3 ms·

Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental control

by jemmyw 6mo ago

Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do. If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.

kelseyfrog 6mo ago
That's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.
- geoffmanning 6mo ago
  Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
  - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
    I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
    - mmastrac 6mo ago
      Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
      - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
        08627843789 6mo ago
        [dead]
        walletdrainer 6mo ago
        Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
        daurentius523 6mo ago
        For people without desire to have kids it for sure it infringe less. Seriously though, I think it is good illustration point of "this is unacceptable speech" i.e outside of Overton window.
    - jimbooonooo 6mo ago
      You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
      - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position. Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
        potsandpans 6mo ago
        This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet. It's really adorable.
        9dev 6mo ago
        My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
        kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        Now that we've gotten the ad homs out of our system, provide a solution. I'd like the nice thing of a workable solution. The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - the one you obviously don't want. It's crazy to believe that despite detesting age verification, none of that vitriol can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea.
        daurentius523 6mo ago
        "Provide a solution." "can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea." Did you entertain the thought that there is no better 'workable' idea than status quo? You want to control the user - kid, and not control the user i.e adult, you also want parent to not bother. That is impossible. Either parent have to do active part, other (because by definition kid already is - since the age is already available to whatever malware will be running on device) people will be harmed by surveillance or we keep status quo. Classical choice triangle. The only "rational" (still for me this seems like possible trojan horse) way would be to actively enforce existence of "for-child OS" on company controlled OSes, and use something like Secure Boot if parent SO DESIRES (with caveat 5 ). 0. (short version) Effectively this would mean buy separate device for kids or learn how to do it. And it would fundamentally be bound to device not user, 1. by enforcing main key to be Owner's (Parent) and signing the OS developer key with the main key for purpose of OS boot (start) - so that OS 'provider' can sign kid-friendly OS version with that developer key. (you probably could ease that with vendor key - but still requires possibility of changing the key which leads to 2. then lock the UEFI by password... that still require knowledge about the tech - unless you get password in device box [then again parents have to exercise some parenting and not give device with the box], and don't start about phones - they would require UEFI and Secure Boot available for user first - not just manufacturer. 3. and you would HAVE TO (this bit is especially trojan otherwise) enforce every OS manufacturer and vendor that provide ones for kids to always provide the non-kid version (and support it!) - so that it would not create de facto surveillance OS/PC. Let me guess this is impossible for you Americans. 4. Then app developers can sign apps for kids with the OS developer key that is FOR the kid variant - otherwise will not run (in that scenario 'kid-OS' only). 5. you would have to limit it for kids devices ONLY so you would have to reverse "ID check in bar" to confirm the existence of kid instead of adult (during buying the OS/device) - otherwise again trojan horse (because of commonality of solutions). If you find this version 'workable' please have it - but for me it seems contradictory to desire of not bothering parents. *From my perspective this is effectively parental controls on steroids*. This is exceptionally similar to attestation except it has opt out for people who actively kept the password, no IDs, and no 'sending age over wire'. This will help exactly zero to stop spread of some files if parents give a kid in class for-adult phone/pc unless you enforce signing every file by kid-OS and not opening unsigned files - congratulations your kid would be using OS approved by north Korea! - do you start to see the issue with 'workable' ideas? They inevitably flow to surveillance and autocratic tech. This is anyway probably faulty in something I did not thought about.
    - nextaccountic 6mo ago
      I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
      - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        How effective do you find that strategy to be?
        krishna3145 6mo ago
        1%
- margalabargala 6mo ago
  No, you misunderstand. You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one? "Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  make Facebook do their damn job they could, they just dont want to spend the money or risk liability
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.
- daurentius523 6mo ago
  How much supporters agree is void point unless you are making Wunschkonzert - wish-concert, it is how much the decliners and reality disagree that is the most serious problem. You either operate on "We don't like, we disagree, we disagree and will not accept, we disagree so much that we will vote on People more volatile then current U.S one to make the point" - If you start to operate in third and worse the fourth then no agreement will solve this issue. And you started from proposition that is so outright insane that you may as well count many in third view.
Aunche 6mo ago
Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.
- jemmyw 6mo ago
  What I've suggested is the alternative. What we're going to get is kids banned from social media altogether. And I'm not 100% against that because my kids didn't really use it because we introduced it gently while talking about it a lot with them. But when I say not 100% against, maybe 75% against it. The idea of age checking operating systems and browsers I'm very much against. Ban devices in schools: fine, it's a place of learning and there are always specific rules in shared environments.

by jemmyw 6mo ago

kelseyfrog 6mo ago

That's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.

geoffmanning 6mo ago
Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
- kelseyfrog 6mo ago
  I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
  - mmastrac 6mo ago
    Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
    - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
      I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
      - 08627843789 6mo ago
        [dead]
      - walletdrainer 6mo ago
        Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
      - daurentius523 6mo ago
        For people without desire to have kids it for sure it infringe less. Seriously though, I think it is good illustration point of "this is unacceptable speech" i.e outside of Overton window.
  - jimbooonooo 6mo ago
    You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
    - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
      Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position. Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
      - potsandpans 6mo ago
        This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet. It's really adorable.
      - 9dev 6mo ago
        My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
        kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        Now that we've gotten the ad homs out of our system, provide a solution. I'd like the nice thing of a workable solution. The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - the one you obviously don't want. It's crazy to believe that despite detesting age verification, none of that vitriol can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea.
        daurentius523 6mo ago
        "Provide a solution." "can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea." Did you entertain the thought that there is no better 'workable' idea than status quo? You want to control the user - kid, and not control the user i.e adult, you also want parent to not bother. That is impossible. Either parent have to do active part, other (because by definition kid already is - since the age is already available to whatever malware will be running on device) people will be harmed by surveillance or we keep status quo. Classical choice triangle. The only "rational" (still for me this seems like possible trojan horse) way would be to actively enforce existence of "for-child OS" on company controlled OSes, and use something like Secure Boot if parent SO DESIRES (with caveat 5 ). 0. (short version) Effectively this would mean buy separate device for kids or learn how to do it. And it would fundamentally be bound to device not user, 1. by enforcing main key to be Owner's (Parent) and signing the OS developer key with the main key for purpose of OS boot (start) - so that OS 'provider' can sign kid-friendly OS version with that developer key. (you probably could ease that with vendor key - but still requires possibility of changing the key which leads to 2. then lock the UEFI by password... that still require knowledge about the tech - unless you get password in device box [then again parents have to exercise some parenting and not give device with the box], and don't start about phones - they would require UEFI and Secure Boot available for user first - not just manufacturer. 3. and you would HAVE TO (this bit is especially trojan otherwise) enforce every OS manufacturer and vendor that provide ones for kids to always provide the non-kid version (and support it!) - so that it would not create de facto surveillance OS/PC. Let me guess this is impossible for you Americans. 4. Then app developers can sign apps for kids with the OS developer key that is FOR the kid variant - otherwise will not run (in that scenario 'kid-OS' only). 5. you would have to limit it for kids devices ONLY so you would have to reverse "ID check in bar" to confirm the existence of kid instead of adult (during buying the OS/device) - otherwise again trojan horse (because of commonality of solutions). If you find this version 'workable' please have it - but for me it seems contradictory to desire of not bothering parents. *From my perspective this is effectively parental controls on steroids*. This is exceptionally similar to attestation except it has opt out for people who actively kept the password, no IDs, and no 'sending age over wire'. This will help exactly zero to stop spread of some files if parents give a kid in class for-adult phone/pc unless you enforce signing every file by kid-OS and not opening unsigned files - congratulations your kid would be using OS approved by north Korea! - do you start to see the issue with 'workable' ideas? They inevitably flow to surveillance and autocratic tech. This is anyway probably faulty in something I did not thought about.
  - nextaccountic 6mo ago
    I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
    - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
      How effective do you find that strategy to be?
      - krishna3145 6mo ago
        1%
margalabargala 6mo ago
No, you misunderstand. You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one? "Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
red-iron-pine 6mo ago
make Facebook do their damn job they could, they just dont want to spend the money or risk liability

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.

daurentius523 6mo ago
How much supporters agree is void point unless you are making Wunschkonzert - wish-concert, it is how much the decliners and reality disagree that is the most serious problem. You either operate on "We don't like, we disagree, we disagree and will not accept, we disagree so much that we will vote on People more volatile then current U.S one to make the point" - If you start to operate in third and worse the fourth then no agreement will solve this issue. And you started from proposition that is so outright insane that you may as well count many in third view.

Aunche 6mo ago

Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.

jemmyw 6mo ago
What I've suggested is the alternative. What we're going to get is kids banned from social media altogether. And I'm not 100% against that because my kids didn't really use it because we introduced it gently while talking about it a lot with them. But when I say not 100% against, maybe 75% against it. The idea of age checking operating systems and browsers I'm very much against. Ban devices in schools: fine, it's a place of learning and there are always specific rules in shared environments.