4 ms·

> the vast majority of the internet thus being inaccessible when in "child" mode. Fine. It probably should be, if sites don't want to bother cooperating.

fc417fc802 5mo ago
But the expected result here is that parental controls continue not to work very well, parents continue not to use them (at least competently), and people continue complaining that something needs to be done. So I propose that we do something about that rather than sit around continuing to roll the dice on the next half assed turnkey authoritarian solution than an inept legislator fields courtesy of a lobbyist working for a megacorporation whose interests tread well into the realm of the blatantly evil.
lokar 5mo ago
We are seeking a solution to a social problem, not just a technical problem. If it fails to achieve most of the social goals, it won't be used and you get something worse. Welcome to the real world.
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  The standard OP is describing doesn't exist. So whether it "fails to achieve most of the social goals" is yet to be determined. Blocking unrated content seems like a pretty desirable feature to me. Why wouldn't that be one of the "social goals"?
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    You can turn on filtering and subscribe to a whitelist today. People don't seem to be satisfied with that solution. Why not? The answer to that question is what needs to be solved.
    - Ajedi32 5mo ago
      There's no web standard for labeling content, so "subscribe to a whitelist" today means crappy page or network-level content blocks implemented by a third party tool that has no understanding of the actual content on the page or application. That's not at all what's being proposed in this thread. With a universal labeling standard the UX would be much better, and there'd be a much greater incentive for website owners to participate (they'd be implementing a universal standard, not adding support for one particular parental control tool).

fc417fc802 5mo ago

But the expected result here is that parental controls continue not to work very well, parents continue not to use them (at least competently), and people continue complaining that something needs to be done. So I propose that we do something about that rather than sit around continuing to roll the dice on the next half assed turnkey authoritarian solution than an inept legislator fields courtesy of a lobbyist working for a megacorporation whose interests tread well into the realm of the blatantly evil.

lokar 5mo ago

We are seeking a solution to a social problem, not just a technical problem. If it fails to achieve most of the social goals, it won't be used and you get something worse. Welcome to the real world.

Ajedi32 5mo ago
The standard OP is describing doesn't exist. So whether it "fails to achieve most of the social goals" is yet to be determined. Blocking unrated content seems like a pretty desirable feature to me. Why wouldn't that be one of the "social goals"?
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  You can turn on filtering and subscribe to a whitelist today. People don't seem to be satisfied with that solution. Why not? The answer to that question is what needs to be solved.
  - Ajedi32 5mo ago
    There's no web standard for labeling content, so "subscribe to a whitelist" today means crappy page or network-level content blocks implemented by a third party tool that has no understanding of the actual content on the page or application. That's not at all what's being proposed in this thread. With a universal labeling standard the UX would be much better, and there'd be a much greater incentive for website owners to participate (they'd be implementing a universal standard, not adding support for one particular parental control tool).