Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#21

Post by fyredge »

iamnothere wrote: post #12
techblueberry wrote: post #8

I find it relatively strange that over the past 30-40 years, we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents, and “adult” media was relatively well gatekept to this online Wild West where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation. Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms? But like, kids shouldn’t be able to sign a ToS until they’re 18. I have little sympa…

When I was a kid, most families that had a computer kept it in a common area. Same with the TV, for that matter. Some families did not. Mine did not! But that was a decision that was up to individual families. I don’t see why these decisions should be up to anyone but individual families. Period. If your kids are mature enough for unsupervised computer use, or if you don’t see it as a problem, that’s up to you as a p…

Because they are harmful. The worry is not online use, but online addiction. We don't just allow parents to regulate what drugs their children consume (medicinal), we trust medical practitioners for the correct dosage. Similarly, social media regulation should be done to achieve the same effect.

The failings of individual families have far reaching consequences beyond their own homes, especially in non collectivist societies that mostly put themselves above all others.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#22

Post by themafia »

techblueberry wrote: post #8

I find it relatively strange that over the past 30-40 years, we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents, and “adult” media was relatively well gatekept to this online Wild West where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation. Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms? But like, kids shouldn’t be able to sign a ToS until they’re 18. I have little sympa…

Isn't the entire point of the ToS to make it legal to sell your personal information? Primarily to increase programmatic ad revenue?

Maybe we should just end advertising targeting anyone under 18. I wonder if by removing the financial incentive the problem would mostly sort itself out.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#23

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

techblueberry wrote: post #8

I find it relatively strange that over the past 30-40 years, we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents, and “adult” media was relatively well gatekept to this online Wild West where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation. Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms? But like, kids shouldn’t be able to sign a ToS until they’re 18. I have little sympa…

They want their cake and to eat it too. They want the internet to be used for everything for everyone because of money but that also means children, teens, elderly, and non-technical normies.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#24

Post by bubblewand »

iamnothere wrote: post #17
bubblewand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to manage this as a parent is hellish. I can't speak for other parents, but some standards for parental controls—the presence of which and adherence to might be enforced by law, if need be, and need probably would be since none of this is stuff vendors couldn't have figured out on their own long ago if they cared to—we could leverage would be goddamn nice and is all I'd really want. Especially as devices g…

I agree that it should be easier. We’re on a frigging VC website. Shouldn’t there be a huge market opportunity here for parental control systems? Why is this not a problem that anyone is going after? I’m also surprised that “family monitoring” stalkerware companies like Life360 haven’t expanded into this market.

You have to make everyone abide by them, for it to not-suck. At a minimum, software and service providers would have to respect settings client agents tell them they have (as in the AppleTV case, it's bordering on pointless for platforms to even have them if most vendors ignore them)

That'd probably be enough (plus something for school devices in particular to let parents set stricter settings during non-school hours, without having full admin rights on the devices) to do a ton of good, but it's not a startup, it's a protocol and maybe a law.

The startup version would probably try to capture that as some kind of one-stop-shop web portal.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#25

Post by themafia »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14

I don't understand what position this article is trying to stake out. How is it Zuckerberg's fault that a California court called him into a courtroom demanding to know why he didn't stop children from using his platform? It seems like the author recognizes that he agrees with Meta on all the substantive questions here, but feels obligated to jump through hoops to avoid taking a pro-corporate position that Meta is ri…

> a California court called him into a courtroom

To you and I it's made to appear that these things happen without warning. I assure you that's not at all how these things actually occur. If this truly caught out Meta by surprise then they should fire their CEO for general incompetence.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#26

Post by iamnothere »

bubblewand wrote: post #24
iamnothere wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it should be easier. We’re on a frigging VC website. Shouldn’t there be a huge market opportunity here for parental control systems? Why is this not a problem that anyone is going after? I’m also surprised that “family monitoring” stalkerware companies like Life360 haven’t expanded into this market.

You have to make everyone abide by them, for it to not-suck. At a minimum, software and service providers would have to respect settings client agents tell them they have (as in the AppleTV case, it's bordering on pointless for platforms to even have them if most vendors ignore them) That'd probably be enough (plus something for school devices in particular to let parents set stricter settings during non-school hours…

I would think that as a platform like this grows, they would be able to build relationships with OS and service vendors to manage parental control settings via API. After all, this would take a lot of public pressure off of the individual vendors, especially for social/gaming/media platforms.

It doesn’t have to be perfect, just decent.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#27

Post by bubblewand »

themafia wrote: post #22
techblueberry wrote: post #8

I find it relatively strange that over the past 30-40 years, we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents, and “adult” media was relatively well gatekept to this online Wild West where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation. Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms? But like, kids shouldn’t be able to sign a ToS until they’re 18. I have little sympa…

Isn't the entire point of the ToS to make it legal to sell your personal information? Primarily to increase programmatic ad revenue? Maybe we should just end advertising targeting anyone under 18. I wonder if by removing the financial incentive the problem would mostly sort itself out.

At least outlawing user-targeted advertising and most of the related data collection & selling (for things like credit cards and magazines, too, shouldn't limit it to just things like social media) would fix an absolute ton of problems, or at least improve them a lot, including this one.

I'm not sure it's a total solution but it'd likely help, and there are plenty of other reasons to do it.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#28

Post by iamnothere »

fyredge wrote: post #21
iamnothere wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a kid, most families that had a computer kept it in a common area. Same with the TV, for that matter. Some families did not. Mine did not! But that was a decision that was up to individual families. I don’t see why these decisions should be up to anyone but individual families. Period. If your kids are mature enough for unsupervised computer use, or if you don’t see it as a problem, that’s up to you as a p…

Because they are harmful. The worry is not online use, but online addiction. We don't just allow parents to regulate what drugs their children consume (medicinal), we trust medical practitioners for the correct dosage. Similarly, social media regulation should be done to achieve the same effect. The failings of individual families have far reaching consequences beyond their own homes, especially in non collectivist s…

Medical practitioners actually don’t typically administer drugs to kids. They prescribe a dose, but it’s up to the parents to administer the drugs.

You’re basically saying that non-collectivist societies should become collectivist. No thanks!

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#29

Post by throwawayffffas »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14

I don't understand what position this article is trying to stake out. How is it Zuckerberg's fault that a California court called him into a courtroom demanding to know why he didn't stop children from using his platform? It seems like the author recognizes that he agrees with Meta on all the substantive questions here, but feels obligated to jump through hoops to avoid taking a pro-corporate position that Meta is ri…

Zuckerberg tries to avoid liability by passing the back to OS vendors. Article writer thinks that would be bad. Hence it's all the plaintiffs fault.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#30

Post by bilegeek »

techblueberry wrote: post #8

I find it relatively strange that over the past 30-40 years, we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents, and “adult” media was relatively well gatekept to this online Wild West where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation. Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms? But like, kids shouldn’t be able to sign a ToS until they’re 18. I have little sympa…

> where it seems almost any attempt to gatekeep is seen as a freedom violation

1.) Because it always seems to have an outsized impact on adults. Then the predators get away with it because the platforms DGAF (for example, Discord has had a MASSIVE problem with illegality for YEARS, with boatloads of reports and evidence that was blatantly ignored, and yet NOW they need your ID?) And any gate design that COULD work without PII won't be implemented because data is too juicy.

> Maybe this is why we need protocols over platforms?

> If counter culture gets driven back to IRC, or gasp meatspace, then all the better.

2.) Yes on both counts. But protocols need to be decentralized, massively scalable, available across every platform including phones, and normie-grade easy-to-use (not everybody, and it's getting better now, but lots of devs tend to give up here, like it's a binary choice between a lobotomized barely-functioning bloated Fisher-Price app and a fully-functioning lean app with awful UI. Shockingly difficult, as I discovered trying to program, but both possible and necessary.) But as for meatspace...

> we went from a world where most everything was intermediated by parents

3.) If anything, the world is intermediated by parents like never before.[1] Not everywhere, not everybody, but enough freedom of movement and gathering has been lost by children and teens that it is killing meatspace. This CANNOT be ignored if you want to address online problems. The internet, awful as it can be, is the only "free" place left to roam for many.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945114

Post reply on HN