251–260 of 525 posts
Okay, let's flip it: why would Apple, Microsoft, etc.. agree with such a law? What would the trickle down be for browser makers and website creators?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the header/metatag is designed poorly. The RTA proposal is that every operator of every site must verify the content and add the header to mark the site as "safe" or "unsafe". This is unnecessary burden that they have to bear if this proposal is given a green light and this is wrong. Instead, the default should be, that if there is no header or it cannot be parsed, then the content is unsafe. And if there is…
The page having a simple rating assumes there can be one mapping from content to rating for the whole world. I doubt we can even have one for North America and Europe.
Websites by default are ‘true’ for every category, unless they specify.
Categories are, for example of some: nudity, sexual, violence, etc.
It doesn’t have to be perfect but sites will have to err on the side of caution.
We could even create an html tag for example, and the browser can simply not render that portion of the page of the user has that type disabled.
And we could give companies a pass for best-effort categorization using tech to assess user-generated content, along with allowing users to flag their own content as “safe”
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...
That’s exactly what it is. It removes standing, and that is a major flaw in our legal system. We need significant changes to defend constitutional rights properly.
Not just Linux. More specifically: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public education is extremely different from age checks in apps. Yes, homeschooled people are generally really dumb because humans are not born with the knowledge of the world or how to teach it. This is different from California telling Debian to ask for user ages.
You have that backward. The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. -- https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/#Academic
First independent search result:
> The US-based NHERI describes itself as a leading research institute in the field of homeschooling. However, its neutrality is often questioned.
Parental controls should be a client side option set by the user. Sure, make it easy for users to do so, but it's a users choice. Kids don't buy phones or computers, their parents do, and during initial setup, parents could choose "this pc is used by a child" option, input some override password to disable this in the future, and the phone could block whatever needs to be blocked.
> Kids don't buy phones or computers, their parents do It wouldn't take much for a kid to buy a phone or computer.
What's depressing to me is just how self-serving all this is. The original bill was AB 1043. Who supported that, breaking with other tech companies? Why Meta of course [1][2]! Meta likes this because it pushes liability onto the OS providers. Guess who doesn't have an OS? Google's support is a little stranger given Android. It seems like AB 1043 also shifted liability to third-party app developers instead of the app…
Just cuz today's ad-supported social media is bad for kids, doesn't mean everyone should have to verify their identity to use it. You can just make it 18+ and if kids lie to get around it that's not the end of the world. And in general, regulations that would make these things better for everyone would be better rather than just saying kids can't use it and not fix the actual problems with them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I don’t have a perfect answer. It really depends on what the service is. My main thing is I want to be able to opt in or out of various filters. I don’t mind if my kids want to listen to music that has swear words, but I don’t want them watching videos where they give horribly sexist pickup artist advice. This isn’t just about what I feel is age appropriate, either. It is also about what I know about my kid…
> My 10 year old hates scary things, and she gets completely freaked out when they show scary movie previews. I would like to be able to block those for her. The difference between this and the usual "parental control" mechanisms is that what you're describing here is something the child wants to cooperate with, voluntarily. In which case, you don't need a mechanism that makes it absolutely impossible; you need a mec…
Now, sometimes my kids might not know they don’t want to see something, which is where my judgment comes in… but I don’t (or at least have not yet, anyway) feel the need to block my kids from watching things they want.
Now, I have spoken to my kids about some things they watch that I have issues with. I tell them why I think the content is problematic and why I would prefer they don’t watch it. But it is always a conversation rather than me just telling them they aren’t allowed.
I have been happy with how my kids have handled these conversations, and haven’t yet found the need to enforce specific rules yet. Even when they watch some things I don’t like, I have found it has made for really effective conversations about my values and what I hope their values are. Some of those topics are too abstract to have without having something tangible (like a YouTube video or channel) to center the conversation around.
All this because public institutions have lost the will or capacity to regulate the companies. So they switch to burdening the consumers.
As a dad of two younger kids (7 and 10), I have been incredibly frustrated with the way age restrictions are handled across various services. Really, my main complaint comes down to: I completely disagree with what these services choose to restrict for kids and what they allow. They block my kids from doing things I have no problem with them doing and they allow things I would never want my kids to do in 1000 years.…
maybe at 7 and 10 they shouldn't use device connected to the internet without your active supervision at all? What will they miss?
I would never tell another parent they were wrong for choosing not to allow their kids to use the internet or consume certain types of media. Those are very personal choices.
My wife and I have deliberately have chosen what to allow our kids to do, and continually have talks with each other and with the kids about our internet usage.
I don’t feel the need or desire to seek advice or approval from random internet commenters.