3 ms·

TBH, OS based parental filters are the optimal solution here, especially if implemented in a proper way. Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When

TBH, OS based parental filters are the optimal solution here, especially if implemented in a proper way. Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When setting up the account for the first time, the parents could set the account to be an "underage one", all the apps, browsers, etc., would get the USER_IS_UNDERAGE flag and filter content according to that. No need for every site to ask and verify the age, just set the date of birth at the time of purchase, set a parental password (for possible future changes, reselling, etc.) and prohibit formats/wipes/factory resets without a parental password being entered. The clerks in telco stores could even help with the first setup of that. Same could be easily implemented in linux, via some user flag set by the su/sudo user during the first eg. ubuntu install.

lokar 1mo ago
That’s pretty much what the law does
rebeccaskinner 1mo ago
on-device filtering is the right way to go, but it shouldn’t be a matter of sending metadata about the user to a service- instead services should provide standard metadata about the content to the device and the device can choose what, if anything, to display. This preserves privacy better by keeping more information about the user local, and gives people better tools to decide what metadata categories they want to filter- for their kids and for themselves.
- ajsnigrutin 1mo ago
  That's much harder to implement. If you ban advertising eg. online casinos to underge users, the service would have to send two different ads (one 18+ and one for younger people too), and the browser would have to decide which one to play. Same for eg searching on google, browsers would have to filter out every <div> with adult content, meaning half the page would be empty, but with a browser "underage" flag, google could just turn on safe search and not allow turning it off.
  - 1e1a 1mo ago
    Plus, as soon as the user clicks on one of these optionally filtered elements, the service will know how exactly what browser is filtering.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  That solution doesn't actually work, and it angers me that people can't see why it doesn't work. That solution requires that the entire website must be child-safe or none of it. That solution requires that Tumblr must ban porn if Tumblr has any underage users. The alternative would be that Tumblr would randomly not load for underage users because some recommendation or ad would be over 18, and so it would rapidly have none.
  - angiolillo 1mo ago
    Why must an age rating apply to an entire website? As one example, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) (and to a lesser extent the prior Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSACi)) had a rating scheme that allowed sites to provide a default rating label that was then overridden for individual pages and resources using <meta> tags and RDF-based labels. For example, Tumblr could set a family-friendly default rating and append a different rating on specific user pages, images, or ads. An even more granular scheme could be applied via HTML attributes which would allow an individual section, image, link, or text snippet to be marked e.g. as "sexual", "violent", "substance use", "spoiler", or even "unknown" for unreviewed user-provided content. Then leave it up to web browsers to choose whether and how to render elements with these attributes. (Hidden entirely? With censor bars? Pixelated?) There would be substantial logistical and regulatory challenges to get websites to comply, but it doesn't seem substantially harder than the current age verification schemes.
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Because let's say you have a website like Reddit with a mixture of 18+ and 13+ stuff. Something that's 18+ but not explicit gets really popular. Pornhub will now livestream congressional debates, someone posts a link to this, and it gets fifty zillion upvotes as people can't resist commenting "wtf". Now you have a dilemma: do you show it on the front page or not? If you show this on the front page and it's 18+, it'll lock children out of the front page, which for many of them means they're locked out of the entire site because that's the way they know to access the site. But if you don't, then the law is forcing you to censor your front page for everyone, even for adults. The solution is obvious: you show it on the front page if the user is 18+. However, your proposal deliberately forbids this and says the front page must be the same for everyone. Which leaves the other two bad options.
Grombobulous 1mo ago
Yeah, there’s negative backlash against the age gate stuff but as long as you’re implementing it without privacy concerns like ID collection and verification it’s actually a really good idea. A parent can change the setting in the OS and have every website and app comply with the OS setting is such a better situation than having to deal with a patchwork of content blockers, social media account settings, and parental controls that leak like a sieve. Realistically, parents often don’t really have a good way to know what websites and apps you sign up for if you don’t have a crazily locked down device. Parental controls are complicated for non-technical parents and they usually know less than their kids do about the Internet. A global OS age gate solves a lot of those problems, especially since OS-level controls are way easier to enforce and lock down compared to other methods.
red_admiral 1mo ago
This assumes the parent knows a little bit about computers - as opposed to the child being the one that's constantly helping the parent out.
- LtWorf 1mo ago
  That era is over.
hirako2000 1mo ago
Exactly like GDPR shouldn't have mandated millions of websites to pop up a consent form, as a global browser setting could would have set consent as a user preference. But the objective of these regulations aren't what it says on the tin.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  The objective is exactly what it says on the tin. The malicious compliance is someone else's objective.
- samus 1mo ago
  The GDPR doesn't directly mandate cookie banners though. It wants consent from users prior to processing their data. Also, the browser flag that indicates no consent already exists: https://globalprivacycontrol.org/faq https://globalprivacycontrol.org/faq
  - hirako2000 1mo ago
    I agree the legislation simply makes consent a requirement, and browsers could have implemented a flag from the get go for websites to read from. Glad it is now in place.
inigyou 1mo ago
Yes. It's extremely sensible and I believe opposition to it is a shill campaign by companies like Meta.
Tangurena2 1mo ago
I think that the V-Chip shows that when parental controls are available, most parents will not use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Usage
psd1 1mo ago
I would absolutely support that position if it were compatible with observable reality. My family and school failed to stop me getting my hands on booze, fags, drugs, and porn. Teenagers are fundamentally not controllable. The Amish and the Mormons are having some success, but that's likely not what libertarians want to hear. What you describe is the status quo. Parents and schools are already, variously, giving The Talk, confiscating devices, enabling internet filters. Society deems these measures ineffective. In tiny part, that's a skill issue, but mostly it's just trying to cut down a tree with a herring. Again: teenagers. You may, of course, sulk about age restrictions on alcohol. Prohibitionists would like that. Keep your out of the contested zone, make them look reasonable. If you want to stand on your principles, try seasteading. But I'd appreciate coherent contributions to the debate, to offset the excesses of the pearl-clutchers and the spies.

lokar 1mo ago

That’s pretty much what the law does

rebeccaskinner 1mo ago

on-device filtering is the right way to go, but it shouldn’t be a matter of sending metadata about the user to a service- instead services should provide standard metadata about the content to the device and the device can choose what, if anything, to display. This preserves privacy better by keeping more information about the user local, and gives people better tools to decide what metadata categories they want to filter- for their kids and for themselves.

ajsnigrutin 1mo ago
That's much harder to implement. If you ban advertising eg. online casinos to underge users, the service would have to send two different ads (one 18+ and one for younger people too), and the browser would have to decide which one to play. Same for eg searching on google, browsers would have to filter out every <div> with adult content, meaning half the page would be empty, but with a browser "underage" flag, google could just turn on safe search and not allow turning it off.
- 1e1a 1mo ago
  Plus, as soon as the user clicks on one of these optionally filtered elements, the service will know how exactly what browser is filtering.
inigyou 1mo ago
That solution doesn't actually work, and it angers me that people can't see why it doesn't work. That solution requires that the entire website must be child-safe or none of it. That solution requires that Tumblr must ban porn if Tumblr has any underage users. The alternative would be that Tumblr would randomly not load for underage users because some recommendation or ad would be over 18, and so it would rapidly have none.
- angiolillo 1mo ago
  Why must an age rating apply to an entire website? As one example, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) (and to a lesser extent the prior Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSACi)) had a rating scheme that allowed sites to provide a default rating label that was then overridden for individual pages and resources using <meta> tags and RDF-based labels. For example, Tumblr could set a family-friendly default rating and append a different rating on specific user pages, images, or ads. An even more granular scheme could be applied via HTML attributes which would allow an individual section, image, link, or text snippet to be marked e.g. as "sexual", "violent", "substance use", "spoiler", or even "unknown" for unreviewed user-provided content. Then leave it up to web browsers to choose whether and how to render elements with these attributes. (Hidden entirely? With censor bars? Pixelated?) There would be substantial logistical and regulatory challenges to get websites to comply, but it doesn't seem substantially harder than the current age verification schemes.
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    Because let's say you have a website like Reddit with a mixture of 18+ and 13+ stuff. Something that's 18+ but not explicit gets really popular. Pornhub will now livestream congressional debates, someone posts a link to this, and it gets fifty zillion upvotes as people can't resist commenting "wtf". Now you have a dilemma: do you show it on the front page or not? If you show this on the front page and it's 18+, it'll lock children out of the front page, which for many of them means they're locked out of the entire site because that's the way they know to access the site. But if you don't, then the law is forcing you to censor your front page for everyone, even for adults. The solution is obvious: you show it on the front page if the user is 18+. However, your proposal deliberately forbids this and says the front page must be the same for everyone. Which leaves the other two bad options.

Grombobulous 1mo ago

Yeah, there’s negative backlash against the age gate stuff but as long as you’re implementing it without privacy concerns like ID collection and verification it’s actually a really good idea. A parent can change the setting in the OS and have every website and app comply with the OS setting is such a better situation than having to deal with a patchwork of content blockers, social media account settings, and parental controls that leak like a sieve. Realistically, parents often don’t really have a good way to know what websites and apps you sign up for if you don’t have a crazily locked down device. Parental controls are complicated for non-technical parents and they usually know less than their kids do about the Internet. A global OS age gate solves a lot of those problems, especially since OS-level controls are way easier to enforce and lock down compared to other methods.

red_admiral 1mo ago

This assumes the parent knows a little bit about computers - as opposed to the child being the one that's constantly helping the parent out.

LtWorf 1mo ago
That era is over.

hirako2000 1mo ago

Exactly like GDPR shouldn't have mandated millions of websites to pop up a consent form, as a global browser setting could would have set consent as a user preference. But the objective of these regulations aren't what it says on the tin.

inigyou 1mo ago
The objective is exactly what it says on the tin. The malicious compliance is someone else's objective.
samus 1mo ago
The GDPR doesn't directly mandate cookie banners though. It wants consent from users prior to processing their data. Also, the browser flag that indicates no consent already exists: https://globalprivacycontrol.org/faq https://globalprivacycontrol.org/faq
- hirako2000 1mo ago
  I agree the legislation simply makes consent a requirement, and browsers could have implemented a flag from the get go for websites to read from. Glad it is now in place.

inigyou 1mo ago

Yes. It's extremely sensible and I believe opposition to it is a shill campaign by companies like Meta.

Tangurena2 1mo ago

I think that the V-Chip shows that when parental controls are available, most parents will not use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Usage

psd1 1mo ago

I would absolutely support that position if it were compatible with observable reality. My family and school failed to stop me getting my hands on booze, fags, drugs, and porn. Teenagers are fundamentally not controllable. The Amish and the Mormons are having some success, but that's likely not what libertarians want to hear. What you describe is the status quo. Parents and schools are already, variously, giving The Talk, confiscating devices, enabling internet filters. Society deems these measures ineffective. In tiny part, that's a skill issue, but mostly it's just trying to cut down a tree with a herring. Again: teenagers. You may, of course, sulk about age restrictions on alcohol. Prohibitionists would like that. Keep your out of the contested zone, make them look reasonable. If you want to stand on your principles, try seasteading. But I'd appreciate coherent contributions to the debate, to offset the excesses of the pearl-clutchers and the spies.