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

181–190 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#181

Post by [deleted] »

mothballed wrote: post #103
GaryBluto wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so bizarre to me that in "The Land of the Free", 18 year olds, who are considered old enough to go to war, are not allowed to drink. Especially because this isn't some archaic law from the 18th or 19th centuries but instead from 1984 and only came about after the federal government withheld funds to force the states' hands over a period of 4 years.

It's not a federal law, you can buy and drink alcohol at 18 in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico for instance, so definitely possible to drinking at 18 legally in the USA. I don't know if there is a federal drinking age but it's definitely not above 18. Also in I want to say about half the states (could be wrong here, but at least a few), it is legal to drink well below 18 in a private home. ------------- Example, w…

[deleted]

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#183

Post by Aurornis »

mothballed wrote: post #82
mjg2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Parents in the 21st century need to realize the call is coming from inside the house: it's their obligation to protect their child. Unsupervised usage without full due-diligence will lead to incidents like what the blog author describes. The dilemma of online protection is a false crisis because parents would rather let their children play with fire than nurture their babies.

It's the parents obligation to educate their child. It's the child's obligation to use that education wisely. There were no trackers on cars when I started driving at 15 so my parents drove with me for a few months and after that I was on my own. There were no gun laws against kids having guns when I was 7 so my dad showed me how to use one safely and after that I was set loose upon the countryside armed on my own. T…

> It's the parents obligation to educate their child.

> It's the child's obligation to use that education wisely.

In the real world, it’s the parents obligation to make an effort to protect their children. In extreme cases, parents can be found negligent if they don’t demonstrate that they’re taking reasonable steps to protect children and something bad happens as a result.

This doesn’t mean that extreme, draconian parenting is mandatory. It does, however, mean that some level of parental control is necessary on an age-adjusted basis. It’s not enough to say “I told them not to do that” and then wash your hands of the consequences when we’re talking about a pre-teen like in this article.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#184

Post by knallfrosch »

alexpotato wrote: post #71

Of all of the uses for AI/LLMs, setting parental controls feels like it would be such a massive net win for everyone involved. Instead, LLMs are being used to replace support people at the larger platforms (e.g. X Box) with the clear goal of "make it HARDER to get support" (or as patio11 would say "their goal is to get you off the phone as quickly as possible ")

> Hey Gemini, I don't want my kid to chat with strangers on the internet. He needs to be online to play Fortnite on his Switch. How do I do this?

Seems simple enough to me

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#185

Post by bluGill »

logicchains wrote: post #130
TimTheTinker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europeans have trouble understanding in part because social trust is still high in many parts of Europe due to regional monoculturalism.

[flagged]

White covers a large varity of different cultures. Even something smaller like German covers many different cultures.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#186

Post by artyom »

The comment section seems to be divided between "don't police your children" and "absolutely police everything your children do".

Parental controls are absolutely necessary, yet they won't be enough by themselves. Payment systems are really robust but there's still fraud. If there's prey, there will be predators.

Education and clear rules are absolutely necessary, yet they won't be enough by themselves. There's people that's very evil and also very clever. You can educate and trust your 12yo to understand 80% of it, yet for the remaining 20% you have to be there.

And, oh boy, the issue about parental controls being incredibly complicated is 100% by design. Simple and sensible parental controls would make exploitative business models like Roblox go bankrupt overnight.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#187

Post by badc0ffee »

I went through some of this myself.

> Nintendo Switch Online (not really another account, mind you, but a membership) involves a recurring fee. It also unlocks access to the Nintendo eShop, which I cannot disable. I can set his eShop spending limit to zero, sure. But I can't block free downloads. So to let my son play online Minecraft with his friends, I have to open him up to an unrelated store full of content I can't possibly evaluate. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

You don't need to pay for Nintendo Switch Online to get access to the eShop, you just need a Nintendo Account. I made one for myself and one for my son, and neither stays logged in. My wife and I have the passwords for both, and will not give him his password until he's older. Meaning one of us needs to be there for any purchases, free or otherwise.

He has access to the Minecraft marketplace, but can't add funds to it without us. We did not use our MS accounts, and didn't make one for him, so he can't play Minecraft online. But you know what, I'm totally ok with that. He can still invite a friend over and play together in person (which he does do).

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#188

Post by knallfrosch »

mystraline wrote: post #116

Or instead of turning parental controls on, instead teach your children how to identify bad stuff online. That way, they can catch people (peers OR adults) doing or asking really bad stuff. And teaching also has great benefits of lasting a lifetime. Well, except for doing parental controls on your boomer parents TV, blocking Fox news. Thats a good usage of it. You're not going to defeat propaganda believability with…

"I'm a cute girl of your age. Here are some nudes. Wanna send me some too?"

Bam, lost.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#189

Post by maerF0x0 »

Parental controls aren't a good substitution for awareness, deep meaningful connection with your child, giving them a rich and fulfilling offline life, teaching them how to navigate dangers rather than isolating them from reality.

Hold on to your kids[1] and instead of having to spy on them you will know them.

Yes, Parental controls could, in theory, provide many many more protections. But given the trajectory of tech, capitalism, and the USA at large (and the culture it exports), I do not see that pragmatically happening to a relevant degree by the time I have children.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375...

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#190

Post by hamdingers »

mystraline wrote: post #141
mjg2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With due respect, this comment conveys a position of privilege and surviver's bias. I, like you, eschewed online rules as a minor and I luckily benefitted from this time in my expertise. I was lucky. I didn't run into predators when using TF2, Runescape, or MySpace, but that doesn't mean the threat wasn't validated on with persons (children at the time) that fell through the cracks. The story outlined, one of a child…

In reality, the whole "stranger danger" is way overblown and always has been. Most of the time, sexual predators are going to be either family or friends. https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/... 93% of victims under 18 know their abuser. Sure there's 7% thats not, but a significant supermajority is family/friends. 59% were acquaintances, and 34% are family. Edit: seriously, -1 cause I link to…

First, that statistic sources a study from 2000, a time when zero children had smartphones and approximately zero children played online games.

Second, even if the statistic wasn't obsolete, a groomed kid knows their abuser by definition.

I understand what you're trying to get at and suspect you're right, but the comment does not make your case well.

Post reply on HN