Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parental controls aren't for parents

beasthacker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#171

Post by iamnothere »

sneak wrote: post #102
fn-mote wrote: post #63

Dear All, As you post, please be clear what age range child you are discussing. There are a lot of posts here advocating strategies that make sense for a 10 year old but are ridiculous for a 15 year old. Remember: once the children have friends with unrestricted cell phones (essentially all 14+ year olds in the us), there are many many more options for them to go online. Also, I got my start as a “hacker” gaming, che…

Why would a 15 year old warrant a mobile phone, much less an unrestricted one?

While I agree that being this age doesn’t automatically warrant having a smartphone, any kid who has an allowance can buy a bargain-basement Android phone to use over wifi. And smartphones are very concealable.

(IMHO, once a kid has figured out how to do this, they have earned the privilege. It’s part of growing up.)

A responsible and forward-thinking parent could provide a Graphene OS smartphone if the kid absolutely insists on having one, to limit the privacy damage.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#172

Post by BeetleB »

Just recently did this with XBox.

I cannot prevent the kid from seeing the marketplace.

I cannot prevent the kid from seeing installed games that are rated Mature. It won't let them play it, but it lists all the games installed in the XBox.

I cannot prevent them from downloading free stuff.

It was frustrating and clear to me that this wasn't designed for the benefits of parents.

I just want it to act like a console with a fixed set of games installed and no marketplace access.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#173

Post by iamnothere »

cevn wrote: post #109
mothballed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the parents obligation to educate their child. It's the child's obligation to use that education wisely. There were no trackers on cars when I started driving at 15 so my parents drove with me for a few months and after that I was on my own. There were no gun laws against kids having guns when I was 7 so my dad showed me how to use one safely and after that I was set loose upon the countryside armed on my own. T…

You were loose with a gun at age 7?!

Some kids grow up in families who hunt. It’s not super common but also isn’t unheard of.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#174

Post by BeetleB »

alembic_fumes wrote: post #69

This pervasive desire to block, protect, monitor, and control your children's online activities through nebulous supervision tools seems like a particularly American solution to a particularly American problem. Much like how little Timmy simply can't go out to play without a GPS anklet and an air tag behind each ear, so too can't he go online without a supervised account on a supervised device on a supervised connect…

Because I want a device for my kids to play games.

Not communicate.

Not buy stuff.

Just play (local) games.

Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old.

And absolutely no reason to have all 3 bundled in one.

> Take an earnest interest in your child's activities, both online and offline. Guide them how to behave in strange, even weird and scary situations with strangers. Be the reliable adult in their life to whom they can tell when they encounter something unpleasant, online or offline. Under the guidance of a parent your children will be safer than behind any amount of protective layers that these so called child-safety apps provide, and they will also know how to help their friends to navigate risk and avoid danger.

Everything you just said is true for gun ownership as well!

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#175

Post by Groxx »

alembic_fumes wrote: post #69

This pervasive desire to block, protect, monitor, and control your children's online activities through nebulous supervision tools seems like a particularly American solution to a particularly American problem. Much like how little Timmy simply can't go out to play without a GPS anklet and an air tag behind each ear, so too can't he go online without a supervised account on a supervised device on a supervised connect…

Meanwhile in the EU: growing effort to simply outright ban social media for under-16s.

It's really not unique. America might be high on the list and a bit weird about it, but it is most definitely not alone.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#177

Post by pavel_lishin »

basket_horse wrote: post #118
dosman33 wrote: post #29

It's not an accident that its so hard to get this stuff right, I've heard countless stories like this from friends who are parents. If the market wanted parents to be able to figure this out it would be getting it right. It's obviously a dark pattern that benefits everyone but the parents and their children. If more people stopped to think deeper about this they would and should be very disturbed by what this means.

I disagree. I think it is an “accident” that stems from organizations rather than anything sinister. Companies generally want good parental controls, but let’s face it, it’s not the cash cow or particularly interesting. This leads to understaffed teams of b-list developers with high churn, hence the overly confusing and half-baked features.

I would easily believe that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc., explicitly staff these teams with childless adults.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#178

Post by iamnothere »

hnlmorg wrote: post #26

I really want to sympathise with the author but this feels more like a one-sided rant piece than a constructive article. For example, in one paragraph they complain that “I don’t want my son to get online” then literally the following paragraph they complain that they need a Switch Online membership to get their son online. If you want your Nintendo Switch to “behave like a Gameboy” then don’t get the online membersh…

Yes, this parent seems to assume that all parents want the same restrictions. The reason that managing this stuff is complicated is that you actually have to think about what restrictions you want (if any), understand the implications, and then set options to achieve those restrictions. A surprising number of people aren’t willing to do that! They would rather tell companies “parent my children correctly” and then sue as soon as the company’s vision of “safety” doesn’t line up with their own.

In a country where you have parents with wildly different ideas about what constitutes “safety”, I have no idea why anyone thinks it is possible to set a single standard for this.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#179

Post by [deleted] »

LanceH wrote: post #112
sneak wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a 15 year old warrant a mobile phone, much less an unrestricted one?

By high school there is definitely an expectation that everyone has a phone. They will literally miss out on a normal method of communication between friends and classmates. They miss out on the social group and then fade away from it and just become "that one guy in our class." The last time I mentioned this several people argued that, "true friends would stick together" or some such. Well, if you already have those…

[deleted]

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#180

Post by knallfrosch »

mjg2 wrote: post #128

This HN post fits into the category of "Pithy blog title with casually anecdotal content." Software companies will never earnestly attempt to protect children because that action ("acknowledging children are in danger by using our product") acknowledges risk and introduces liability. (VCs hate that shit, especially Silicon Valley VCs.) In the United States, decades ago, laws were introduced to induce accountability o…

A GameBoy would have been cheaper, offline and worked without an account. Yet the author chose to spend his money on the Switch2.

What's the market to learn from this? You're saying one thing but voting with your wallet.

Post reply on HN