Remix.run Logo
belorn 7 hours ago

I am a bit confused by that comment. Are parents social responsible to prevent companies from selling alcohol/guns/cigarettes to minors? If a company set up shop in a school and sold those things to minors during school breaks, who has the social responsibility to stop that?

briffle 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

when I was a kid in the early 90's, my state (and many others) banned cigarette vending machines since there was no way to prevent them being used by minors, unless they were inside a bar, where minors were already not allowed.

unethical_ban 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem is, doing the analogous action with the entire internet is a privacy nightmare. You didn't have to tell 7-11 every item you bought at every store in the past 2 years and opt-in to telling them what other stores you go to for the next 5.

There is no digital equivalent of "flash an ID card and be done with it" in the surveillance state era of the internet. Using a CC is the closest we have and even then you're giving data away.

ndriscoll 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The analogous action is to only require age-restricted sites (or parts of sites) to check ID, not the entire Internet. e.g. no one is calling for mathisfun.com to check ID. I'd expect most parts of the web are child-friendly and would not be affected. Just like how almost all locations in physical space don't need to check ID.

Additionally, the laws I've read mandate that no data be retained, so you have stronger legal protections than typical credit card use, or even giving your ID to a store clerk for age restricted purchases (many stores will scan it without asking, and in some states scanning is required).

Gigachad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This might have the benefit of reversing the trend where everything on the internet was rolled in to social media. If social media is age restricted, news, announcements, etc will have to break out to dedicated websites if they want to be accessible by all ages.

cowboylowrez an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

just ban kids from the internet already. if a parent allows the kid to have a full function smartphone and the kids get caught with it then throw the parents in jail and kids in an orphanage. people will catch on.

Y-bar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You do not need to control the entire internet. Put time limits on connected devices. Use parental controls. Talk to your kids about what they do online. Set clear boundaries. Reward good behaviour. Talk to other parents to align these limits to avoid social issues among the kids.

unethical_ban 3 hours ago | parent [-]

We may be agreeing, I'm saying there is no battle tested, privacy safe technical method of verifying age online, and this the controls need to be in the physical environment and setting social standards for social media and phone use.

throwawayk7h 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Parents can't easily prevent their kids from going to those kinds of stores once they're at the age where the parent doesn't need to keep an eye on them all the time and they can travel about on their own.

The difference though is that parents are generally the ones to give their kids their phones and devices. These devices could send headers to websites saying "I'm a kid" -- but this system doesn't exist, and parents apparently don't use existing parental controls properly or at all.

palata 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> These devices could send headers to websites saying "I'm a kid" -- but this system doesn't exist

And there would be ways to work around it. If people find that privacy-preserving age verification is not good enough because "some kids will work around it", then nothing is good enough, period. Some will always work around anything.

cowboylowrez an hour ago | parent [-]

if a parent gives a kid a full on smartphone, charge the parent with child abuse just like feeding the kid alcohol, cigarettes or having sex with them. people will catch on.

srmatto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or people who aren't parents are yet again sharing strong opinions that are not based in reality. Plenty of parental controls are deployed, how long they last against a determined child is the real question. Here's a concrete example for you. Spotify has a web browser built in so that you can watch music videos, kids have figured out a way to use that to watch any video on YouTube--a 12 year old told me this. If you search on this subject you'll quickly learn this is well known and is generally being ignored by Spotify. Why not allow parents to disable the in-app web browser / video function?

It's not as easy as you may believe to prevent that type of access.

Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So what’s the alternative? Pretend we don’t live in a digitally connected society and set our kids up for failure when they get one years after their peers?

bigstrat2003 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that social media is extremely harmful to children. Which means the answer to your question is "yes, obviously". If people were running around giving their kids fentanyl, you wouldn't say "but my kid's friends all use fentanyl and he'll be an outcast if he can't". You would say "any friends that he loses over this are well worth avoiding the damage". Why would it be different just because it's social media?

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Phones, I mean. Sorry for the confusion there. I’m for holding off on social media.

ajam1507 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Keeping your kids off social media is setting them up for success.

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m talking about phones specifically. Agree re: social media.

ajam1507 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem isn't with phones. We should have robust parental controls and the responsibility of parenting should be left to, wait for it... the parents.

Quarrelsome 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the argument is more around it being illegal so as to not be forced into playing "the bad guy". It's hard to prevent a level of entitlement and resentment if those less well parented have full access. If nobody is allowed then there's no parental friction at all.

Its unfortunate that the application of this rule is being performed at the software level via ad-hoc age verification as opposed to the device level (e.g. smartphones themselves). However that might require the rigimirole of the state forcibly confiscating smartphones from minors or worrying nepalise outcomes.

JohnMakin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm saying hold parent's accountable for their children's online behavior and for their protection online, not companies (who want to profit off the kids, perverse incentive) or governments (who can barely be trusted to do this even if this was the only goal). For example if your kid starts making revenge CP of their classmates, and the parent could have reasonably mitigated or known about it, I think the parent absolutely should be held responsible.

Don't punish the rest of the web for crappy parenting and crappy incentives by companies/govts.

evilantnie 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we want parents to be accountable, then these platforms need to provide better tools to enable parents to do so. It is impossible to monitor the entirety of your child's behavior online through any of these platforms today. They are their own person, they make their own choices, and those choices are heavily influenced by a world the parents have increasingly less influence over, especially as they grow older.

On the flip side, I do think we should also hold companies more accountable for this. We collectively prevented companies from advertising tobacco to minors through regulation with a pretty massive success rate. These companies know how harmful social media can be on youth, and there is little to no effective regulation around how children learn about these platforms and get enticed into them.

tsimionescu 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This all needs to be modulated by the knowledge that some children benefit immensely from being able to hide parts of their lives from their parents, parts that their parents would disagree with greatly.

The clearest example is LGBTQ kids who want to talk to other LGBTQ kids, or enjoy LGBTQ content, without fundamentalist or just homophobic/transphobic parents finding out. Children of fundamentalist or cult members who want an escape from the cult are another common category.

JohnMakin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I do not disagree with any of this, I was hoping it was implied by my original comment that this would be necessary.

Quarrelsome 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm saying hold parent's accountable for their children's online behavior and for their protection online

You're saying the status quo and I think its fair to state you wouldn't intentionally design the status quo. Unless we have some wizard wheeze where we can easily arrest and detain or otherwise effectively punish parents without further reducing the quality of life for their children.

philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's not playing the bad guy. It's playing the good guy.

Gigachad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

From the perspective of the kids you are the bad guy.

Quarrelsome 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

in the abstract but in the social of the home you have to be the bad guy. While good parents manage that, the bar is too high for society in general.

honkycat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ISPs and OSs should be the ones providing these tools and make is stupid easy to set up a child's account and have a walled garden for kids to use.

maccard 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I live in the UK. By default your ISP will block "mature" content and you have to contact them to opt out. iOS, Android, Playstation, Xbox, Switch all have parental controls that are enforced at an account level.

A child with an iPhone, Xbox, and a Windows Laptop won't be able to install discord unless the parent explicitly lets them, or opts out of all the parental controls those platforms have to offer.

The tech is here already, this is not about keeping children safe.

whywhywhywhy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You have to be very tech savvy to know that your kid asking to install Discord to talk to/play games with their friend group is as dangerous as it is.

maccard 5 hours ago | parent [-]

A single google search will tell you pretty unanimously that discord isn’t for kids, is rated 13+ and has risks of talking to strangers.

Gigachad an hour ago | parent [-]

Parts of discord are not safe at all for 13 year olds and currently there isn't a mechanism as far as I am aware to restrict a 13 year old from accessing them.

drnick1 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's about corporate and government control. Thankfully, the UK government is clueless about tech, which means these controls can be bypassed relatively easily by using your own DNS or a public DNS server like Quad9.

hunterpayne an hour ago | parent [-]

The corporations in this case are fighting against this. This is about your government and its desire to squash opinions they don't like. They are already going so far as to jail people for posting opinions they don't like. This has absolutely nothing to do with children, children are just the excuse.

MSFT_Edging 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a law going through in some state that want's to do this, but also put the onus on the OS developers to detect age aligned behavior. How do you do this with Linux? It would kill the open computer and kill ownership over computing.

bigfishrunning 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would it be a problem to do this sort of thing with linux? Linux allows for oauth, proxied networking, what have you -- unless they're using some super-secret-unpublished-protocol, linux will be fine

I'm against these age-verification laws, but to say it's impossible to comply with open-source software isn't really true.

tsimionescu 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

The point is that you won't be able to just install a Linux distro of your choice in this world - your computer will only run approved OSs that have gone through some kind of certification process to make sure they enforce age-verification content. If, say, the Debian foundation doesn't want to add these mandatory controls because they feel it goes against the spirit of Debian (not to mention the huge issues with the GPL), then your new computer just won't be able to run Debian anymore. And something like Kali would be right out, of course, since anonymity is not compatible with age verification.

techblueberry 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mark Zuckerberg advocates for this, most people entrenched in this argument think it's worse. But I'm all for burning it to the ground so.

blindriver 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You must not have kids if you think it's easy to keep children off things that are bad for them.

friendzis 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[Any] task is much easier if you have the tools. Do/did you have a baby monitor? A technological tool, that allows you to "monitor" the baby while not being within an arms reach.

Do you have an A+++++ oven with three panes of glass? It's [relatively] safe to touch and instead of monitoring if a child is somewhere near the oven you have to monitor if the child does not actively open the oven. That's much easier.

squigz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's really not some Herculean task to do so either, though.

metadat 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe you don't have kids of your own. Once you have 2 or 3, it is quite challenging to manage everything, especially over time.

blindriver 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Especially if they are older, like 8+ years old. They are resourceful, sneaky and relentless.

cgriswald 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which is exactly why all people everywhere giving up their privacy will also be ineffective.

Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography were all illegal for me to access as a kid but I wouldn’t have had any trouble getting any of it.

sarchertech 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe at 16, not at 8.

tsimionescu 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Many of my school colleagues started smoking around 10-11 years old. All of us had tasted alchol by then, and some of them were definitely drinking the occasional beer. Older kids sometimes brought porn magazines in school and would show younger kids too (still talking about pre-highscool here). Now, this was childhood in Romania in the 1990s and early 2000s, soon after the fall of communsim, so maybe not so applicable everywhere else, but still - I doubt that there is any problem for a resourceful 8-10 year old even today to get some of these things.

cgriswald 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The older kids are often the easy source for the younger kids. At 8 I had already seen a Playboy and knew kids who had seen harder stuff. I could have easily gotten a teenager to get me cigarettes (and drugs, but I didn’t know what those were really). I had also already tasted alcohol. Any of this I could have stolen from any number of places.

At 16 it was easier, but at 8 it wasn’t hard.

blindriver 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

over 10 years ago, I had an intern from Harvard CS tell me that privacy is irrelevant unless you're doing something that you want to hide. I was gobsmacked that someone would not cherish their privacy but since then I've realized many don't care at all and have the same attitude that "I don't have anything to hide."

hunterpayne an hour ago | parent [-]

Well that's your mistake right there. You hired someone from Harvard. Unless you are hiring that person to use their connections to market your product, there is no reason to hire someone from Harvard. They just bring bad ideology and STDs from Russian hookers to the table and nobody wants that.

PS This post is partly satire, I will leave it to you as to which part is serious.

aleph_minus_one 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They are resourceful, sneaky and relentless.

... and honest:

- they will honestly tell you that they'd be very happy to see you dead when you impose restrictions upon them (people who are older will of course possibly get into legal trouble for such a statement)

- they will tell they they wish you'd never have given birth to them (or aborted them)

- they will tell you that since they never wanted to be born, they owe you nothing

- ...

squigz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds like a kid in need of psychiatric help.

aleph_minus_one 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You barely ever had to deal with pubescent children? :-)

hunterpayne an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I raised kids. Never had to deal with anything like what is described. Sounds like someone read some questionable books on parenting, unfortunately followed the bad advice in those books and this is the result.

And this entire thing is about bad parenting. Its always easier to just give the kid a tablet and go back to whatever you were doing. Its always better to actually interact with the kid. That trade-off of time is important because if you mess up when they are young, you spend a lot more time handling issues later on. That time you gained by giving them a tablet will get payed back someday, usually with interest. That's what is happening here.

squigz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, that's really not normal puberty stuff, but... okay.

Kaliboy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I remember how my sister and I set up Google Family and fully locked down my niece her phone with app restrictions, screen time restrictions and a policy of accountability when we need to extend the screen time.

It worked really well up until she got a school managed chromebook for homework with no access controls.

hellojesus 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Can't your router block by Mac address? Just limit the Chromebook to allowlisted sites. And also school-issued computers are known for Spyware and even worse. It should probably be segregated in a separate network or vlan.

scottLobster 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As a father of 3, one thing the wife and I had to learn over the course of the first two is that the modern world holds parents to impossible standards and a "fuck off" attitude is required for much of it.

We've had pediatricians shame us for feeding our kids what they're willing to eat and not magically forcing "a more varied diet" down their throats at every meal, despite them being perfectly healthy by every objective metric. There are laws making it technically illegal for us to leave our kids unsupervised at home for any period of time in any condition, even a few minutes if one of us is running slightly late from work/appointments.

Your not-quite-2-year-old is too tall for a rear-facing car-seat? You're a bad parent, possibly a criminal and putting them at risk by flipping the seat to face forward, a responsible parent spends hundreds of dollars they don't have on several different seats to maybe find one that fits better or have their kid ride uncomfortably and arguably unsafely with their legs hyper-extended up the seatback.

Miss a flu shot because you were busy? Careful you don't come off as an antivaxxer.

And all of this and more on top of changing diapers, doctors' appointments, daycare, preschool, school, family activities and full time jobs?

Yeah, when my kids are old enough to engage with social media I will teach them how to use it responsibly, warn them about the dangers, make myself available to them if they have any problems, enforce putting the phones down at dinner and and keep a loose eye on their usage. Fortunately/unfortunately for them they have a technically sophisticated father who knows how to log web activity on the family router without their knowledge. So if anything goes sideways I'll have some hard information to look at. Most families don't have that level of technical skill.

Wobbles42 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I was almost certainly never going to be a parent for other unrelated reasons, but you have just given me a whole other list of confirmations for that decision that I hadn't thought of before.

Thank you for that.

estimator7292 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies are legally prohibited from marketing and selling certain products like tobacco and alcohol because they historically tried to.

Parents are legally and socially expected to keep their kids away from tobacco and alcohol. You're breaking legal and social convention if you allow your kids to access dangerous drugs.

Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco. Somebody should be held responsible for that, and the legal and social framework we already have for dealing with people who want to get kids addicted to shit works fairly well.

trueismywork 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So we should ban social media is what you're saying but not what OC is saying.

jatari 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All "social media" that uses recommendation algorithms should be unavaliable to children.

fuzzfactor 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At least give it a try.

nephihaha 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco. Somebody should be held responsible for that, and the legal and social framework we already have for dealing with people who want to get kids addicted to shit works fairly well."

They work hand in hand with governments around the world, that's why they get the tax breaks. In return they hand over details about your opinions, social networks and whereabouts, not to mention facial recognition data via Facebook. They aren't remotely capitalist in any real sense since they have a bad business model.

pembrook 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco.

Most actual studies done on this topic find very little evidence this is true.

It's a run-of-the-mill moral panic. People breathlessly repeating memes about whatever "kids these days" are up to and how horrible it is, as adults have done for thousands of years.

I expect some emotional attacks in response for questioning the big panic of the day, but before you do so please explore:

[1] Effects of reducing social media use are small and inconsistent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266656032...

[2] Belief in "Social media addiction" is wholly explained by media framing and not an actual addiction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2

[3] No causal link between time spent on social media and mental health harm: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/social-media-t...

[4] The Flawed Evidence Behind Jonathan Haidt's Panic Farming: https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evide...

logicchains 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

regularfry 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The school, in loco parentis.

gleenn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not responsible for selling to all minors, just theirs.

moffkalast 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well the parents entrust their kids to the school, so they would be the ones responsible for what goes on on their premises. In turn, school computers are famously locked down to the point of being absolutely useless.

HeWhoLurksLate 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's really a district-by-district / school-by-school thing, some are significantly more locked down than others