3 ms·

I.e. they establish the framework for censorship and deanonymization by making everyone else responsible for child-safety, except the person that should be sett

I.e. they establish the framework for censorship and deanonymization by making everyone else responsible for child-safety, except the person that should be setting up the parental controls - all they get to do is select a "child" or "not child" option. The law doesn't require they be given any control besides that - no default whitelist of apps and websites that they could edit, no blacklist, no screen time limits, nothing. Just an easy way to hand off control to someone else. A way that would be unnecessary if they instead got real parental controls. As explained in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49256731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49256731

inigyou 2mo ago
Why would you make John Smith responsible for what Mark Zuckerberg displays to Jimmy Smith?
- fn-mote 2mo ago
  Stop the disingenuous comments please. 1. John Smith is the parent. Giving them power to control what the child visits allows them to do their parenting job. 2. What proposal makes Facebook responsible for anything? Surely none of these. They will just say they are appropriate for ages 13+ and what will parents do?
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  Because I would rather parents make the minimal effort [1] to restrict which pages their children visit and how often, than legally require every website and game to deanonymize, surveil, and censor their users. Which includes not just Facebook, but every forum (HN, reddit, small bicycling pages [2]), game, and chatroom. Because the latter would mean anyone hosting public discussions would be doing so only at the government's will. If they don't like the direction those discussions take, they will use the vague laws against "harm" to force a change. Like the UK government admitted [3]: First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. [1] It's not minimal now, but that's the point of government funding and requiring better parental controls. [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the-uks-online-safety-act-is-killing-communities/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the... [3] https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...

inigyou 2mo ago

Why would you make John Smith responsible for what Mark Zuckerberg displays to Jimmy Smith?

fn-mote 2mo ago
Stop the disingenuous comments please. 1. John Smith is the parent. Giving them power to control what the child visits allows them to do their parenting job. 2. What proposal makes Facebook responsible for anything? Surely none of these. They will just say they are appropriate for ages 13+ and what will parents do?
like_any_other 2mo ago
Because I would rather parents make the minimal effort [1] to restrict which pages their children visit and how often, than legally require every website and game to deanonymize, surveil, and censor their users. Which includes not just Facebook, but every forum (HN, reddit, small bicycling pages [2]), game, and chatroom. Because the latter would mean anyone hosting public discussions would be doing so only at the government's will. If they don't like the direction those discussions take, they will use the vague laws against "harm" to force a change. Like the UK government admitted [3]: First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. [1] It's not minimal now, but that's the point of government funding and requiring better parental controls. [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the-uks-online-safety-act-is-killing-communities/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the... [3] https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...