101–110 of 525 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No such mandates should take place at all.
> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have 7 grandchildren with the oldest being 10. My daughters are very strict about not providing their kids with devices that have internet access. The only one of the 7 who has a phone has a flip phone with no internet access. There simply is no reason to provide young children with access to the internet.
[flagged]
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…
No such mandates should take place at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, no news sites for kids. Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever." You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like: - News Category (Known to be SFW) - News Category (That may be NSFW) - Child friendly sites - Social media sites ... and so on. This could…
This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. It doesn’t matter if it’s safe for work; you asked to identify sites with content that can change. Either the parent has seen and approved the content or not.
I think I know what you meant and sure we can keep it simple. Site is approved by a parent or it isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of interesting - basically exempts any OS that’s under an MIT or GPL licence… … doesn’t that excuse Android and possibly XNU, too?
Is all the code running on my Google Pixel 10 licensed under GPL and/or MIT? I think we have our answer.
The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…
> The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must c…
Perhaps late to solve this globally but parents can still install parental control software if they so desire and can still intervene locally to prevent sharing data with 3rd parties. At worst this means small children might not get to visit social media and other assorted sites and I am fine with that. I think a number of parents would be fine with that as well.
Sites can voluntarily label as some do. It just means that parental controls would have to default to blocking everything until approved and while sub-optimal maybe that's what people will have to do in order to avoid the evil pattern of sharing data with all the websites that will ultimately leak, or "leak", be sold, stolen, etc... Good parents will not participate in the evil patterns of sharing their children's personally identifiable information.
When the PII of children is ultimately shared with evil people the children once adults will resent their parents for not protecting them.
- To all parents here, your children have no idea what risks are out there including devious companies that want their data. They will one day be adults if all goes well. Protect your children as corporations and governments will not. They will thank you when they find out all their friends data was shared, leaked or otherwise abused forever.
A cynical person might suspect that the reason they are doing this is so that Linux developers don't have standing to challenge the law on 1st amendment grounds...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unbound DNS if compiled with --with-libnghttp2 can listen for DoH and your Unbound/Pihole can forward to any destination you desire. This is what it looks like on my firewall: # https://doh-int.mydomain.net/dns-query interface: [ip of lan port]@443 interface: [ip of wifi port]@443 https-port: 443 http-max-streams: 220 tls-service-key: "/etc/unbound/keys.d/unbound_server.key" tls-service-pem: "/etc/unbound/keys.d/unbo…
99% of people have no idea what this means, but they do understand voting.