3 ms·

Here's a better fix: If a parent continuously allows their child to go to a known unsafe place, they are negligent and should no longer be a parent. The excepti

Here's a better fix: If a parent continuously allows their child to go to a known unsafe place, they are negligent and should no longer be a parent. The exception is if the operator of said unsafe place specifically enticed children. I haven't been following closely but weren't there internal emails showing Facebook was specifically trying to addict and hook teens? That's definitely wrong and a bad thing Facebook did, and they should be held accountable for sure. However, if my platform says on the outside that it's for 18+, identifies itself as such using machine-readable signals, and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service, it's your failure to parent if they access it, and you should shoulder most or all the liability for it. The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? This exists currently to some extent, it can get much worse. A government body may review a service and determine it is addictive and radicalizing. This is fine, and helpful. Even requiring the service to display a warning is OK. Then, parents who ignore the clear warning and repeatedly fail to control their children from accessing it should lose parental rights.

braiamp 1mo ago
Why does your "better solution" shift responsibility from the people who built the unsafe environment to the parents? A platform labeling itself 18+ doesn't make it safe, it just moves the blame. Adult content isn't where the supposed "harms" we are trying to protect children from are coming from. They're from how the platform is designed to keep people on it. That's fixable. Infinite scroll, algorithmic radicalization, engagement mechanics, etc. None of that requires an age label, it requires a different product. I want every platform to be safe no matter who uses them and a warning sticker on the door is not a substitute for that. We don't allow arsenic in bread just because people got used to eating it
- ipaddr 1mo ago
  Parents can decide what their children view. It's literally their decision to allow them on platforms or decide what movies they can see or what friends they are allowed. Those who say how can I tell my child they can't have what others in school have. Then yoi are letting other parents raise your child.
- Dweller1622 1mo ago
  > I want every platform to be safe > We don't allow arsenic in bread I'm curious what work the verbiage of "safety" is doing throughout these posts. It's particularly interesting to me because I'd also like to consign things like infinite scrolling and adversarial algorithmic recommendations to the dustbin of history. I'm simply not sure how we describe this as being a question of "safety" in any appreciable sense, much less compare looking at things to eating things. That's really not a useful analogy here.
  - braiamp 1mo ago
    I've had the pleasure of working in work safety, kids safety and food safety, so I'm familiar with concepts such as "safe to use", "safe to consume", "safe by design". That's why harm tolerance is in the "it's unnecessary and it's avoidable" territory, as we know how and why it's causing harm in these products
    - Dweller1622 1mo ago
      Unfortunately, for this to be an answer to my question, it would actually have to elaborate. Bare assertions aren't an explanation, and as it stands this message communicates nothing to me.
pibaker 1mo ago
> should no longer be a parent Do you seriously think looking at websites, no matter what kind of websites, is more damaging than separating a children from his or her god damn parents and throwing them into the pit of neglect and abuse called the foster care system? Get serious. This is not a suggestion on how to protect kids. The kids have everything to lose and nothing to earn under your system.
- ipaddr 1mo ago
  Parents are not professional when it comes to raising children. If we care about children being raised correctly shouldn't we defer to those who have a certification and an education in raising children. In the future the state will raise children giving all children an equal chance of a good future. Poor children are less likely to get into good schools and careers where rich families can buy a better future. Think of the children.
ElProlactin 1mo ago
> I haven't been following closely but weren't there internal emails showing Facebook was specifically trying to addict and hook teens? That's definitely wrong and a bad thing Facebook did, and they should be held accountable for sure. > ... and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service What part of these services have been designed to be inherently addictive do you have a hard time understanding? It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them. > The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.?
- RiverCrochet 1mo ago
  > What part of these services have been designed to be inherently addictive do you have a hard time understanding? None whatsoever. Parents that allow/enable their children to access such things when they are clearly in adults-only conduits should be held responsible. Attempting to preemptively eliminate everything addictive from life for adults does not reduce the amount of addiction and only enables profiteering via moral panics. At some point you have to MYOB. > It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them. > So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.? The model isn't affecting me because I'm not a bad parent who is letting my kids get on platforms without watching them. If we're going to allow basically any rights/norms/freedoms to be bypassed in the name of "think of the children," let's nip the problem in the bud and permanently separate them from bad parents who are committing negligence. Whatever specific action(s) Facebook did to entice children using addictive techniques, they should stop doing that and be held accountable. But, if a parent is suing Facebook because of this situation, I find it hard to believe they didn't know Facebook was addictive for their child beforehand. Did the parent remove Facebook from their child's phone the moment they recognized harm? This doesn't place Facebook in the right. But the parents shouldn't get a free pass either if they were in any way part of it. The selling of personal data and advertising ruins things for both kids and adults, and sensible regulation there would be great. Regarding predators, parents can and should restrict their children from using platforms that aren't trustable, like Facebook.
classified 1mo ago
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It's angels and saviors like you who make the world a living hell.

braiamp 1mo ago

Why does your "better solution" shift responsibility from the people who built the unsafe environment to the parents? A platform labeling itself 18+ doesn't make it safe, it just moves the blame. Adult content isn't where the supposed "harms" we are trying to protect children from are coming from. They're from how the platform is designed to keep people on it. That's fixable. Infinite scroll, algorithmic radicalization, engagement mechanics, etc. None of that requires an age label, it requires a different product. I want every platform to be safe no matter who uses them and a warning sticker on the door is not a substitute for that. We don't allow arsenic in bread just because people got used to eating it

ipaddr 1mo ago
Parents can decide what their children view. It's literally their decision to allow them on platforms or decide what movies they can see or what friends they are allowed. Those who say how can I tell my child they can't have what others in school have. Then yoi are letting other parents raise your child.
Dweller1622 1mo ago
> I want every platform to be safe > We don't allow arsenic in bread I'm curious what work the verbiage of "safety" is doing throughout these posts. It's particularly interesting to me because I'd also like to consign things like infinite scrolling and adversarial algorithmic recommendations to the dustbin of history. I'm simply not sure how we describe this as being a question of "safety" in any appreciable sense, much less compare looking at things to eating things. That's really not a useful analogy here.
- braiamp 1mo ago
  I've had the pleasure of working in work safety, kids safety and food safety, so I'm familiar with concepts such as "safe to use", "safe to consume", "safe by design". That's why harm tolerance is in the "it's unnecessary and it's avoidable" territory, as we know how and why it's causing harm in these products
  - Dweller1622 1mo ago
    Unfortunately, for this to be an answer to my question, it would actually have to elaborate. Bare assertions aren't an explanation, and as it stands this message communicates nothing to me.

pibaker 1mo ago

> should no longer be a parent Do you seriously think looking at websites, no matter what kind of websites, is more damaging than separating a children from his or her god damn parents and throwing them into the pit of neglect and abuse called the foster care system? Get serious. This is not a suggestion on how to protect kids. The kids have everything to lose and nothing to earn under your system.

ipaddr 1mo ago
Parents are not professional when it comes to raising children. If we care about children being raised correctly shouldn't we defer to those who have a certification and an education in raising children. In the future the state will raise children giving all children an equal chance of a good future. Poor children are less likely to get into good schools and careers where rich families can buy a better future. Think of the children.

ElProlactin 1mo ago

> I haven't been following closely but weren't there internal emails showing Facebook was specifically trying to addict and hook teens? That's definitely wrong and a bad thing Facebook did, and they should be held accountable for sure. > ... and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service What part of these services have been designed to be inherently addictive do you have a hard time understanding? It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them. > The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.?

RiverCrochet 1mo ago
> What part of these services have been designed to be inherently addictive do you have a hard time understanding? None whatsoever. Parents that allow/enable their children to access such things when they are clearly in adults-only conduits should be held responsible. Attempting to preemptively eliminate everything addictive from life for adults does not reduce the amount of addiction and only enables profiteering via moral panics. At some point you have to MYOB. > It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them. > So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.? The model isn't affecting me because I'm not a bad parent who is letting my kids get on platforms without watching them. If we're going to allow basically any rights/norms/freedoms to be bypassed in the name of "think of the children," let's nip the problem in the bud and permanently separate them from bad parents who are committing negligence. Whatever specific action(s) Facebook did to entice children using addictive techniques, they should stop doing that and be held accountable. But, if a parent is suing Facebook because of this situation, I find it hard to believe they didn't know Facebook was addictive for their child beforehand. Did the parent remove Facebook from their child's phone the moment they recognized harm? This doesn't place Facebook in the right. But the parents shouldn't get a free pass either if they were in any way part of it. The selling of personal data and advertising ruins things for both kids and adults, and sensible regulation there would be great. Regarding predators, parents can and should restrict their children from using platforms that aren't trustable, like Facebook.

classified 1mo ago

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It's angels and saviors like you who make the world a living hell.