4 ms·

You probably shouldn’t have kids if you’re not prepared to look after them.

tomth 7mo ago
I would agree when it comes to the most basic real-world skills, but even then you cannot prohibit it. When it comes to digital skills, no, you cannot expect everyone to understand it. Even when it comes to GUI tools. It's just not realistic.
- exe34 7mo ago
  ban the selling or providing of general purpose computing to children. we can already do it with alcohol and cigarettes. any parents caught providing such things to their children go on a register and have mandatory courses on parenting.
  - tomth 7mo ago
    This could be an option with children under the age of 12. Maybe only let them use a computer or gaming console in the living room, or something like that.
    - exe34 7mo ago
      that's exactly what I'm referring to, see my new post on this same sub thread.
  - denkmoon 7mo ago
    Sounds like a great way to stunt development. Alcohol and cigarettes are unambiguously harmful to children. Computing is not so unambiguous, it has a lot of benefits. How many of us here would lead very different lives if we were treated that way?
    - exe34 7mo ago
      did you miss the word "general"? you can provide gimped versions. micro controllers, school laptops that don't go places they shouldn't go, gimmicky age checks on anything they can use outside of adult supervision.
      - anthk 7mo ago
        Define 'gimped', microcontrollers are able to play NSFW games in Spanish/English for the Z-Machine interpreter. An ESP32 it's more than enough. A Game Boy it's more than enough, too. Ditto with 8/16 bit microcomputer out there. I can even run these games under FreeDOS. Good luck implementing accounts on that. And the example it's I-0, (I-0.z5, Interstatal Zero) both in English and the faithfully Spanish translation done from the Spanish IF community. Both games are nearly 30 years old.
        exe34 7mo ago
        if a kid manages to play nsfw games on an esp32, he deserves to enjoy it.
        anthk 7mo ago
        A minor it's legally a kid even if some guy at 16 has nothing to do with an actual kid aged 10-11. The goverment shouldn't do what the ISPs should have been doing if 14yo get smartphones: locked down DNS' -no porn, no gambling, no violence, no AI-, and browser settings plus no permissions to install any software modulo a curated set for everyone at F-Droid. With no smartphones until they hit 14-15 you don't need no stinky 1984 like laws; ISP would just comply with restricted DNS' per device and that's it. Ah, modern wireless networks such as the ones from town halls and the like? These should already have restricted DNS' for porn and the like. Next, a PC it's a totally different device, you as a parent should be the accountable one and not the goverment. Your kids want to set a Minetest and some private server to play games and chat without groomers stalking them? teach them. Enforcing computing stuff it's impossible, with libre software anything can be a general purpose computer. A PSP with a bluetooth keyboard, a PocketCHIP, any smartphone, even the mentioned Amiga FPGA computer, where can connect and use far more modern services than anything you would expect in 1994.
Xylakant 7mo ago
There's really a wide range between "not looking after kids" and "watching them every second." Unlike the physical world, digital items allow kids to transition from a totally safe space to an unsafe space within seconds. For example, I can have my kid do whatever he wants in his room. I know what's in there and while he may have the occasional stupid idea, it's all fundamentally safe. But even a tablet breaks that barrier. It's entirely safe for him to listen to music and stories and I want him to be able to do that unsupervised. But solid control over content on Spotify isn't a thing. The catalog contains things that I consider not appropriate for him. And they've lately been adding vidoes to the feed and while I know he tries hard to resist, they deliberately push videos further and further up. So we're back to "I can turn on the story for you and you can listen.", which is super stupid and could be much better if I had solid controls that I can trust. Yes, I know I can talk to him about not watching the videos. How can an 8 year old compete with the combined effort of the Spotify team paid to make him watch videos? That's just not feasible.
- apublicfrog 7mo ago
  If Spotify doesn't give you the controls you want... Don't use Spotify? If my local park had a series of rotating knives and the council refused to do anything about it, I wouldn't let my kids go down there, supervised or not. I agree parenting in the digital world is harder. You either learn how to do it to your standard or you don't allow the child to be part of that world if you are incapable or don't want to.

tomth 7mo ago

I would agree when it comes to the most basic real-world skills, but even then you cannot prohibit it. When it comes to digital skills, no, you cannot expect everyone to understand it. Even when it comes to GUI tools. It's just not realistic.

exe34 7mo ago
ban the selling or providing of general purpose computing to children. we can already do it with alcohol and cigarettes. any parents caught providing such things to their children go on a register and have mandatory courses on parenting.
- tomth 7mo ago
  This could be an option with children under the age of 12. Maybe only let them use a computer or gaming console in the living room, or something like that.
  - exe34 7mo ago
    that's exactly what I'm referring to, see my new post on this same sub thread.
- denkmoon 7mo ago
  Sounds like a great way to stunt development. Alcohol and cigarettes are unambiguously harmful to children. Computing is not so unambiguous, it has a lot of benefits. How many of us here would lead very different lives if we were treated that way?
  - exe34 7mo ago
    did you miss the word "general"? you can provide gimped versions. micro controllers, school laptops that don't go places they shouldn't go, gimmicky age checks on anything they can use outside of adult supervision.
    - anthk 7mo ago
      Define 'gimped', microcontrollers are able to play NSFW games in Spanish/English for the Z-Machine interpreter. An ESP32 it's more than enough. A Game Boy it's more than enough, too. Ditto with 8/16 bit microcomputer out there. I can even run these games under FreeDOS. Good luck implementing accounts on that. And the example it's I-0, (I-0.z5, Interstatal Zero) both in English and the faithfully Spanish translation done from the Spanish IF community. Both games are nearly 30 years old.
      - exe34 7mo ago
        if a kid manages to play nsfw games on an esp32, he deserves to enjoy it.
        anthk 7mo ago
        A minor it's legally a kid even if some guy at 16 has nothing to do with an actual kid aged 10-11. The goverment shouldn't do what the ISPs should have been doing if 14yo get smartphones: locked down DNS' -no porn, no gambling, no violence, no AI-, and browser settings plus no permissions to install any software modulo a curated set for everyone at F-Droid. With no smartphones until they hit 14-15 you don't need no stinky 1984 like laws; ISP would just comply with restricted DNS' per device and that's it. Ah, modern wireless networks such as the ones from town halls and the like? These should already have restricted DNS' for porn and the like. Next, a PC it's a totally different device, you as a parent should be the accountable one and not the goverment. Your kids want to set a Minetest and some private server to play games and chat without groomers stalking them? teach them. Enforcing computing stuff it's impossible, with libre software anything can be a general purpose computer. A PSP with a bluetooth keyboard, a PocketCHIP, any smartphone, even the mentioned Amiga FPGA computer, where can connect and use far more modern services than anything you would expect in 1994.

Xylakant 7mo ago

There's really a wide range between "not looking after kids" and "watching them every second." Unlike the physical world, digital items allow kids to transition from a totally safe space to an unsafe space within seconds. For example, I can have my kid do whatever he wants in his room. I know what's in there and while he may have the occasional stupid idea, it's all fundamentally safe. But even a tablet breaks that barrier. It's entirely safe for him to listen to music and stories and I want him to be able to do that unsupervised. But solid control over content on Spotify isn't a thing. The catalog contains things that I consider not appropriate for him. And they've lately been adding vidoes to the feed and while I know he tries hard to resist, they deliberately push videos further and further up. So we're back to "I can turn on the story for you and you can listen.", which is super stupid and could be much better if I had solid controls that I can trust. Yes, I know I can talk to him about not watching the videos. How can an 8 year old compete with the combined effort of the Spotify team paid to make him watch videos? That's just not feasible.

apublicfrog 7mo ago
If Spotify doesn't give you the controls you want... Don't use Spotify? If my local park had a series of rotating knives and the council refused to do anything about it, I wouldn't let my kids go down there, supervised or not. I agree parenting in the digital world is harder. You either learn how to do it to your standard or you don't allow the child to be part of that world if you are incapable or don't want to.