4 ms·

Ewww. Just because parents want to control their kids forcibly doesn't mean you should help. You choose a list of web sites appropriate for each child in your

by curi 19y ago

Ewww. Just because parents want to control their kids forcibly doesn't mean you should help. You choose a list of web sites appropriate for each child in your family. PikLuk will restrict their online exploration to these sites. This, for example, means kids growing up who don't use Google -- who don't have basic proficiency with the Internet. That's awful.

mynameishere 19y ago
means kids growing up who don't use Google [Rolls eyes] who don't have basic proficiency with the Internet [Rolls eyes] That's awful. [Rolls eyes] There are 60 billion (or more) hard core porn images on the internets. No need to expose 8 year olds to them. I think the search box in wikipedia would be sufficient to acclimate them to the whole "Type word, press search" paradigm. They'll be prepared...if only for google. I mean, Bill Gates had a teletype into a mainframe, so maybe they're doomed anyway. EDIT: By the way, I've seen first hand how kids go straight for the very worst stuff on the web, and it's pretty depressing. So, there's definitely a valid market for this kind of thing...
- curi 19y ago
  What? No point using Google when you have a whitelist of sites you can visit. Actually finding useful things with Google is a skill -- sometimes the right search terms are obvious, sometimes not. Old non-technical people have trouble with it, ask them. Regarding porn: the more you make it a big important taboo, the more people get obsessed with it and work to beat your censorship.
  - gbanuel 19y ago
    You are misunderstanding the target audience for this application. It isn't a matter of whether or not kids are proficient with Google or whether we are blocking sites that for us proficient users are a dream, but instead we are giving complete control to the parents. I wouldn't even contemplate someone who is so comfortable with their 3 or 4 year old that they'd allow them to simply jump onto FF and go at it. They can accidentally click on links that take them to places their parents don't want them to see. We are removing that possibility. Again, the parent has the ultimate say as to where they are allowed. Now, if you are so inclined and trusting of your young child that you'd add something like Google to their allowed sites, then that's completely your decision. As far as wikipedia, we will be removing that as a suggested site, for some of the reasons mentioned here.
tx 19y ago
Curi, we understand where you are coming from. However, most kids we're trying to cover are not even allowed to use Internet now simply because there isn't a tool out there that can reliably ensure that your kid is going to keep playing the flash game while you're cooking, for example.
- axod 19y ago
  I know it's a radical suggestion, but something that works for me is actually spending time with your kids, and 'sharing' the computing experience together - that way you can make sure they stay on safe sites, and you get to teach them stuff/spend time with them. It's kinda fun :)
fauigerzigerk 19y ago
I agree. It is very sad if parents feel that the only way to deal with porn is censorship. I think we can do better. Yes, kids need to be protected from dangers, but shielding them from information is an awfully ineffective way of protecting them against real dangers.

by curi 19y ago

mynameishere 19y ago

means kids growing up who don't use Google [Rolls eyes] who don't have basic proficiency with the Internet [Rolls eyes] That's awful. [Rolls eyes] There are 60 billion (or more) hard core porn images on the internets. No need to expose 8 year olds to them. I think the search box in wikipedia would be sufficient to acclimate them to the whole "Type word, press search" paradigm. They'll be prepared...if only for google. I mean, Bill Gates had a teletype into a mainframe, so maybe they're doomed anyway. EDIT: By the way, I've seen first hand how kids go straight for the very worst stuff on the web, and it's pretty depressing. So, there's definitely a valid market for this kind of thing...

curi 19y ago
What? No point using Google when you have a whitelist of sites you can visit. Actually finding useful things with Google is a skill -- sometimes the right search terms are obvious, sometimes not. Old non-technical people have trouble with it, ask them. Regarding porn: the more you make it a big important taboo, the more people get obsessed with it and work to beat your censorship.
- gbanuel 19y ago
  You are misunderstanding the target audience for this application. It isn't a matter of whether or not kids are proficient with Google or whether we are blocking sites that for us proficient users are a dream, but instead we are giving complete control to the parents. I wouldn't even contemplate someone who is so comfortable with their 3 or 4 year old that they'd allow them to simply jump onto FF and go at it. They can accidentally click on links that take them to places their parents don't want them to see. We are removing that possibility. Again, the parent has the ultimate say as to where they are allowed. Now, if you are so inclined and trusting of your young child that you'd add something like Google to their allowed sites, then that's completely your decision. As far as wikipedia, we will be removing that as a suggested site, for some of the reasons mentioned here.

tx 19y ago

Curi, we understand where you are coming from. However, most kids we're trying to cover are not even allowed to use Internet now simply because there isn't a tool out there that can reliably ensure that your kid is going to keep playing the flash game while you're cooking, for example.

axod 19y ago
I know it's a radical suggestion, but something that works for me is actually spending time with your kids, and 'sharing' the computing experience together - that way you can make sure they stay on safe sites, and you get to teach them stuff/spend time with them. It's kinda fun :)

fauigerzigerk 19y ago

I agree. It is very sad if parents feel that the only way to deal with porn is censorship. I think we can do better. Yes, kids need to be protected from dangers, but shielding them from information is an awfully ineffective way of protecting them against real dangers.