41–50 of 150 posts
_Social media company execs_ also want to curb their children's social media access.
Zuckerberg apparently does the same.
What do the billionaires know that we don't?
I'm back in the UK for a bit and one of the first things I notice besides the infuriating and pointless "Accept Cookies" popups on every webpage is that I can't view half the news about Palestine on Twitter/X without handing over a government ID to prove I'm an adult. No thanks. Please let's find a way to protect children without giving up the right to anonymity on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the people's rights to lure and attack my children? It's not a rhetorical question, it is exactly what is currently happening (and not only with children but okay).
(This comment is addressed to peer comments, not the parent post.) It's silly to say "Get better at parenting", when parents who have no specialist training, are literally facing off against trillion-dollar companies with thousands of industrial psychologists and data scientists hell-bent on making their products as addictive and profitable as possible. There are huge information- and power asymmetries at play here.…
They move towards having every adult "show their id" when doing stuff online. This could have easily been solved by parental controls and banning advertising towards children (or ban advertising all together for underage accounts, everywhere... by a new phone, set that it's a phone for an underage person, add a guardian who can unlock stuff if needed, and no ads anywhere are allowed). But nope, instead we get face sc…
There are some people, many in uniform, who have already accepted the covenant that their actions are recorded and monitored each day. What do you have to hide? they ask rhetorically
Then the politics. Use the mass aggreavement, and accomplish the goals of the enforcement groups. Use the need to fix, to implement the rule, despite the protest and despite the civil liberties views. The politics needs the damage to push the unwanted changes. See also big business for a window into this.
Many parties have already heard (for thirty+ years?) that "freedom" builds a vigorous communications network. But now, this is different. These will be the rules (insert Law) and We will Enforce them (insert paid by taxes bureaucracies, and paid by penalties enforcements).
Would someone be able to comment on this: Why is it not possible to require websites that wish to market to children to be certified as "child safe". Such sites would be audited by an independent entity that would grant them some form of encrypted key. These could be in age bands, e.g. We do this for many other things, from toys to public venues. Parents could then set their child's device to only allow access to sit…
Your proposal doesn't solve the actual problem.
Would someone be able to comment on this: Why is it not possible to require websites that wish to market to children to be certified as "child safe". Such sites would be audited by an independent entity that would grant them some form of encrypted key. These could be in age bands, e.g. We do this for many other things, from toys to public venues. Parents could then set their child's device to only allow access to sit…
It's like asking tobacco companies to reduce the toxicity and addiction of their products, inevitable collapse.
The reality is that the business model itself is inherently toxic.
A ban is a good idea, but not by eroding the privacy of every adult, for all of the reasons stated elsewhere. I think most people agree that social media is toxic, not just for children, but adults too. What I don't understand is why parents don't take responsibility for reducing the contact with such harmful products. Even growing up in the 70's, most children didn't smoke or drink alcohol, not because they didn't h…
The smoking rates and underage alcohol consumption went down since 1970ties. And afaik, most people start drinking alcohol as teenagers or sooner. What is stopping them is access or lack of it, not fear of parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(This comment is addressed to peer comments, not the parent post.) It's silly to say "Get better at parenting", when parents who have no specialist training, are literally facing off against trillion-dollar companies with thousands of industrial psychologists and data scientists hell-bent on making their products as addictive and profitable as possible. There are huge information- and power asymmetries at play here.…
I also assume the "get better at parenting" folks have zero kids themselves, and likely (because HN) work directly with those technologies targeted by the governmental measures. But answering to their point, getting better at healthcare only worked when the society stepped in, also getting better at pensions, at work-life balance or gender equality. So yes, I WILL get better at parenting, namely by supporting all oth…
It takes a village to raise a child. It's all well and good for childless techbros to say "Raise your kids" properly, and be subject to the tender mercies of the tech giants, but we stand a fighting chance if parents, schools, child development specialists etc, rally to get some common-sense controls in place.
The internet is a free fire zone today. This needs to change, and techbros just saying "Be a better parent" is a lazy, cynical cop-out.