3 ms·

Nothing is not politically viable for the parents who want controls to limit their children's access. It's funny watching HN constantly berate parents for not p

Nothing is not politically viable for the parents who want controls to limit their children's access. It's funny watching HN constantly berate parents for not parenting while parents' material conditions don't change. Same environment, same result, and frankly there's more of them and they're better organized. All it takes is parents to win once. You have to not lose every time.

dgellow 1mo ago
What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls
- spwa4 1mo ago
  That would do nothing to help with the pressure kids will feel if others are on social media.
  - aand16 1mo ago
    Why is resisting peer pressure during childhood bad?
    - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
      Social isolation is bad for kids. We learned this during COVID lockdowns.
      - aand16 29d ago
        Social media is anything but social and promotes bad brain development for children. Change my mind.
  - dgellow 1mo ago
    You cannot regulate peer pressure, even with the complete ban you would still have kids using other platforms for social interaction and have peer pressure, like on roblox or whatever
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbr1 1mo ago
      There's always going to be 'the actual Internet' accessible by kids, as in non-corporate, non-walled gardens social forums. Chans, IRC, etc. What this effectively does is disadvantage large corporate social media companies to the benefit of smaller, more decentralized alternatives. To which the anarchist in me says: fuck yes.
    - spwa4 1mo ago
      > You cannot regulate ... This has never stopped anyone. For example, Climate change legislation makes little sense unless implemented worldwide. War crime or anti-terror legislation doesn't really make sense unless it's implemented across borders (and pretending doesn't count. Nobody's even talking about arresting Putin, or anyone else for that matter). Taxation ...
- kelseyfrog 1mo ago
  The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.
  - alex43578 1mo ago
    Why are you allowed to dictate how others raise their children? They don’t get a say in your kids diet or religion or choice of sport.
    - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
      There are limits to laws and limiting social media companies' ability to have child users is well within those. If you don't like it, contact your representative instead of spinning your wheels on HN.
      - marky1991 1mo ago
        I don't understand, could you rephrase your answer to his question? I read his question and read your response, but don't see a connection between the two.
        kyboren 1mo ago
        I'll rephrase it for you: "Fuck you".
        kelseyfrog 1mo ago
        Exactly. Out donate me. Until then, it's whinging.
        marky1991 1mo ago
- bluGill 1mo ago
  The problem is strict controls is not helpful. My kids teachers often assign homework which is watch some YouTube video - which means I have to give my kids access to all of YouTube including channels i don't approve of. In turn i have to stare at my kids screen - a very creepy move - instead of working on whatever my own project is when they are doing homework. I constantly find something as a parent where I can block way too much, or nothing at all. There is no middle ground. Mind you a middle ground for something the size of YouTube is probably impossible just because of the quantity of things there that I might or might not want my kids to see - but the current situation is not working.
  - frumper 1mo ago
    When my kids got to an age they started asking for YouTube videos, I found it entirely frustrating that Youtube Kids was just not feasible to setup like you describe. It was a choice between 3 things, everything, the "kids" section whatever that meant for YouTube, and just tell them sorry, not happening. Within the kids section there seemed to be some controls to help, but I found they did not work well at all and I could easily watch anything in the expanded kids section. I'd have been happy with a whitelist for channels.
    - ethbr1 1mo ago
      This is why blunt legislation is needed. The existing parental control features are deliberately mis-designed, because there's a lot of money at stake and Meta / Google aren't stupid. Does anyone really think they didn't run uptake and engagement impact tests on various proposed parental control options... and then ship the one that impacted their revenue least? The only reason there are controls, in any sense, is as a fig leaf when the lawsuits inevitably started flying (read: now), so they can say 'See, we take this very seriously...'
  - eszed 1mo ago
    Yep. All I want is allow/deny permissions on particular channels. For my little guy I'd set up a blanket Deny rule, with a few channels allowed; for older kids parents might want to go the other way. All of the "parent better" messages are useless (not to mention out of touch) when technical tools to do so are not made avaliable to us. And, of course, those tools are not given because YouTube wants to drop kids into the endless algorithmic feed of slop. The age verification laws are stupid, and will nowhere address the actual problem. YouTube (and the like) - not parents - will still have full control.
- bigfudge 1mo ago
  The point that HN libertarians miss is that the whole point of social networks is that they benefit from network effects. This is what makes them profitable. But it’s also what makes it necessary to subject them to democratic accountability and makes them a legitimate target of public policy. If my teenagers entire peer groups spends 90% of their waking life on addictive social networks and a ‘normal’ social life is impossible without it then the parent is faced with a Hobsons choice. It’s easy enough to band my 10 year old from social networks. It’s much more complex doing that to 14 year olds and potentially does have negative effects for them unless their friends are similarly limited. This is why we need regulation.
  - ndriscoll 1mo ago
    One obvious solution is of course to break these companies up. Set a maximum user count that a communication network operator is allowed to have before we break them up (say, 10M). Require some kind of good-faith open federation for any communication provider over a certain size (e.g. if a user adds a user from another provider as a friend/contact/follow, you must allow that and cannot claim you are "blocking spam" or something to act as a gatekeeper). Then your friends could use the evil instance, you could talk to them on it through your good one as a federating relay (e.g. yours might operate on a friend whitelist), but the parent could otherwise block access to the wider content pool and ad-filled addictive UI of the evil instances. This would actually work well for ISPs and phone companies too while we're at it. And email providers. Actually a statutory maximum size (customers, revenue, etc.) could make sense for companies in general, probably. Revenue above 0.1% of GDP? Breakup.
  - frumper 1mo ago
    If your 14yo spends 90% of their waking life on any device it should be pretty obvious for a parent. If you let your kid spend that much time on a phone, then any government ban in place isn't going to do what you think it will.
  - dgellow 1mo ago
    Im very, very far from being a libertarian…

dgellow 1mo ago

What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls

spwa4 1mo ago
That would do nothing to help with the pressure kids will feel if others are on social media.
- aand16 1mo ago
  Why is resisting peer pressure during childhood bad?
  - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
    Social isolation is bad for kids. We learned this during COVID lockdowns.
    - aand16 29d ago
      Social media is anything but social and promotes bad brain development for children. Change my mind.
- dgellow 1mo ago
  You cannot regulate peer pressure, even with the complete ban you would still have kids using other platforms for social interaction and have peer pressure, like on roblox or whatever
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr1 1mo ago
    There's always going to be 'the actual Internet' accessible by kids, as in non-corporate, non-walled gardens social forums. Chans, IRC, etc. What this effectively does is disadvantage large corporate social media companies to the benefit of smaller, more decentralized alternatives. To which the anarchist in me says: fuck yes.
  - spwa4 1mo ago
    > You cannot regulate ... This has never stopped anyone. For example, Climate change legislation makes little sense unless implemented worldwide. War crime or anti-terror legislation doesn't really make sense unless it's implemented across borders (and pretending doesn't count. Nobody's even talking about arresting Putin, or anyone else for that matter). Taxation ...
kelseyfrog 1mo ago
The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.
- alex43578 1mo ago
  Why are you allowed to dictate how others raise their children? They don’t get a say in your kids diet or religion or choice of sport.
  - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
    There are limits to laws and limiting social media companies' ability to have child users is well within those. If you don't like it, contact your representative instead of spinning your wheels on HN.
    - marky1991 1mo ago
      I don't understand, could you rephrase your answer to his question? I read his question and read your response, but don't see a connection between the two.
      - kyboren 1mo ago
        I'll rephrase it for you: "Fuck you".
        kelseyfrog 1mo ago
        Exactly. Out donate me. Until then, it's whinging.
        marky1991 1mo ago
bluGill 1mo ago
The problem is strict controls is not helpful. My kids teachers often assign homework which is watch some YouTube video - which means I have to give my kids access to all of YouTube including channels i don't approve of. In turn i have to stare at my kids screen - a very creepy move - instead of working on whatever my own project is when they are doing homework. I constantly find something as a parent where I can block way too much, or nothing at all. There is no middle ground. Mind you a middle ground for something the size of YouTube is probably impossible just because of the quantity of things there that I might or might not want my kids to see - but the current situation is not working.
- frumper 1mo ago
  When my kids got to an age they started asking for YouTube videos, I found it entirely frustrating that Youtube Kids was just not feasible to setup like you describe. It was a choice between 3 things, everything, the "kids" section whatever that meant for YouTube, and just tell them sorry, not happening. Within the kids section there seemed to be some controls to help, but I found they did not work well at all and I could easily watch anything in the expanded kids section. I'd have been happy with a whitelist for channels.
  - ethbr1 1mo ago
    This is why blunt legislation is needed. The existing parental control features are deliberately mis-designed, because there's a lot of money at stake and Meta / Google aren't stupid. Does anyone really think they didn't run uptake and engagement impact tests on various proposed parental control options... and then ship the one that impacted their revenue least? The only reason there are controls, in any sense, is as a fig leaf when the lawsuits inevitably started flying (read: now), so they can say 'See, we take this very seriously...'
- eszed 1mo ago
  Yep. All I want is allow/deny permissions on particular channels. For my little guy I'd set up a blanket Deny rule, with a few channels allowed; for older kids parents might want to go the other way. All of the "parent better" messages are useless (not to mention out of touch) when technical tools to do so are not made avaliable to us. And, of course, those tools are not given because YouTube wants to drop kids into the endless algorithmic feed of slop. The age verification laws are stupid, and will nowhere address the actual problem. YouTube (and the like) - not parents - will still have full control.
bigfudge 1mo ago
The point that HN libertarians miss is that the whole point of social networks is that they benefit from network effects. This is what makes them profitable. But it’s also what makes it necessary to subject them to democratic accountability and makes them a legitimate target of public policy. If my teenagers entire peer groups spends 90% of their waking life on addictive social networks and a ‘normal’ social life is impossible without it then the parent is faced with a Hobsons choice. It’s easy enough to band my 10 year old from social networks. It’s much more complex doing that to 14 year olds and potentially does have negative effects for them unless their friends are similarly limited. This is why we need regulation.
- ndriscoll 1mo ago
  One obvious solution is of course to break these companies up. Set a maximum user count that a communication network operator is allowed to have before we break them up (say, 10M). Require some kind of good-faith open federation for any communication provider over a certain size (e.g. if a user adds a user from another provider as a friend/contact/follow, you must allow that and cannot claim you are "blocking spam" or something to act as a gatekeeper). Then your friends could use the evil instance, you could talk to them on it through your good one as a federating relay (e.g. yours might operate on a friend whitelist), but the parent could otherwise block access to the wider content pool and ad-filled addictive UI of the evil instances. This would actually work well for ISPs and phone companies too while we're at it. And email providers. Actually a statutory maximum size (customers, revenue, etc.) could make sense for companies in general, probably. Revenue above 0.1% of GDP? Breakup.
- frumper 1mo ago
  If your 14yo spends 90% of their waking life on any device it should be pretty obvious for a parent. If you let your kid spend that much time on a phone, then any government ban in place isn't going to do what you think it will.
- dgellow 1mo ago
  Im very, very far from being a libertarian…