5 ms·

Why can't we handle this the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws: require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them? All the devices

by hliyan 7mo ago

Why can't we handle this the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws: require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them? All the devices need is the ability to create limited access profiles. A human adult performs age verification by only providing the minor with creditals to a limited profile. Trying to perform that verification so far away from the minor, after they have got to the last gate, seems like the worst way to do it.

bluGill 7mo ago
I want my kids to grow up in a world where they can install linux themselves. I don't want them to grow up in a world where they can't walk to a neighborhood park without me.
- SiempreViernes 7mo ago
  Not sure I see the crossover between activities performed at home and problems of car centric street design and the resulting poor pedestrian traffic safety?
  - bluGill 7mo ago
    If I have to watch my kids 100% of the time they can't walk to the park. Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
      > That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design. Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html (c) "Neglect" does not include: [...] (iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including: [...] (B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities; A handful of other states have followed suit. This page shows a map of states with similar laws: https://letgrow.org/states/ https://letgrow.org/states/
      - bluGill 7mo ago
        Remember the first post that started this "require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them?" - if I have to secure all devices that means I can't let my kids out of my reach since they might find a device someplace. Raspberry pi's are cheap, you can dumpster dive old, but working devices. There is free wifi all over. In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at. Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
        Right, my comment wasn't intended to be an argument against your points; quite the opposite, I was pointing out that many people see the value in letting kids be independent. Really, the context was that I had assumed the pull quote to be referring to over-protective parents and their ilk (the "this" in the first sentence) and I just wanted to show that some people have more sense, though I can see how it's not clear what I was getting at. Disallowing your kids from going outside for fear of potential danger is logically equivalent to disallowing them from using the internet for the same fear. But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws. Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)
    - wussboy 7mo ago
      Your kids not walking there has everything to do with street design. Check out Not Just Bikes on YouTube for why and how.
      - bluGill 7mo ago
        I have - he is making huge logic errors. There is good stuff there, but some conclusions don't follow. Others are correct for one area but don't generalize. He isn't as bad as strongtowns but still you need to use care when following him.
  - __s 7mo ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-walked-mile-town-alone-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-wal... there's a general issue with rise in protectionism
    - superxpro12 7mo ago
      I am empathetic to 99% of this woman's case and the article. However, the ending though, really feels like they're one step away from anti-vax, anti-education, and pro-hate pro-bigotry. This case really feels like an over-reach. But to condemn the entire system because they have an interest in making sure the country functions and sets minimum standards of life and care is not a "bad thing". The government represents the collective decision-making of millions, hundreds-of-millions of people. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because one cop (in rural Georgia of all places) over-reacted.
Mashimo 7mo ago
That is kinda the idea behind the california law that was on the front page a few weeks ago. The parent set up a local account with a age bracket, and the OS verifies that in the app store and maybe webpages if they fit the age bracket.
gildenFish 7mo ago
I don't know why you think this will stop page verification requirements. For almost all items where a parent/guardian is responsible for a child's access to the item, third parties are also required to not sell or transfer the item to a child. That gets us right back needing to age verify people.
akdev1l 7mo ago
This is essentially what the California law is mandating
- phendrenad2 7mo ago
  Not really. It's the difference between a mandatory field and an optional field. And in practice, and its effects on the internet, that difference is huge.
konart 7mo ago
>same way we handle knives I'm pretty sure most kids older than 12 do have access to kitchen knives. And actively use them too. I generally agree with your point. But at the same time access to the internet resouces and to gun or a chaisaw is not the same. I have no problem securing a few items if my home, but I have no control over whatever is available on the net. Sure, I can write some firewall rules or create "kid's account" on a streaming platform, but I can do this for every single known service, chat, IM group etc.
- kakacik 7mo ago
  Even if you did, you just lower the chances. I've created Netflix kids account specifically for mine. On its own it suggests also various documentaries on top of cartoons. We took the first one it suggested, and IIRC in second episode there was a very gruesome and detailed part with polar bear eating baby seals, one chew at a time. One way to traumatize 4-year old, I'd say an effective one.
  - skydhash 7mo ago
    It’s a content issue mostly. Content providers do not want to properly tag and silo their content. And add parental control to kids account. They want to shift that burden to everyone but themselves.
  - ctxc 7mo ago
    "Of course, they're gonna know what intercourse is By the time they hit fourth grade They've got the Discovery Channel, don't they?"
  - richrichardsson 7mo ago
    Netflix age recommendations are a complete joke. There was one documentary series that apparently appropriate for 7+ and had "motherfucker" within the first 30 seconds of one episode. I don't know which parallel reality they're from where that is an appropriate word for a 7 year old to learn.
    - 7mo ago
jMyles 7mo ago
> Why can't we handle this the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws: require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them? Is this a thing? My 10yo has used all three of those things. If there were some legislation requiring they be "secured" before my son could be in my presence, obviously I'd oppose it, along with every other reasonable parent.
SkyBelow 7mo ago
For some of these, we fully disallow company to child transactions or interactions. Wouldn't applying the same logic require the adult to fetch any internet content and give it to the child on a case by case basis? In this case, it is the data from the website, not the electronic device itself, that is seen as the item being transacted and regulated by age gates, no? The attempts to actually regulate it do feed back into changes on the electronic device, but the real cause of concern (per the protect the kids argument, if that is the real reason is debatable) is a company providing data directly to a child that parents find objectionable. That transaction doesn't have a parent directly involved currently. Controlling the device itself and saying free game if a parent has allowed them access is a bit like saying that if a parent has allowed a kid to get to the store, there should be no further restrictions on what they can buy, including any of the above three items.
whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
Doing it "the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws" would require handing over your ID to even buy computer parts if it's the same as the EU.
throwaway27448 7mo ago
Because that doesn't work?
hosteur 7mo ago
Because this is clearly not about children. Children is a pretext.

by hliyan 7mo ago

bluGill 7mo ago

I want my kids to grow up in a world where they can install linux themselves. I don't want them to grow up in a world where they can't walk to a neighborhood park without me.

SiempreViernes 7mo ago
Not sure I see the crossover between activities performed at home and problems of car centric street design and the resulting poor pedestrian traffic safety?
- bluGill 7mo ago
  If I have to watch my kids 100% of the time they can't walk to the park. Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
    > That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design. Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html (c) "Neglect" does not include: [...] (iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including: [...] (B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities; A handful of other states have followed suit. This page shows a map of states with similar laws: https://letgrow.org/states/ https://letgrow.org/states/
    - bluGill 7mo ago
      Remember the first post that started this "require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them?" - if I have to secure all devices that means I can't let my kids out of my reach since they might find a device someplace. Raspberry pi's are cheap, you can dumpster dive old, but working devices. There is free wifi all over. In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at. Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
        Right, my comment wasn't intended to be an argument against your points; quite the opposite, I was pointing out that many people see the value in letting kids be independent. Really, the context was that I had assumed the pull quote to be referring to over-protective parents and their ilk (the "this" in the first sentence) and I just wanted to show that some people have more sense, though I can see how it's not clear what I was getting at. Disallowing your kids from going outside for fear of potential danger is logically equivalent to disallowing them from using the internet for the same fear. But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws. Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)
  - wussboy 7mo ago
    Your kids not walking there has everything to do with street design. Check out Not Just Bikes on YouTube for why and how.
    - bluGill 7mo ago
      I have - he is making huge logic errors. There is good stuff there, but some conclusions don't follow. Others are correct for one area but don't generalize. He isn't as bad as strongtowns but still you need to use care when following him.
- __s 7mo ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-walked-mile-town-alone-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-wal... there's a general issue with rise in protectionism
  - superxpro12 7mo ago
    I am empathetic to 99% of this woman's case and the article. However, the ending though, really feels like they're one step away from anti-vax, anti-education, and pro-hate pro-bigotry. This case really feels like an over-reach. But to condemn the entire system because they have an interest in making sure the country functions and sets minimum standards of life and care is not a "bad thing". The government represents the collective decision-making of millions, hundreds-of-millions of people. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because one cop (in rural Georgia of all places) over-reacted.

Mashimo 7mo ago

That is kinda the idea behind the california law that was on the front page a few weeks ago. The parent set up a local account with a age bracket, and the OS verifies that in the app store and maybe webpages if they fit the age bracket.

gildenFish 7mo ago

I don't know why you think this will stop page verification requirements. For almost all items where a parent/guardian is responsible for a child's access to the item, third parties are also required to not sell or transfer the item to a child. That gets us right back needing to age verify people.

akdev1l 7mo ago

This is essentially what the California law is mandating

phendrenad2 7mo ago
Not really. It's the difference between a mandatory field and an optional field. And in practice, and its effects on the internet, that difference is huge.

konart 7mo ago

>same way we handle knives I'm pretty sure most kids older than 12 do have access to kitchen knives. And actively use them too. I generally agree with your point. But at the same time access to the internet resouces and to gun or a chaisaw is not the same. I have no problem securing a few items if my home, but I have no control over whatever is available on the net. Sure, I can write some firewall rules or create "kid's account" on a streaming platform, but I can do this for every single known service, chat, IM group etc.

kakacik 7mo ago
Even if you did, you just lower the chances. I've created Netflix kids account specifically for mine. On its own it suggests also various documentaries on top of cartoons. We took the first one it suggested, and IIRC in second episode there was a very gruesome and detailed part with polar bear eating baby seals, one chew at a time. One way to traumatize 4-year old, I'd say an effective one.
- skydhash 7mo ago
  It’s a content issue mostly. Content providers do not want to properly tag and silo their content. And add parental control to kids account. They want to shift that burden to everyone but themselves.
- ctxc 7mo ago
  "Of course, they're gonna know what intercourse is By the time they hit fourth grade They've got the Discovery Channel, don't they?"
- richrichardsson 7mo ago
  Netflix age recommendations are a complete joke. There was one documentary series that apparently appropriate for 7+ and had "motherfucker" within the first 30 seconds of one episode. I don't know which parallel reality they're from where that is an appropriate word for a 7 year old to learn.
  - 7mo ago

jMyles 7mo ago

> Why can't we handle this the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws: require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them? Is this a thing? My 10yo has used all three of those things. If there were some legislation requiring they be "secured" before my son could be in my presence, obviously I'd oppose it, along with every other reasonable parent.

SkyBelow 7mo ago

For some of these, we fully disallow company to child transactions or interactions. Wouldn't applying the same logic require the adult to fetch any internet content and give it to the child on a case by case basis? In this case, it is the data from the website, not the electronic device itself, that is seen as the item being transacted and regulated by age gates, no? The attempts to actually regulate it do feed back into changes on the electronic device, but the real cause of concern (per the protect the kids argument, if that is the real reason is debatable) is a company providing data directly to a child that parents find objectionable. That transaction doesn't have a parent directly involved currently. Controlling the device itself and saying free game if a parent has allowed them access is a bit like saying that if a parent has allowed a kid to get to the store, there should be no further restrictions on what they can buy, including any of the above three items.

whywhywhywhy 7mo ago

Doing it "the same way we handle knives, guns and chainsaws" would require handing over your ID to even buy computer parts if it's the same as the EU.

throwaway27448 7mo ago

Because that doesn't work?

hosteur 7mo ago

Because this is clearly not about children. Children is a pretext.