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

341–350 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#341

Post by selectively »

lovich wrote: post #304
selectively wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think someone who is 22 was 17 in the not that distant past. Apple hires talent, they don't care about anything else. Again, I am speaking to things I know from my actual life and people I know in the physical world.

> Apple hires talent, they don't care about anything else. Again, I am speaking to things I know from my actual life and people I know in the physical world. How many people do they hire without college degrees? I am legitimately asking. I understand that was a thing in the tech world decades ago but my understanding was that big tech’s idea of “talent” has evolved to include mandatory education credentials like at l…

[flagged]

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#342

Post by ball_of_lint »

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…

Yes, people should be good parents.

But still, there's going to be many who are not. I would rather good parental controls existed to make it easier for people to be better parents. Yes, maybe parental controls don't make the difference from bad to good, but they do make a positive difference for many.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#343

Post by BeetleB »

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.

We can quibble about the actual age but in principle I agree about GTA. That's because it's a game designed to be fun for kids.

Let me tell you about elements of games I'm thinking about:

A girl is bullied at school to the point of committing suicide. This isn't a game of vindication. Justice isn't served. Things aren't set right. It's just how things are.

Your brother committed suicide a year ago. As part of the game you have to deal with someone who blames you for it.

A couple has to deal with the grief of their baby drowning in the bathtub. It's not an abstract thing. You as the player have to ensure the baby drowns and set the conditions for it to happen, knowing full well this will be the outcome.

You're a scientist stuck in a weird dimension and trying to figure out how you got here. Well, you got here because you murdered your wife and kid and then killed yourself but before you did that you made a copy of yourself and your family in a virtual world. That plan didn't work out well.

Edit: Just in case anyone gets deceived, the games aren't about these things but they do explore them as part of the game. The point is a lot of modern mature games tackle very adult topics.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#344

Post by pnt12 »

explorigin wrote: post #325
DebugDruid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's an even weaker argument: AI and ratings.

Ratings are very criticized by artists, eg as being fueled by conservative moms. For example, in the USA, movies with guns and explosion can be shown to younger audiences than nudity - seems very illogical.

Also, some anecdotes: lots of my friends were into GTA as kids, ie early teens, and turned out fine. Comparing to kids who didn't do so well, I consider the most important factors to br family, education, and finances, not violent multimedia.

With that being said, I'm sympathetic to limiting internet access due to communication with strangers, and extreme content (eg violent rethorics that appeal to action, not fantasy violence).

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#345

Post by BizarroLand »

ccppurcell wrote: post #332
DebugDruid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was against mandatory seatbelt laws at first because I disliked the intrusion.

That was it. My entire argument was (and I emphasize WAS) that I didn't like no gubment tell me what to do. If I wanted to be a damn fool and kill myself why would they care? It's a stupid act to try to outlaw stupidity.

Then I found out that seatbelt laws are actually about decreasing the financial burden of underinsured accident victims. The "gubment" doesn't care if you die, but they do care if they have to fund weeks of medical support before you die despite the treatment, or if you survive but are disabled and wind up on social security.

That realization made me give up.

It was always about saving money, not lives. With seatbelts and airbags you are more likely to either walk away uninjured or at least not so injured that you spend more than a few hours in the hospital.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#346

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#347

Post by DebugDruid »

ccppurcell wrote: post #332
DebugDruid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you’re trying to say it’s a survivorship bias? Well, I did turn right, and everyone I know from childhood has turned out alright as well, except for a few who had problematic parents. So games did not cause harm, but rather irresponsible parents (or, to be fair, parents with mental problems...).

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#348

Post by mcherm »

BeetleB wrote: post #343
DebugDruid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can quibble about the actual age but in principle I agree about GTA. That's because it's a game designed to be fun for kids. Let me tell you about elements of games I'm thinking about: A girl is bullied at school to the point of committing suicide. This isn't a game of vindication. Justice isn't served. Things aren't set right. It's just how things are. Your brother committed suicide a year ago. As part of the gam…

It's been a long time since I kept current on games.

Reading these descriptions, I have only one comment:

What the *HELL*?!!?!!!

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#349

Post by mjh2539 »

oytis wrote: post #279
guelo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly American? What does that mean? That parents in other countries are better than us? That they have more time, more know how, more wisdom? Sorry but that's stupid and insulting, which I suspect was your intent.

Not necessarily better, just less controlling. E.g. in Germany there exists an imperative to give children freedom despite dangers. Parents don't expect from themselves to be able to shield their chidren from all possible dangers either. Not sure if it's better, but it's a different parenting culture for sure. It mostly extends to interactions in the physical world though - restricting children's use of digital devic…

In Germany, the state intentionally put children in the custody of pedophiles: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp...

I have absolutely no faith in German intuitions regarding what is appropriate or inappropriate about the care of children. Ask me again in a century and I will reevaluate my opinion.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#350

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

schwartzworld wrote: post #303
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people can't even listen to music without internet, so this isn't surprising xD

You can. The same devices that run Spotify will happily play your mp3 collection.

I can. You can. Spotify users though?

Too dumb

Post reply on HN