| ▲ | blackoil a day ago |
| Why not lock device/accounts as minor and put onus on school and parents to ensure devices are appropriately tagged? At least for pre-teens I strongly think it shall work. |
|
| ▲ | thrw42A8N a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'd never accept this disgrace. |
| |
| ▲ | pas a day ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, what's the implication here, what is the disgrace? Why parental controls are bad? (Or what was implied was a /s tag? :)) | | |
| ▲ | thrw42A8N a day ago | parent [-] | | Government controlled access to internet is a disgrace in any form. I can control my child without the government. | | |
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I can control my child Lies every parents tell themselves. Either they will watch porn at age 11 at school or at a friend, or you isolate them from society and they resent you forever. You can't control every aspect of your child's real life or online activities, that's naive and I don't believe you actually have children, let alone teenagers. | | |
| ▲ | thrw42A8N an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Indeed, but I don't find that amount of control reasonable. I can do enough control to be completely fine. | |
| ▲ | kbelder 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You shouldn't want to control every aspect of a child's life. You control what you can and should control, and the kid is aware of that, and you let them decide the rest. They will do things you don't want them to do, and that's fine. That's part of growing up. What you don't want is to say "I can't control every part of my kid's life, so I need to government to come in and control the remainder." | |
| ▲ | MonkeyClub 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whether GP can control their kids or not it's besides the point, which I think lies with: > Government controlled access to internet is a disgrace in any form. And in fact it's not a "disgrace", it's outright dangerous, a ready half-step to totalitarian control. Regardless whether one trusts their current government or not, it is a threat to democracy and freedom that can be activated by any later regime. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | watwut a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because it will take about 1 month till there is some service the parents will want the kids to use that wont be available on such device (a kids show, a kids game, a page necessary for homework). So, they will have strong motivation to not label them as such. |
| |
| ▲ | bccdee a day ago | parent [-] | | At that point, what if parents just let their kids borrow their driver's licenses to use social media? There's no technical solution to bad parenting. The only reasonable solution that doesn't infringe on privacy is to give parents the tools to limit their children's internet use, and presume, outside those bounds, that people are adults. | | |
| ▲ | pas a day ago | parent [-] | | of course there's no perfectly privacy preserving solution for this, but ... zero-knowledge proofs have come a pretty long way. if I understand correctly it's possible to give 16+ people tokens and then they can make the signups (transactions with these tokens) and then check that the transaction is valid (that it came from some valid token without knowing which token), while also making sure that folks can't just fake spend someone's tokens -- this is how the new Monero version is going to work after all. https://www.getmonero.org/2024/04/27/fcmps.html Of course as others mentioned trading identities (tokens) is trivial. (As I expect not-yet-16 olds will start stealing identities/logins of older people.) | | |
| ▲ | bccdee a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, as you mentioned, token-sharing breaks this. I think any solution ultimately has to put the onus on the parents. And if the parents aren't responsible enough to pay attention to what their kid is doing online, then it's probably for the best that the kid have access to an online peer group over social media |
|
|
|
