| |
| ▲ | azinman2 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would be a nightmare to implement and achieve the goal, but I have to say I think it’s more right than wrong. All of the data is very clear about the harms. China has restrictions for social media and screen time for kids — how do they implement this? | | |
| ▲ | debazel 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually think this would be easier to implement than many of the current ID verification methods I've seen being pushed. We already have the infrastructure for selling age restricted goods, this is nothing new. Manufacturers that are unable to restrict their hardware in a "child" mode don't have to do anything and could simply continue selling to adults only. It's obvious we're moving in a direction where we are going to get these restrictions in one way or another, and this is the only way I've come up with that doesn't come with serious privacy implications. Most importantly, this solution would be simple for anyone to understand. You don't need to be a cryptography expert to understand there are child safe devices and then there are unrestricted devices for adults. | | |
| ▲ | vladms 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would the parents comply though? Many of the restrictions work because most adults agree is OK. For example for alcohol, children could drink as much as they want at home, if adults would permit it. If most adults would be convinced there is an issue, one probably has enough lock-down modes even nowadays, not sure it is a "technical" problem. | | |
| ▲ | debazel 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I strongly believe that most would actually. All parents I've talked to have had issues with parenting their children's online activity. They know there are harmful things they want to prevent them from accessing but it is simply to hard to configure and set up existing tools for it. (Besides every single friend they have don't have any restrictions so it all seem pointless.) I can also see also large support for uploading ID to various services when talking about kids, but when you re-frame the question to adults, most seems to really dislike the idea immensely. Sure there will be children with access to unrestricted devices, just like we had kids with porn mags hidden in a forest somewhere back in the day, or how that one sketchy guy was buying alcohol, etc. But I think this is an acceptable level of risk for whatever harm people want to prevent. | |
| ▲ | taikon 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Definitely makes it easier for parents. It also normalizes screen time limits for kids. When none of your kids' friends have screen time limits, it's harder to enforce. When at least there's a few of them, it's easier to get buy-in from your kids. | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At that point it's on the parents. We can't stop parents from giving their kids alcohol or drugs either. (Not saying internet access is necessarily on the same level as that but you get the point.) | |
| ▲ | oarsinsync 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Would the parents comply though? Consider that even with something as divisive as covid lockdowns and vaccines, the overwhelming majority of people complied with government instructions. There are a minority of people currently refusing to vaccinate their children properly, and their fucking around is being found out with measles outbreaks in various countries. Why would this be different? Why wouldn't it be a minority of parents permitting their children to drink, to smoke, to use unrestricted computing resources? | |
| ▲ | expedition32 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Children are not the property of their parents- the government can and does take over parental responsibility. |
| |
| ▲ | cimi_ 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t understand how id-ing the buyer helps? What is the age restricted good here? Are you saying that kids now buy their phones with pocket money without their parents knowing? > It's obvious we're moving in a direction where we are going to get these restrictions in one way or another It’s not obvious, it’s just sad. I still hope reason will prevail in this. | | |
| ▲ | cezart 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The age restricted good is an unrestricted computer. | | |
| ▲ | Kim_Bruning 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh, that actually seems ... bad. On the gripping hand... restricted in which way? I learned to program on the BBC B, for instance. I keep thinking that computers that are actually made to be good for children should be a thing. Perhaps like "A Young lady's Illustrated Primer" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age ) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | gzread 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The new California law requires all operating systems to have a child mode. |
| |
| ▲ | butterbomb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > how do they implement this? Centralized power and being unafraid to use authoritarian tactics. Also the general cultural ethos of the people. | |
| ▲ | babyshake 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a nightmare to some extent to prevent underage people from consuming alcohol if you want to phrase it that way. But we don't try to ban stores from selling alcohol because of concerns children will be drinking it. Instead we require the store checks for ID. | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > China has restrictions for social media and screen time for kids — how do they implement this? China is much more socially conservative, and less likely to abandon their kids to latest thing. | |
| ▲ | k1musab1 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Passport /citizen ID linked to your WOW account, etc. | | |
| ▲ | TkTech 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which has never worked. Korea had a system to prevent kids from gaming after midnight for something like 15 years. All it did was make Korean kids very good at memorizing their parents ID. | | |
| ▲ | hnfong 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In China they link the ID to a phone number (via mobile carriers) and the online services require you to authenticate using the phone (SMS etc.) Unless the kids are able to secretly access the parent's phone there's no low-effort way to work around the system. I don't know about Korea but if memorizing an ID number works, then that's just a badly designed system. I'm not sure what your argument is really, unless you're saying there's technically and absolutely no feasible way to securely verify the age of a person before allowing them to access an online service (even if you allow the government to be authoritarian) | | |
| ▲ | em-bee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | when i signed up for mobile service or for internet service in china (i don't remember the specifics), i was given half a dozen sim cards for use in my family. so they were all tied to my or my wife's name, but used by anyone who needed one. i believe the in-laws got at least one or two, and my kids would have gotten one, had they been old enough to have their own phone. i don't know if there was any rule that would restrict who we give those cards. the actual users of each simcard did not have to identify themselves. so at least then it wasn't about age controls, but it obviously would allow tracing the owner eventually. | |
| ▲ | reactordev 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is, where there’s a will, there’s a way. |
| |
| ▲ | broken-kebab 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe it does work exactly as intended. It gives parents more leverage to restrict their kids gaming but many parents just don't care. And it's ok I guess, the society probably needs some flexibility in raising the next gen. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eru 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Parents are already allowed to restrict their children access to 'dangerous' things like open computers or knives. | | |
| ▲ | jaapz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Parents are also allowed to restrict their children access to alcohol and cigarettes, but it seems a government ban on them buying those things works better | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Given the ease with which kids who want them can get any of those things in schools, it's not clear that the government ban is actually doing anything of significance or that the reduction in usage isn't more a result of convincing people that those things are actually bad for them so they choose not to partake despite the continued widespread availability. Notice that consumption of those things is also down for adults even though adults are not banned from getting them. | |
| ▲ | broken-kebab 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doesn't seem to be a universal truth to me. As a teenager I had rather easy access to both cigarettes and alcohol in spite of usual age-restrictions legally imposed. I didn't care what gov't thinks about it. I did care about what my parents would do if I caught drunk though. That was my real barrier. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There was always some guy outside willing to make $10 to buy what you needed. |
| |
| ▲ | khalic 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m sorry in what world is age restriction effective at keeping teens away from alcohol? Are you from the 60s? |
| |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think debazel was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers for the benefit of the children. He was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers so that the government would have no excuse to regulate what's allowed on computers. | | |
| ▲ | bougainvilley 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | so we agree that governments only using the safety of children as pretext to extend their control of people's lives, otherwise there are better solution protect children of the harms of the internet. |
|
| |
| ▲ | greybcg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At the same time, I remember growing up in the internet's wild west and bad encounters weren't an issue for me because of the golden rule I was taught from the start: you don't give your personal information and you don't interact with complete strangers. Learning to navigate the web instead of being in a walled garden was helpful in many ways. The better question to ask ourselves is, does the capability to gather more information also lead to more power to act on this information? If the investigative resources are spread thin already it's not like they're gonna catch more criminals with investing more there. Repelling questionable individuals off the platform with lots transparancy -is- an effective way, but just a specific tool for a symptom. I think a part of a better solution is to give parents and children better tools to manage their social graph themselves. Essentially the real problem is discovery and warding off of social outliers in a way that doesnt out all responsibility on opaque algos or corporations. A part of their e2e keys could be shared using an intentionally obtuse way like mailing an item or a physical "friend code". That way parents and vetted friends can have their privacy.
You don't need to tie an id to someone's person to get positive confirmation on someone's poor behaviour. If someone crossed the line then parents can see it and escalate. In additon, what would happen to a child with abusive parents who can then arbitrarily restrict and deny a childs freedom to communicate? I did not have this myself, but without free access to other minds and information I would have been duller. Does a large information dragnet really serve our collective interests or are more precise tools needed? | | |
| ▲ | debazel 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I think a part of a better solution is to give parents and children better tools to manage their social graph themselves. Essentially the real problem is discovery and warding off of social outliers in a way that doesnt out all responsibility on opaque algos or corporations. This is actually a key consideration for the proposed implementation. The biggest issue for parents when restricting their children's online activity is that they simply don't understand the tool available for it. By having a "child mode" iPhone, parents don't have to know any of that. They simply buy the iPhone Kids for their children and then get a plain iPhone for themselves. If these restrictions were to actually be enforced by law as well, then it would make it very easy for teachers and other guardians to check if a device is appropriate for the child using it. | |
| ▲ | novok 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From what I've seen, the bad effects don't necessarily just come from free access to the internet, but that everyone around them in their social group has a video camera that can covertly record, they're all immature children and thus you cannot slip up once or you get kid cancelled, and they start doing a collective dissociative freeze response in a self-imposed emergent panopticon as a result. So if the teen phone turned into a restricted "call mom" device with no cameras and with neon yellow obvious fuck you coloring and a restricted set of apps, and police took away a full phone much like they take away cigs and beer it might be enough to break the critical mass to create this issue. They can have dedicated cameras for video club, use the family computer, have an xbox or switch and have whatever tech experience that millenials had, the last generation to not have exponential increases in anxiety , depression and sexlessness. It's the covert camera + internet that it's the key issue. |
| |
| ▲ | MrToadMan 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Locking down children’s devices doesn’t stop adults sharing illegal content with other adults though, so there would still be pressure to monitor communications between adults. | | |
| ▲ | psychoslave 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At some points, laws become an ineffective tool to prevent malevolent people to act in detrimental manners, no matter what it states. But prejudices of wicked states will always continue to impact more badly general public as ever more drastic laws lacking any balance become enacted. | |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think they’re doing that on TikTok |
| |
| ▲ | larodi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Indeed way past time. Though no CEO would admin publicly what the addiction to attention/social media, gaming, and general screen use, causes to children. Of course this should've been regulated similarly to Alcohol, but billions would dry and it's much easier to witch-hunt marijuana, and illegal raves, right? | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. California is mandating OSes provide ages to app stores, and HN lost their mind because it's a ban on Linux. | | |
| ▲ | consp 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > California is mandating OSes provide ages to app stores, They forgot to put in the provision which exempts apps which do not need an age rating? As in: everything os related. Sounds like a good way to get rid of snap at least since that is where all the commercial bloat is located. Last time I did a fresh Debian install I do not remember installing any app from the os repository which would require age restrictions (afaik). | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They forgot to put in the provision which exempts apps which do not need an age rating? As in: everything os related. That's correct. You need to provide your age to install grep. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | chillfox 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This honestly sounds like the best proposed solution I have heard. | | |
| ▲ | fhd2 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. Putting the burden on parents is quite something: 1. You end up being the bad guy, other parents don't restrict their kids internet usage etc. Some folks would argue to just not set up restrictions and trust them. But it's a slippery slope and puts kids in a weird position. They start out with innocent YouTube videos, but pretty quickly a web search or even a comment can lead them to strange places. They want to play games online, but then creeps abuse that all the time. Even if you trust them to not do anything "wrong", it's a lot to put on their shoulders. 2. If you want to put restrictions in place, even if you're an expert, the tools out there are pretty wonky. You can set up a child protection DNS, but most home routers don't make it easy (or even allow you) to set a different DNS server. And that's not particularly hard to circumvent. I suppose a proxy would be a more solid solution, but setting that up would be major yak shaving. Any "family safety" features (especially those from Microsoft) are ridiculously complicated and often quite buggy. Right now, I got the problem on my plate that I need to migrate one of my kid's accounts from a local Windows account to a Microsoft account (without them loosing all their stuff), because for local accounts, it seems the button to add the device is just missing? Naturally, the docs don't mention that, I had to do research to arrive at that hypothesis. The amount of yak shaving, setup and configuration you have to do for a reasonable setup is just nuts. 3. If you're not good with tech - I don't see how you have _any_ chance in hell to set up meaningful restrictions. Some countries are banning social media - sure, that's one thing. But there's a _lot_ of weird places on the internet, kids will find something else. I for one would appreciate dedicated devices or modes for kids < 18. Would solve all this stuff in a heartbeat. | | |
| ▲ | mwigdahl 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | After struggling with this problem for a while, we started using Qustodio. It's not perfect by any means, but it's the most broadly effective and usable tool for parental control I've found. Loads better than the confusing iOS native screen time tools. |
|
| |
| ▲ | brainzap 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | apple SDK already can return underage/adult | |
| ▲ | pinkmuffinere 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We should have banned children I see you Mr Quaker Oats | |
| ▲ | tayo42 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not | | |
| ▲ | pants2 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | TikTok has a drug-like effect on the brain. Multiple studies show a clear link between excessive TikTok engagement and increased levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. Maybe it is time we regulate it like a drug? | | |
| ▲ | voidUpdate 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that because of engaging with tiktok, or because of the content on tiktok? If the app was exclusively pictures of kittens and nice flowers you saw on your commute, would it have a detrimental effect? | |
| ▲ | Shitty-kitty 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you mean exactly, tax it as a vice?! |
| |
| ▲ | travisgriggs 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hyperbole of some sort. I think it works on both the positive and negative side of the axis too. | |
| ▲ | nandomrumber 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’ll have a packet of cigarettes, a fifth of vodka, and an unrestricted personal electro device. ID please. Seems entirely reasonable. Possibility entirely ineffective, but then again I don’t often see children walking around with bottle a of booze. | |
| ▲ | true_religion 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is how the internet is run in countries where you need ID to connect to services. It’s not at all dystopian. |
|
|