. There is no valid argument for why ID checks are necessary if the goal is simply to get filtering implemented in places such as schools. If instead the goal is to entirely prohibit all children from using social networks regardless of parental consent then it makes sense. It also makes sense if the goal is actually to violate privacy or something similarly sinister.
    - throwaway27448 7mo ago
      I don't really give a damn about the freedom to say stuff on the internet, so you're trying to convince the wrong person.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        That's unfortunate, but what I said had nothing to do with that. I merely refuted the basis of your prior objection.
HeavyStorm 7mo ago
Same argument(s) can be applied to age verification.

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.
ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
That's a good point. But you know, I find it frustrating that the people we're talking to clearly have no experience with the subject but they come in here and state with confidence they're opinion on something which is for them a hypothetical. They don't know what's going on.
fc417fc802 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. Age verification doesn't solve that though.

coldtea 7mo ago

I'm talking about both parents and schools: the technical solution exists. If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them. This answers your objection A and B. C is also a non-probem with a trivial fix, as I showed. What we're discussing is whether age verification is needed. Based on the existence of other, perfectly fine solutions, it's not. "But schools don't bother implementing those other solutions" is not a counter-argument to this discussion.

throwaway27448 7mo ago
> If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them Well that's not much of a solution is it now? More like an attempt that we all can see will fail. Harm reduction is not the same as a solution.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  But it is an argument against age restrictions since you could just as easily pass a law that instead required schools to enable various filters. You could even require mainstream devices from major manufacturers to support certain filtering standards. And you could require websites to send self categorization headers. There is no valid argument for why ID checks are necessary if the goal is simply to get filtering implemented in places such as schools. If instead the goal is to entirely prohibit all children from using social networks regardless of parental consent then it makes sense. It also makes sense if the goal is actually to violate privacy or something similarly sinister.
  - throwaway27448 7mo ago
    I don't really give a damn about the freedom to say stuff on the internet, so you're trying to convince the wrong person.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      That's unfortunate, but what I said had nothing to do with that. I merely refuted the basis of your prior objection.

HeavyStorm 7mo ago

Same argument(s) can be applied to age verification.