> I agree. I also agree with S76 that some laws regarding how an operating system intended for wide use should function are acceptable. How would you react to this law if the requirement was only that the operating system had to ask the user what age bracket it should report to sites? You get to pick it, it isn't mandatory that it be checked, and it doesn't need to be a date, just the bucket. Is that still too onerous?

What's the point in doing any of this if it doesn't result in materially better outcomes?

▲

idle_zealot 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The point is that I think it's one of a few things that if done together could result in better outcomes. First, it standardizes parental controls, which ought to be so easy to use that failure to do so is nearly always a proactive decision on the part of the guardian. It doesn't need to be perfect, just reduce friction for parents and increase friction for kids accessing the adult internet.

Second, it would signal to worried parents and busybodies that something has been done to deal with the danger that unmediated internet access might pose to minors. I don't think that it's a big issue, but a lot of energy has gone into convincing a lot of people that it is.

The other part of achieving a good outcome would be to disempower those in the political and private sphere who benefit from a paranoid and censorious public and have worked to foment this panic. That's the much harder part, but it's not really the one being discussed here. I'm pitching the low-intrusiveness version to gauge sentiment here for that easier part of the path.

▲

latentsea 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your last point is the only one I partially agree with. The rest... will make no practical difference to what is going on in the world today.

I genuinely think the only two solutions to this problem that are workable are "zero privacy, zero freedom" or "fuck the children, we don't care".

Now, to be fair... there is a middle-ground that is neither of those options that I believe would be much more effective and allow us to retain our freedom and privacy and keep kids a lot safer. It's called education. But... no one will go for it, because I think for it to truly be effective you'd have to go as far as showing very young kids all the darkness that's out there and lay it out in paintstaking detail exactly how it works and deeply drill it into them. Ain't a snowballs chance in hell anyone would go for that, BUT... would it work? I'd bet you bottom dollar it would. The current extent of this education in public schools is a half hour visit from a police offer to the classroom and handing out a sheet to the kids and giving a 'good touch' / 'bad touch' talk. What's needed is a full length university level course on the whole topic from end to end.

If you're in an adversarial relationship and need to defend yourself the best thing you can do is "know your enemy". But no... "they're too young to learn about that stuff, we need to shield them from it - think of the children!" is the reasoning people throw back at you when you suggest it. It hands down has to be the number one thing that could actually move the dial significantly, and it's just completely unpalatable to the majority of the populace.

▲

hellojesus 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> First, it standardizes parental controls, which ought to be so easy to use that failure to do so is nearly always a proactive decision on the part of the guardian.

If this mattered to the market, don't you think a company would have implemented it or would have been built to fill the need?

	▲	idle_zealot 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		1. No, I don't think that the market does what people want. That's not the primary reward signal. 2. I'm making an ought statement of values, like "we ought not pollute rivers." I don't really care what any system of resource allocation has to say about that.