Comment by ghusto
2 months ago
> A more technically sound approach would be content controls directly implemented on the devices parents chose to give their children
Passive aggression level 10, and I approve.
2 months ago
> A more technically sound approach would be content controls directly implemented on the devices parents chose to give their children
Passive aggression level 10, and I approve.
This is the only true solution. Parents need to take responsibility for what their kids are doing online, what they’re viewing and who they’re talking to. This generation of parents should be prepared for that but apparently not.
As a parent, I do agree with taking responsibility on it. My older children is 8, so not much computer for her now. Just a bit of dactylography before she can play Gcompris, mostly chess lately, nothing online so far. They did have some initiation at school (for context this is public school in France).
That said, I do expect I won't be able to prevent them to reach inappropriate resources once they meet the point where they can browse online without me being there to inspect, so I'll rather invest time to explain them that can happen, make sure they are confident they can tell me if they faced something odd. Forbidding would be the best way to encourage, and any automatic system alone will have too shallow circumvention paths or too much burden of admin to follow for relevancy as a Parenthood tool.
I think this approach made a lot of sense in the 2000s and 2010s, when consumer electronics with internet access were expensive things well out of reach of a child unless given to them by a parent.
But we're in an era now where cell phones and tablets — especially used + low-spec ones — are something that even a young child can acquire en masse: from their friends at school, or from any mall kiosk or convenience store with their allowance, etc.
You can put all the parental controls you like on the nice phone you buy your child — but how do you put parental controls on the four other phones you have no idea they own?
(Before you say "search their room" — they could leave them in their desk at school, charging them with a battery bank they charged at home or got a friend to charge for them; and then use them with free public wi-fi rather than locked-down school wi-fi. This doesn't require any particular cleverness; it's the path of least resistance!)
If you ask me "well, what do we do, then?"... I have no idea, honestly.
Like with anything, you need to do a proper job educating your kids before trusting safeguards to keep them safe. That would be my bet for a scalable solution.
Some kids will still drown, it’s unavoidable. But swimming lessons are much more effective at preventing drowning deaths than fences.
3 replies →
I tried to block YouTube when my kids were remote learning during the pandemic, it took several attempts and they were in grade school. They even got around Apple's considerable content controls I had to set up a DNS proxy.
My condolences, you are raising software engineers.
1 reply →
Did you tell them "Don't do that or there will be consequences" and then apply the consequences? Carrot and stick is a time-honored method that works.
At my son's school they recently started blocking ChatGPT, not because kids were using it to cheat, but because kids kept asking ChatGPT how to get around the content controls, and it would constantly find new ways to proxy or evade.
Best way is to block at the router.
1 reply →
How? Keyloggers and spying?
What if the parents hate gays but their kid is in the closet seeking help?
Having uncontrolled access to information about sex and sexuality is a blessing not a curse. It saves lives.
And I bet its much better having kids at home jacking off to porn than them having sex with girls early. Urges are normal, porn is good.
Weird that I can’t downvote this unhinged response. ‘Porn is good’.
2 replies →
[dead]
This never happens tho - parents dont sometimes even know how to use the tech. Its like giving a gun to a child and telling them its ok, just remember when you open the packaging to take the safety off.
...and oh yeh the safety software changes every few months so you will have to review it
I’m sorry who is who in this analogy. Because if internet/tech is the gun then the clear solution is “not giving your children guns”.
Bad modern parents just give their kids an iPad.
10 replies →
Apparently the average age of mothers is 30 - these parents should understand the risks of technology having be exposed to it themselves but we don’t seem to be seeing improvement in this area like we might expect.
5 replies →
Might not be the best example if you visit the American South...
I get your point and I think you're right, but I'd suggest a different analogy or lean in a bit more saying give it to a young child with no training.
The irony is The South is where these porn laws are happening...
default to parental guidance enabled.
Okay, should bars and off licenses be able to sell alcohol to 10 year olds? Cigarettes? Should that be the responsibility of parents to control, too?
Or do we continue with the long held legislative reality that you are responsible for the goods and services that you unlawfully provide to children?
Your analogy is faulty and doesn't hold up to the basic scrutiny.
Whoever is giving the child access is responsible, not the manufacturer. If a parent gives their child a device capable of accessing the internet with no restrictions, that's on the parent.
Pornhub is manufacturing a product and making it available to the open market, just like Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels has no responsibility to ensure a bar is only providing access to legal patrons.
In your analogy, the bar would be equivalent to a internet cafe or public library that has PCs available to patrons. Those types of businesses should definitely use physical IDs to verify patrons are of age.
To make your analogy work for Pornhub, you'd also have to argue "why shouldn't Jack Daniels have to put age-verifying instant blood tests on their bottles in case a parent puts one in their unlocked liquor cabinet?"
Because then the same concerns arise -- why should Jack Daniels be given access to my blood just to manufacture an age-restricted product? What will they do with it? Will they secure the data appropriately? How do I know it won't be used to negatively impact my future because my health insurance company doesn't like that I drank a bottle of JD?
2 replies →
How is this passive aggression? “You’re not using porn, because I say so, and you’re not using a computer without a porn filter, because I bought it”
That’s not passive aggression, that’s responsible parenting and clear boundaries.
I read it as the author being passive aggressive -- they're implying the problem is parents who, instead of learning how to manage what their children can do with electronic devices, just want the government to make bad things illegal.
But, you know, we've never been able to agree as a people on what "bad things" are. So it should be, as you said, for each parent to engage in setting boundaries and being responsible.
"Because I say so" is a weak ass argument, no argument at all. "Because I bought it" is passive aggressive, because you do not intend to allow even if you did not buy it.
It’s not an argument it’s just a statement of fact. “You can’t do this because I bought it” explains what (you can’t do X without Y) and why (I own Y and can therefore control the use of Y).
Now, it doesn’t explain why the decision was made in the first place to enforce a porn filter as a requirement for using the device, but again - it’s not an argument.
I agree that it doesn’t provide a complete explanation because as you mention, if the child bought their own device there would still be restrictions, but that wasn’t the case being discussed.
It’s not an argument, it’s a command.
You’re not convincing your kids that you are right. You are reminding them of the consequences if they disagree.
7 replies →