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

331–340 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#331

Post by squigz »

istjohn wrote: post #280
watwut wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents are already plenty responsible. Societal expectation on parents are sky high and ever increasing. Meanwhile, the same people refuse to accept anything that would make parental responsibility easier.

A supporting citation: > In 1965, mothers spent a daily average of 54 minutes on child care activities, while moms in 2012 averaged almost twice that at 104 minutes per day. Fathers’ time with children nearly quadrupled – 1965 dads spent a daily average of just 16 minutes with their kids, while today’s fathers spend about 59 minutes a day caring for them. https://news.uci.edu/2016/09/28/todays-parents-spend-more-ti..…

1-2 hours a day? That does seem sky-high...

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#332

Post by ccppurcell »

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.

My dad says the same thing about seatbelts.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#333

Post by alphazard »

It seems like the industry is going to be forced to rediscover and implement capability based security models and process isolation by consumer demand.

It is impossible for the average user to reason about a different security model for each app, the only way for anyone to be confident about what a program is not doing is to move to a world where apps don't work by default, and a list of boxes need to be checked which enable network or file access and cause features to work. Apple is the closest to the right answer here, but enabled-by-default and opt-out has to go away.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#334

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

lovich wrote: post #292
selectively wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. They hire talent. University grads will work alongside red team folks that are maybe 22 years old and have been at Apple for two years. It's a thing. I personally know more than one person who has a background along those lines.

I was more pointing out that 22+ year olds aren’t people who were “recently children” unless we’re continuing the trend of infantilizing adults farther into their 20s. I was also under the impression that the faangs hired a larger % of post docs into their first industry job than most companies, so you’re also getting 27+ year olds as entry level engineers and scientists

All those companies are, or used to be, based in the US. Those 22 year olds have only been allowed to drink for a year so by one measure they were recently children.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#335

Post by pixl97 »

toss1 wrote: post #306
pwg wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]? The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design. A single "local only" switch would (so long as that switch is enabled) lock out all manner of potential future revenue and recurring rents, which these companies very much want to see hit the balance sheet. So the 29 separate con…

YES, Thank you! >>The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design >>designed to frustrate you to the point that you allow what they want from the start, the ability of the device to generate future revenue And this explains why they are willing to do all the extra work to do it. It is not even close to accidental or lazy — there is nothing accidental about the intention or going to the extra cost to build…

At the end of the day if the MTX group says no, it doesn't happen. Sales is always the most powerful group in an organization, sometimes even overriding compliance if they can get away with it.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#336

Post by pixl97 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #318
squigz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

>My generation grew up to be generally fine people,

[Look at current voters in the US]

Ya sure about that?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#337

Post by petermcneeley »

GaryBluto wrote: post #321
artyom wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

user: GaryBluto created: 3 months ago

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#338

Post by pzo »

rsanek wrote: post #267

I see folks saying no access to phones until 16, and others arguing how that will absolutely crush a kid's ability to do stuff socially. Why not just have a 'home' phone? you can use the phone in shared spaces at home, but cannot take it into your room or go to school with it.

unless you send your child to private school where all parents enforce such rule, your kid (that is 12+ year old) is going to be ostracize by majority of peers that have such phone. This is completely different environment comparing to times when we were growing up.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#339

Post by ball_of_lint »

martin-t wrote: post #67

I don't mean to sound like the stereotypical "I did X and turned out fine" but... I grew up with an internet access on my computer in my room without anybody watching over my back and without any restrictions and nothing bad really happened. Meanwhile these days some people around me with children around the 10-15 range seem think their children cannot be trusted and restrictions are absolutely essential. Has the int…

Yes, the internet has changed that much.

https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-for-kids-videos-problems...

Lots of people are in this thread saying "ah, just tell your children not to get groomed / not to watch disturbing content". They're kids. They are going to disobey their parents. There's no one here arguing we don't need to teach kids these things. But, like how when you're learning to drive you start in a parking lot with a crappy car, we need a way to make a relatively safe place for them to learn. Parental controls are currently failing to do that.

Furthermore, where you and I and median commenter on HN might be an engaged, attentive parent, there's lots of parents out there who are not. Having a good, easy-to-setup version of these controls that a less engaged parent will actually turn on would make a positive impact on those children who aren't receiving the teaching you suggest.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#340

Post by ball_of_lint »

martin-t wrote: post #67

I don't mean to sound like the stereotypical "I did X and turned out fine" but... I grew up with an internet access on my computer in my room without anybody watching over my back and without any restrictions and nothing bad really happened. Meanwhile these days some people around me with children around the 10-15 range seem think their children cannot be trusted and restrictions are absolutely essential. Has the int…

> Or pretend to be a stranger and try to befriend them, seeing if they fall for it?

That seems like a great way to destroy any trust in you your child might have.

Post reply on HN