Well, reality called and says: Like ID, drivers license, credit cards and guns: Phones are sth. you dont just "share" with your kids. Also there is an option to guard the ID App with an additional PIN/Biometric.

▲

mrweasel 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's not reality for many of us. I don't consider my phone a secure device by any means. It has nothing on it that I'd regard as something I'd need to guard against my family.

I know a fair number of especially elderly people who want to disable PIN and bio-metrics from their phone, because they view it as a pain to deal with.

PINs can also be guessed or someone might look you over the shoulder and steal it that way. Many phones still doesn't have biometrics, or people don't want to use it.

Our realities might be different, but in my reality a cell phone, which you almost by definition brings with you out in the world, should never be considered a secure device.

▲

Mashimo 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Oh man, if the kid gets hold of both of their parents phones with login, they could divorce them. I don't have kids yet, so this might change, but I would not give them login and / or unsupervised access.

I don't think you can guess pins, as the phones locks after a few failed attempts.

	▲	9991 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's not a realistic concern for most people. Children don't generally want their parents to divorce.

▲

close04 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You keep using the term “secure” that it sounds like you think education is like a prison sentence. You’re not doing this for security but for safety. A stair gate or drawer child-proofing lock are by no means secure but you use them anyway for the child’s safety.

You can’t just leave every dangerous thing out in the open because you “view it as a pain to deal with” storing them safely and then blame everyone else for the situation that follows.

Our realities might be different but in my reality if you put 0 (zero) effort to keep some critical things safely away from your child because it’s too much of a hassle to do it, or they’ll get around that anyway, etc. then you’re failing your children.

▲

mrweasel 3 days ago | parent [-]

You make it sound like having a phone in public is basically "open carry" which is absolute nonsense.

What do you have on your phone that's dangerous? Phones aren't safety device, and they shouldn't be turned into one.

▲

close04 3 days ago | parent [-]

You make it sound like you put no effort in understanding my comment and just followed up with whatever supported your view.

If you have anything on your phone that should be off limits to your child but make no effort to ensure that (give them the phone, no passwords, no supervision) because it’s too inconvenient you are failing the child. Can I put it in simpler words?

> What do you have on your phone that's dangerous?

I hope you were asking hypothetically.

For one, the phone itself since staring into a small screen at god knows what because supervising them is a chore is bad for anything you can imagine, from eyes, to posture, to brain development. But also a browser that can access anything on the internet (modern Goatse, Rotten, Ogrish, other wholesome sites like that). My credit card numbers. All my passwords. Hardcore porn. Facebook and TikTok. The app that delivers booze to my doorstep. 50 shades of grey (the book and the movie). X (Twitter), I left the worst for last. If you really think a completely open internet connected phone is perfectly safe for a kid at the very least you’re in the wrong conversation.

It doesn’t matter, the discussion is about age verification for things that a child should be kept away from, whatever that is. If you’re trying to protect the kids from anything, especially legitimate concerns, then you can’t expect some mechanism to magically do all that parenting for you. It can help but not be the parent when the parent thinks it’s too inconvenient to actually do some parenting.

▲

Atreiden 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't like the idea of a central authority determining what "my child should be kept away from" and then implementing Orwellian surveillance laws to enforce it. "For the sake of the children".

Seeing something scary, disturbing, or sexual on the internet as a child does not result in a maladjusted adult. These laws are about one thing and one thing only - furthering the global surveillance network.

Everything else is a smokescreen. Pretending that a phone or any Internet-connected terminal is something that should be kept secured and away from children is a parenting decision, not a policy one, and any attempt to justify it as a policy decision is toxic nonsense at best and astroturfing for the surveillance state at worst.

▲

Sweepi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

| 'I don't like the idea of a central authority determining what "my child should be kept away from" and then implementing Orwellian surveillance laws to enforce it.'

Well thank God this about a double-blind way to verify your age and not that.

	▲	thomastjeffery 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The surrounding context is that. Why else would you participate with a government in an age verification system? Maybe your argument is that it's not a surveillance state because it is implemented with a 0 knowledge proof. Sure, the age verification is, but that is only part of the system we are talking about. The rest of the system is the demand that every adult play keep-away with their verification, and every host on the internet (that can be adequately threatened) play, too. The only way for this to be anything else is if every participant can individually decide what should and should not be kept away from children. Such a premise is fundamentally incompatible.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

philipallstar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It has nothing on it that I'd regard as something I'd need to guard against my family.

It has the internet on it.

▲

kdheiwns 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A phone isn't going to run off the road and kill 7 people. This is nonsense and you know it.

And yes, phones are something parents do "just" share with their kids because nobody is bizarre enough to look at a phone the same way as a gun or a car. It's the YouTube device that can talk to grandma. All you have to do to see proof that it's something people "just" share is to walk into a grocery store and look at parents pushing kids in carts while those kids watch videos. 25 years ago those phones were Game Boys. Nobody is seeing them as a gun. That's the most disconnected from reality take I've seen in my life.

▲

Sweepi 3 days ago | parent [-]

Whats the diff between today giving you phone to your 8-year and making sure /having trust that they do not use it to e.g. order a new toy from Amazon and tomorrow that he is not using to verify they are an adult? I mean, most things today (like accessing porn, buying alcohol) do not require any extra age verification. They can just do it using your phone/accounts.

▲

kdheiwns 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not everyone views their child as an enemy that just happens to be in close quarters with them. Most people trust their kids to generally not do bad things. People keep knives in their kitchen and kids, explain the danger, and kids are generally responsible enough to not play with them.

If this is a concept that you can't grasp, then words will never convey it. It's simply a detachment from reality to think people are viewing their phones as a loaded gun and their child as someone hellbent on betraying them and causing massive societal damage.

The phone is the YouTube device. If they get a notification that their kid ordered from Amazon, they'll cancel the order and tell their kid not to do it again. It's seriously that simple. Just go and talk to a parent. They'll think viewing their phones as a WMD is insane.

▲

JimDabell 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Most people trust their kids to generally not do bad things.

Okay, so trust them not to access age-gated sites using your credentials then.

▲

kdheiwns 3 days ago | parent [-]

Then just get rid of the age gating and verification entirely because it's useless.

▲

JimDabell 3 days ago | parent [-]

Other parents have different opinions to you about the value of this.

▲

JoshTriplett 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem comes in when they feel their opinions should carry weight about other people's kids. There are very limited ways in which we should allow that, and to an oversimplified approximation, they boil down to "don't do kids harm that prevents them from becoming an intact person society treats as a human allowed to make their own decisions". And then the problem is that some people think some websites do such damage, and other people think some websites provide help to survive such damage.

▲

saghm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay, so those parents can just not give their kids their phones, and everyone else can continue living life as usual without needing a fancy new way of telling websites how old they are

▲

philipallstar 2 days ago | parent [-]

Giving your kid a gateway to every bad thing on the internet is not life as usual. It's incredibly recent, and I don't have shares in SSRI manufacturers, so I don't like it.

▲

saghm 2 days ago | parent [-]

Having a smartphone at all also is incredibly recent, so by that logic we shouldn't let anyone have them. Alternately, maybe we can recognize that they haven't been long enough for any specific way of using them to be the long-term universal standard.

In the meantime, I still don't understand why someone with no kids should have their access gated based on what opinions other people have on parenting. I literally don't have any stake in whether you give your kids access to your phone or not, and I don't make any claims that I would have any clue what the correct way to raise a kid is. That doesn't make it reasonable to have a policy that requires literally the exact people who aren't the ones that are ostensibly supposed to be protected by the system tracked by it.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

> so by that logic we shouldn't let anyone have them

It's pretty normal to treat kids differently to adults in specific areas.

> I still don't understand why someone with no kids should have their access gated based on what opinions other people have on parenting

This argument goes both ways - currently there are no safety rails for kids, and that is imposed on people who want safety rails.

> That doesn't make it reasonable to have a policy that requires literally the exact people who aren't the ones that are ostensibly supposed to be protected by the system tracked by it

And there are definitely situations where adults' experiences are degraded because a place has to accommodate children. I agree that I hate tracking and so forth, but I wouldn't pretend that children using smartphones isn't a pretty well-understood bad idea either.

▲

saghm a day ago | parent [-]

> This argument goes both ways - currently there are no safety rails for kids, and that is imposed on people who want safety rails.

No, it's imposed on every adult regardless of if they want safety rails, and in a way that literally only affects the people who aren't actually the ones the rails are ostensibly supposed to be protecting.

> I wouldn't pretend that children using smartphones isn't a pretty well-understood bad idea either.

You literally just said that it's "incredibly recent", and now you're claiming that it's well understood. I'd argue that those things are inherently at odds; we literally don't know what a young child who used a smartphone looks like at 30 years old right now because they haven't been around long enough. On top of all of that, there's literally nothing about invading someone's privacy that's needed to stop a child from using a smartphone: just don't give them the smartphone! That's always been an option, and nothing about this policy that will have any effect on whether parents give their kids access to their smartphones.

	▲	philipallstar 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> No, it's imposed on every adult regardless of if they want safety rails I don't understand. We're talking about something that hasn't happened yet. The safety rails do not exist, even for those who want them. > You literally just said that it's "incredibly recent", and now you're claiming that it's well understood Yes - incredibly recent in the grand scheme of history, but still we have a lot of evidence of the negative aspects of onlineness and phone use over the last 15 years at least. And, as another example, it's far more recent that girls turn 18 and celebrate that on OnlyFans. I would argue that while I haven't waited 30 years to see how they turn out at 50, that it's a bad idea. > On top of all of that, there's literally nothing about invading someone's privacy that's needed to stop a child from using a smartphone: just don't give them the smartphone! That's always been an option, and nothing about this policy that will have any effect on whether parents give their kids access to their smartphones. I agree - I think this is a parenting issue, but at least on the left, which the EU tends to, parents should offload their responsibility where possible to the state. But that's my answer to this overall. I'm just arguing specifics.

▲

kdheiwns 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're the one who said kids would be accessing age gated sites with their parents' credentials. You're the one who made the case that it's useless. Don't go back and forth on it lol

▲

nalekberov 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In theory, maybe yes. But in practice people do share their phones with their kids.

	▲	grey-area 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure and when they do that they share unfiltered access to their banking apps, email, messages, the entire intent including unwholesome bits etc. Not much the government should or could do about that - it’s a parental decision.