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

381–390 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#381

Post by eddythompson80 »

sowbug wrote: post #198

It's easy to say "oh, this is just enterprise controls, and your family is an enterprise." But then I remember every time I've had to delve into actual enterprise administration, and yeah that's its own full-time job. Side rant: when will businesses acknowledge that an account might be owned by two people (spouses, for example) and allow separate logins for the same account? Their terms of service almost always prohi…

On the other hand it’s easy to say “just give me enterprise level controls but in an easy and intuitive interface”

I’m not saying that’s not possible, but if you have somehow figured the “right” abstractions and interface to achieve this in an incredible simple and sensible yet just as powerful and complete way that any parent can manage it, then you’d make a killing in enterprise sales. It’s not like enterprise IT admins love Group Policy or any random Joe can be a Linux sysadmin.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#382

Post by spicyusername »

veonik wrote: post #73
spicyusername wrote: post #24

This is such a sore spot for me. Technology is amazing and I want to raise my children in such a way that they learn to use it to improve and enrich their lives. Video games are amazing. Art has never been easier to create. Being able to spend time with your friends when they are not physically present is incredible. There are so many great podcasts for children. But silicon valley seems directly opposed to enabling…

Not sure about Google but Apple has per-app time limits, per-app type time limits, overall screen time limits, time of day limits, parental review before app install, parental review before purchases can be made, etc. I've found it to be quite robust in managing my kids' access to the internet.

I'll have to look into that, thanks

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#383

Post by grugagag »

philips wrote: post #308
grugagag wrote: post #273

I got my son a Miyoo mini, a cheap but decent emulator. I had zero headaches and was able to curate the game list as I thought fit. There’s no online (even thouh the device has wifi) for now and worked as expected, kid plays, gets bored and lets the device down. I will not let my kid play games online because that’s a too big of a risk to addiction or priming for this later. Minecraft has potential for addiction. By…

Me too! I used the "Five Game Handheld" setup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2rMB5z9dQw

Sounds good. I have about 250 favourite games though.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#384

Post by johnecheck »

texuf wrote: post #353
basket_horse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've seen this first hand and yes, it's not sinister, getting dozens of services coordinated and permissioned under a single, easy to use, system is too much cognitive load for the team that inevitably gets tasked to do these things. Think about Privileged Access Management or Active Directory, but an 8 year old has to get it to work with a stay at home mom's 5 year old android device, and the PM's working on it can'…

We're not sinister, we just have these metrics that we prioritize at all costs, up to and including child well-being!

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#385

Post by [deleted] »

texuf wrote: post #353
basket_horse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've seen this first hand and yes, it's not sinister, getting dozens of services coordinated and permissioned under a single, easy to use, system is too much cognitive load for the team that inevitably gets tasked to do these things. Think about Privileged Access Management or Active Directory, but an 8 year old has to get it to work with a stay at home mom's 5 year old android device, and the PM's working on it can'…

[deleted]

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#386

Post by hackable_sand »

AdamN wrote: post #40
losthobbies wrote: post #18

The Roblox ones are a bit of a minefield too. I age restrict, block chat with everyone and monitor friend requests weekly. They are not allowed to play in their rooms. Education is the biggest thing. They come to me if someone asks to be their friend. They don’t accept gifts from strangers and I explain that it’s the same as real world. It’s a constant process that is always changing. Same as any other parenting job…

Roblox is hostile to these controls - best not to even enter the ecosystem.

It is strange to deny children this reality and then expect them to participate in capitalism.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#387

Post by hackable_sand »

pzo wrote: post #338
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.

It's the same environment

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#388

Post by senordevnyc »

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.

Because raging online at evil corporations feels better than facing the complexity of the world

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#389

Post by senordevnyc »

nine_k wrote: post #285
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…

Honest question: are you a parent? My daughter, when she was 6 or 7, was terrified by certain things she accidentally found on YouTube, and asked me to have them filtered out. At 13, she already didn't need that, of course, but the notion of "kids" includes "small kids" , who definitely should not be exposed to everything the Internet has to offer, or let to go out unsupervised.

Honest question (from a parent): why was your six year old using YouTube unrestricted and unsupervised?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#390

Post by senordevnyc »

armchairhacker wrote: post #149
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…

Some kids only need the honor system, but others, especially younger ones, need hard restrictions. If the parent is reasonable and the kid grows up smart, they’ll be thankful later, which is why kids also get restricted offline. Rough analogies: - Not letting kids buy unlimited candy ~ not giving them unlimited screen time - Preventing your kid from interacting with “bad” kids or going into unsafe neighborhoods ~ blo…

Why on earth would you let your kid use instagram??
Post reply on HN