3 ms·

Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.

by geoffmanning 5mo ago

kelseyfrog 5mo ago
I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
- mmastrac 5mo ago
  Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
  - kelseyfrog 5mo ago
    I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
    - 08627843789 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - walletdrainer 5mo ago
      Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
    - daurentius523 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
      This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet. It's really adorable.
    - 9dev 5mo ago
      My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
      - kelseyfrog 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
  I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
  - kelseyfrog 5mo ago
    How effective do you find that strategy to be?
    - krishna3145 5mo ago
      1%

Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.

kelseyfrog 5mo ago

I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.

mmastrac 5mo ago
Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
- kelseyfrog 5mo ago
  I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
  - 08627843789 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - walletdrainer 5mo ago
    Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
  - daurentius523 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
    This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet. It's really adorable.
  - 9dev 5mo ago
    My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
    - kelseyfrog 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
- kelseyfrog 5mo ago
  How effective do you find that strategy to be?
  - krishna3145 5mo ago
    1%