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

321–330 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#321

Post by GaryBluto »

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.

> that phone should get the hammer with no replacement whatsoever.

Trying to scare children into following rules does not and will not end well.

> I've seen this done, it works.

You think it works because the child has realized that they will need to be better at hiding their actions in the future.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#322

Post by sojsurf »

BeetleB wrote: post #247
sojsurf wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> For my kids, guns are absolutely not in the toy category. They are tools, used for hunting and protection, and access to these tools comes with guard rails and significant responsibility. The same is true for cars. Are you also against toy cars? > By the time they graduated, many of these guys had real skills they could support their family with. In our rush to protect kids, this kind of work is no longer taught in…

> Are you implying one cannot be taught those skills if they have access to games?

Nah, I think games can be very valuable, especially communal, in-person games. I don't mind access to games at all... I think I look at the various forces around children and teens today, and it feels like we've taken away a lot of the things that were very valuable for development because they might be dangerous, and replaced them with replicas that are safe but lack some of the value and experience that came with the dangerous thing.

As an example, hunting games are safer than hunting, but hunting games do not teach you to be patient and still for hours, they do not teach gun safety, they do not teach you to stick it out when things get cold and uncomfortable. They do not teach you how to do something useful with the animal after you shot it, and there is no real cost to being sloppy and injuring but not killing an animal that is now suffering in the woods.

I'm sure you've heard people talk about the "infantilization" of young adults. What factors do you see behind this? How would you suggest we teach young people how to do hard things?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#323

Post by GaryBluto »

mystraline wrote: post #116

Or instead of turning parental controls on, instead teach your children how to identify bad stuff online. That way, they can catch people (peers OR adults) doing or asking really bad stuff. And teaching also has great benefits of lasting a lifetime. Well, except for doing parental controls on your boomer parents TV, blocking Fox news. Thats a good usage of it. You're not going to defeat propaganda believability with…

> Well, except for doing parental controls on your boomer parents TV, blocking Fox news. Thats a good usage of it. You're not going to defeat propaganda believability with boomers. So blocking is best bet.

What an odd viewpoint. "It's bad to use limit your children's access to the internet in any way, but trying to stop other adults from accessing things I deem to be wrong are good!"

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#324

Post by ceayo »

a_shoeboy wrote: post #298
ceayo wrote: post #286

I am opposed to the whole concept of these "parental controls". Instead of a bond of trust, between a parent and their child, the surveillance economy has gave us the ability to experience the top of the surveillance pyramid ourselves. As Google and Meta spy on the world, we spy on little Timmy. In fact, you are a bad parent if you don't spy on little Timmy. I really can't wrap my head around how asking "how was your…

You obviously don't have kids. You can't trust a child's judgement because they don't have the experience to exercise good judgement. Your job as a parent is to look out for them while helping them develop.

> You can't trust a child's judgement because they don't have the experience to exercise good judgement.

How can a child get any experience, if they are only ever exposed to perfect make-believe fairyland?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#325

Post by explorigin »

DebugDruid wrote: post #311
topikk wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Go type this into perplexity: "Are there any health studies about what exposure to pornography does to childhood development?"

Here's another good one: "Are there any health studies about what exposure to violence or horror does to childhood development?"

There is a reason that rating systems exist and that we shelter children from these things.

The pre-rebuttal that you posted "this was common in my childhood" is no indicator that this was a healthy behavior for you or the masses.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#326

Post by sojsurf »

crusty wrote: post #300
sojsurf wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How big are your feet? Because the shoe horn you just used to squeeze your barely veiled disdain for parentting "choices" that aren't like yours into this thread about user-adversarial parental settings by major game system manufacturers was massive.

This thread was a follow-up to squibonpig's comment about the parental responsibility and the value of giving young people access to things that are dangerous when it's done with proper guidance. I agree with him, with the caveat that "the internet" is dangerous more like a city at night than a gun.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#327

Post by soperj »

BeetleB wrote: post #251
soperj wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And there's physical limit to how much physical activity one can be doing Do you hang out with many 5 year olds? They're made of energy. > I could have him do math but it's a lot more boring I did Math all the time with my 5 year old and he loved it, but then I also love math, and it's easy to make fun.

Fair points, but understand that this is a multidimensional issue, with each dimension being a continuum. I know plenty of people using the exact same arguments to argue that kids should not waste time with Lego. There are better physical activities.

people are definitely crazy.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#328

Post by pixl97 »

chaps wrote: post #261
BeetleB wrote: post #172

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 w…

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

Don't worry, next gen devices will come with a 5G device embedded that will always allow access to the market place and online gambling store.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#329

Post by Ajedi32 »

gukov wrote: post #248
unloader6118 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When it happens only a few times, it might be neglect. This is absolutely by design. Not sure if I want to call it by design. It is not a dark pattern, it is just "what is the minimum we can do to sell this without doing the curation work?"

I’m not sure why some are struggling to understand this. A single "godmode" checkbox would only be possible if every element, the marketplace, the hardware, and the payment rails, were inside one ecosystem. The Switch is Nintendo, Minecraft is Microsoft, the credit card is Visa, and so on. There are simply too many moving parts, making a single killswitch nearly impossible to orchestrate.

That, or an open standard.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#330

Post by Dylan16807 »

zaphar wrote: post #15
miroljub wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, we pretend we are surprised why the majority of adults don't care about privacy. Why would they? They grew up being 100% controlled with 0 privacy. They don't even know it doesn't have to be like that. Then, it was their parents violating their privacy, now it's government and corporations.

A five year old is not prepared to engage online with privacy. They have not had the necessary training yet. They will not get that training unless you are there to show them how to negotiate that world. They will not magically learn how to protect themselves if you just leave them to figure it out themselves.

That description of "100%" means the lack of privacy they're objecting to is one going a lot lot past five years old.

Your first comment didn't mention age, so they made a comment about a broader interpretation of the idea.

Post reply on HN