Remix.run Logo
ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago

> Controlling what children do online is a solved problem: Parenting and parental control applications.

This is absolutely not true.

Here in the UK schools are swarming with ipads and shit like that. They're given to primary school children because they're "more engaging". Children are supposed to practice their reading and even handwriting[1] on ipads. Naturally they're on youtube instead. It's really bad. As far as I can tell, private schools are even worse. Currently the only way that I know to escape this is homeschooling.

Saying "it's a solved problem" is incredibly dismissive to parents who do everything right in their homes, but then send their children to school and schools exposed their children in this way.

Saying that phrase in such a definitive manner caters to the interests of the companies who push these shit onto schools. Please stop saying it, it's harmful.

[1] leaving this reference here because I'm certain that people without school aged children won't believe this is actually true: https://www.letterjoin.co.uk/

kimixa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's no (state) school giving out tablets that aren't pretty much single-use locked down devices.

That's the parents.

The expectation that "Parenting" is now outsourced to Teachers, to the Government, to anyone else. People seem to expect they just have a kid, and somehow magically they'll grow up to be a perfect person without any work from themselves. So there's over-reach, there's pressure on making "unworkable" soutions, because the people they're trying to force "solving" the problem aren't the people in the best position to do so.

Your comment seems working from that very same assumption.

Yes, all the "technical" part of content filtering etc. is very much a solved problem. The issue is that's not a "zero effort" solution - they still need to be enabled and managed. And I'm not sure that's a "technical" problem than can be solved.

There's huge pressure on teachers etc. to "solve" these sort of problems - just go to any PTA meeting and there's a lot of loud voices asking for stuff like the laws the original post is highlighting. And politicians listen to the loud voices, and feel they have to be "seen" doing something. Even if that "something" is impossible, unworkable, and fundamentally harmful.

fxtentacle an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In theory „There's no (state) school giving out tablets that aren't pretty much single-use locked down devices.“

In practice, most schools lack anyone with enough technical literacy to lock down the device. So they just hand out unlocked cheap android tablets with all the stock spyware and advertisement pre-installed.

snowchaser an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

“There's no (state) school giving out tablets that aren't pretty much single-use locked down devices.”

They try, but kids are smart and there are holes in the tools to lock things down. You would not believe the inventive workarounds that kids find to circumvent content filters. It’s a losing battle to lock everything.

xp84 an hour ago | parent [-]

Totally agree with you here, but this law - which I’m deeply offended was passed unanimously by our spineless legislators - will solve none of it.

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

>>> Controlling what children do online is a solved problem: Parenting and parental control applications. >This is absolutely not true.Here in the UK schools are swarming with ipads and shit like that. They're given to primary school children because they're "more engaging". Children are supposed to practice their reading and even handwriting on ipads. Naturally they're on youtube instead. It's really bad.

And how does that refute what the parent said? Those school ipads could also have YouTube locked or restricted to a whitelist of channels.

ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Those school ipads could also have YouTube locked or restricted to a whitelist of channels.

There's so much wrong here.

A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out.

B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't.

C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are basically people off the street that did some basic training and (from my experience) have zero critical thinking. This are not the best and brightest.

D) big tech will tell you "this is age appropriate" and the only thing that means is that you probably won't see porn. Anything else, including gambling ads on youtube, you do see.

You see, you're trying to discuss the specifics which in this case is a losing approach if your goal is to protect your chidlren from being victimized by the attention economy. The reason is that those benefiting from the attention economy have more lawyers and more engineers to deploy than any individual parent.

coldtea 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out.

No, there are not for hardware locked devices with the proper controls (what apps, websites, etc to allow).

>B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't.

The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them.

>C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are basically people off the street that did some basic training and (from my experience) have zero critical thinking. This are not the best and brightest.

Again, irrelevant. A common policy can be created (e.g. by ministry of education experts) and shared with schools.

ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't.

> The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them.

Just to be clear - do you not understand that a parent might be parenting, but some times their children is in care of a school? Your focus on "a technical solution exists" is missing the real issue here, and it's not a technical one.

coldtea 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'm talking about both parents and schools: the technical solution exists. If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them.

This answers your objection A and B. C is also a non-probem with a trivial fix, as I showed.

What we're discussing is whether age verification is needed. Based on the existence of other, perfectly fine solutions, it's not. "But schools don't bother implementing those other solutions" is not a counter-argument to this discussion.

pbhjpbhj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>but some times their children is in care of a school?

And not only that but some of those times are dinner break, on a school campus with a thousand other kids and barely any supervision. Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan.

And some of those times are on a bus carrying at least 50 kids when they're 'supervised' only by a driver ... and so on.

coldtea 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan.

That would still reduce ther exposure by 1-2 orders of magnitude, which is perfectly acceptable.

ericd 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, we all saw the occasional heinous stuff, goatse, lemon party, etc, that doesn't ruin you. I don't think preventing them from ever seeing anything disturbing is a realistic goal. It's more an issue when kids are allowed to be fully addicted on an ongoing basis instead of spending their time doing things that help them grow. I think keeping them from spending all their free time on youtube or in Roblox is more the goal.

HeavyStorm 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same argument(s) can be applied to age verification.

nrabulinski 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But this thread is discussing the technical solution and how many jurisdictions are pretending there’s no technical solutions just so they can pass surveillance legislation?

curt15 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The schools could also simply not distribute tablets or laptops to students. The technology has not produced noticeably better readers, thinkers, or writers compared to the days when students read actual books and wrote on paper.

coldtea 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

In fact this would be a great way to curb LLM cheating

SoftTalker 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. We've completely lost (actually never had it) any social responsibility on the part of the social media/tech companies. Before we had the internet and all these apps and devices, parents looked after what their kids did but could also pretty much rely on other businesses to not do things like sell their kids cigarettes or pornography, let them in to R-rated movies, or expose them to other age-inappropriate stuff. Did it happen? Yes here and there but it wasn't easy for most kids.

Parents just want to be able to designate a device as belonging to a child---one setting---and have that respected. Not to have to dig into the settings of every account, service, app, and website and figure out how to set it in age-restricted mode (if that's even possible).

The tech companies have made this way too difficult and now they are facing the consequences of their shameful neglect by having to deal with all these new laws (which they will probably ignore, with no consequences, but we'll see).

sureMan6 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Checking what the school is exposing the children to is part of parenting, if enough parents demand parental controls on the iPad you'd get that. Also it sounds insane that any school is given children iPads, if anything the studies show worse outcomes with iPads

ThunderSizzle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Since schooling closer to home obviously solves this problem, and a host of many other problems, and doesn't introduce any real problems (bad schools don't save kids from bad parents, which seems to be a rebuttal to home-based education, it would seem to me the answer is obvious:

Return to a single income household economy and bring education closer to the home, if not outright in the home.

bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But this is ridiculous. The problem was created by the state (which ultimately runs the schools), and now the state wants to impose additional rules on a bunch of totally unrelated adults to (probably fail to) solve their self-imposed problem.

singpolyma3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is true but then why regulate every website instead of regulating... The schools

ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

100% agree with you. I'm not arguing for regulating websites. In my scenario the schools are the actual problem. (EDIT: Actually, Meta and such companies are the actual problem, but in our world nobody expects that they have anybody's best interests in mind. But schools should.)

I was strictly only responding to the phrase "this is a solved problem you just have to parent".

phendrenad2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When people say "parental controls" they obviously don't literally mean "parental controls controlled by PARENTS", they mean "parental controls controlled by parents AND OTHER guardians such as teachers and schools".

If the school can't be bothered to lock down their ipads, why not make a law that schools must lock down the ipads, rather than push this out to everyone universally?

It seems like another shoddy excuse of a panicked panopticon to me. Feel free to try to convince us otherwise.

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]