381–390 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a child circa 2000, I remember seeing explicit bestiality porn pop-ups while looking up video game cheat codes. You're right, the internet is much different now, and not in the way you're implying.
Oh my God, this. Kids are safer today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with. What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?
granular control over push notifications would be great see: recent article about Snap sending pushes to kids during school hours
I have all notifications on my phone off, except for phone calls
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before. Yeah. No surprise. The generation of my parents used to run free in the woods. My generation was limited to whatever bicycles offered. And when I have children, I'll…
> I'll have to fear getting the cops called on me if they ever drink enough to end up in a hospital (which is a routine thing these days). Nobody, of any age, should drink that much.
An excellent rider to the KIDS act would be to mandate the installation of age (that is, identity) verification to all firearms in order to disable the safety.
Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.
That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as…
Lack of practice with face to face communication, near inability to talk on the phone, less quality connection with people in general, craned necks, myopia, hidden bullying, privacy violations, dependency on a US company etc
And what do you mean by "can't talk to anyone"?
In many states, children under some age are prohibited from using firearms. There is substantial evidence to show that firearms pose a real and present harm to individual children and large groups. An excellent rider to the KIDS act would be to mandate the installation of age (that is, identity) verification to all firearms in order to disable the safety.
Lock those out too unless you can provide digital ID (and a high enough social credit score) each time you attempt to start them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and…
> So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. No, please dont. More regulation is not the answer. Any more restriction which is imposed on kids becomes the thing they focus on getting around. Just dont buy your kids phones until they are older, and send them outside to play. Thats all the parental restriction you need on phones.
Why not? If the parental controls in all the mainstream OSs are effective, difficult to bypass, and don't involve any communications with third-parties beyond communicating the set of prohibited topics/actions/whatever, what's left for busybodies to complain about?
NOTE: I'm not calling you a busybody. I'm calling the people who push for these "age verification" laws with the genuine belief that they're for protecting minors who lack the ability to handle the dangers of the world busybodies.
Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Meta here is the heroin cartel. They're a publicly traded company, have offices all over the country, and have mountains of evidence sitting in moderately well secured cabinets. Why should the government go after users when it could more easily go after the producers?
Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?