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

311–320 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#311

Post by DebugDruid »

topikk wrote: post #269
chaps wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: why do you give the device access to the internet?

Sounds like the parent(s) use it as well > I cannot prevent the kid from seeing installed games that are rated Mature.

Can someone explain the problem with 'mature' rated games? As kids (under 10), we played Mortal Kombat and GTA III, laughing when we interacted with hookers in GTA. It was fun, and we had a great time playing these games. What's the issue? It's no different from playing with a wooden sword and shield.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#312

Post by Dylan16807 »

sojsurf wrote: post #238
BeetleB wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but do you understand that it's perfectly reasonable to be able to buy a toy gun and not have to explain gun safety to them? Or would you recommend that all toy guns have the ability to be dangerous and all parents should train them because of the prevalence of guns in society?

A few thoughts: - Perhaps we have different ideas of the appropriate age to wean kids off of toys and teach them to use real (and sometimes dangerous) things. Today's discussion is about guns, but the same could be said for boats, motorcycles, woodworking equipment, etc. I would like my children to be well rounded and well equipped when they become adults. However, I acknowledge that this may not be normal anymore: M…

Unsupervised access to most dangerous tools can wait until they're teenagers. Dangerous tools shouldn't be the only option.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#313

Post by eikenberry »

SoftTalker wrote: post #249
eikenberry wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, we've always had effective societal gatekeeping on what kids can access. Isn't there still a very simple one, hardware access. If the child doesn't have a smart phone of their own or computer in their bedroom then they cannot use them to get online unsupervised. This is about as simple on/off as you can get and very easy to moderate.

In my analogy that would be like forbidding your child from having a bike because they might go somewhere that would sell them beer, rather than simply a general, mostly-reliable prohibition on selling beer to kids. Or, if you do let them have a bike, it requires you to follow them around everywhere to be sure they don't go to a liquor store. It's a completely over the top level of control. Yes it would work but also…

The bike analogy depends a lot on where you live. There are places where you would not let your kids ride anywhere they wanted without supervision and there are places where the opposite is true. The internet is one "place" and you'd need to adapt your bike analogy to that place.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#314

Post by stackskipton »

squigz wrote: post #107
Someone1234 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet in the broader sense online bullying targeting other teenagers is a commonly cited problem, including in incidents of teen suicide. "It didn't make it worse for me" doesn't counteract what we provably know is occurring[0][1][2]. Young Teen suicide (10 to 14) has increased from roughly 1 per 100K in the early 2000s to now nearly 3 per 100K in the last five years. Older teen suicide (15-19) has increased from 6 per…

1 and 2 do not seem to suggest that cyberbullying is more harmful in this regard than other forms of bullying - and in fact only 3 seems to contrast these concepts at all. > Sensitivity analyses suggested that cybervictimization only and both cyber- and face-to-face victimization were associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation/attempt compared to face-to-face victimization only and no victimization; however,…

As someone who was not popular and got bullied some in school, I think cyberbullying would have been worse since it comes home with you. I was in school when SMS was finally becoming widespread and something of the bullying happened through it, it sucked since I'm at home and getting reminded of shit at school.

I can't imagine today with 24/7 social media apps on the phone.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#315

Post by ceayo »

artyom wrote: post #197
petermcneeley wrote: post #108

What was the punishment for the 12 year old? This will tell us everything we need to know about this story.

I'm kind of with you on this one. 12yo is old enough to understand the rules (assuming they were clearly set ) and if he/she was willingly communicating with a stranger, that phone should get the hammer with no replacement whatsoever. I've seen this done, it works.

What I believe the author did was instead of teaching their child that they may not talk to strangers, they believed there just is a magic button to have these strangers not exist.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#316

Post by krupan »

elros wrote: post #201
BeetleB wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sca…

On a certain level, it’s also a question of different parenting philosophy. > Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old. I agree, but I also see absolutely no reason why 5 years old children would have access to a gaming device. Pretty much any other activity I can imagine is better for them.

We got an Atari computer when I was 5. I was allowed to play Pac-Man and Donkey Kong for as long as I wanted. Turns out, those games were not designed by the same people who make slot machines, and they got frustrating pretty quickly and I chose to go do other things. This scenario not even being an option today is what most people are complaining about here.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#317

Post by stackskipton »

swivelmaster wrote: post #216

Here's what I think is happening: Market research says "Parents want control." In the journey from CEO mandate "build a product that gives parents control" to developer implementation, "parents want control" somehow turns into "What parents want is extremely fine-grained controls," which isn't the same thing. So a bunch of product managers brainstorm a huge list of ways that parents might want "control," hand that of…

No, I think CEO mandate goes "Build parental controls" and PMs all shake their heads and go "No problem". It hits the developers, they go Too long to do it properly and PM goes "Nah, we just prefer MVP only so we can say we have it and move on". it's also never really touched again so as features get added on, Parental Controls is poorly thought about last minute implementation.

To fix this, it's going to have to be legislation so financial incentives are present.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#318

Post by mschuster91 »

squigz wrote: post #96
immibis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet whenever the idea of changing this stuff at a societal level comes up, HN is filled with thought-deleting cries of "parents just need to be more responsible"

Usually when those discussions come up, there are plenty of people recognizing both that 1) parents do need to be more responsible, but also that 2) we need sane parental control systems. What we don't need is more bandaids that make it appear as if something is being done.

> Usually when those discussions come up, there are plenty of people recognizing both that 1) parents do need to be more responsible, but also that 2) we need sane parental control systems.

Dunno. My generation grew up to be generally fine people, without parental control software crap (and the poor sods who had parents insisting on it only became better hackers for it). Back then, there was things such as rottencom, 4chan or its various predecessors... there were countless instructions on how to make explosives or whatever readily available, hoards of porn (ever been to a LAN party and came home with less porn on your HDD than before?). And yes there were also alll the creeps.

The only thing that wasn't anywhere near as prevalent as today is all the gambling/mtx crap and AI slop. Hell even brainrot was a thing, half of the chan boards consisted of utterly weird memes that make "skibidi toilet" blush in comparison.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#319

Post by yunnpp »

kotaKat wrote: post #16

> ...It also unlocks access to the Nintendo eShop, which I cannot disable. I can set his eShop spending limit to zero, sure. But I can't block free downloads. So to let my son play online Minecraft with his friends, I have to open him up to an unrelated store full of content I can't possibly evaluate. That's the deal. Take it or leave it. Hoooooboy you're in for a treat once you see the deals on all the weird "hentai…

And remember that this is the brand historically known for curating its game library.
Post reply on HN