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

361–370 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#361

Post by artyom »

ceayo wrote: post #294
artyom wrote: post #186

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 peopl…

> yet for the remaining 20% you have to be there. Shouldn't you trust your children, to come to you in that 20%?

How they will identify that 20% if the previous comment was referring to them actually not being able (yet) to understand it?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#362

Post by artyom »

knallfrosch wrote: post #299
artyom wrote: post #186

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 peopl…

There's just no market for parental controls. > I want to limit time spent > I want to limit money spent > After 8 years it's an adult account anyway (10 -> 18)

That's correct. The current state of parental controls is compliance (the option exists somewhere, good luck finding it, maybe it even works), not usefulness.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#363

Post by saintfire »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #350
schwartzworld wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can. The same devices that run Spotify will happily play your mp3 collection.

I can. You can. Spotify users though? Too dumb

Spotify allows you to download songs for offline (requiring a phone home once a month) and play local files.

I'm far from a Spotify advocate but no need to be inflammatory and misinformed.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#364

Post by artyom »

petermcneeley wrote: post #337
GaryBluto wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that phone should get the hammer with no replacement whatsoever. Trying to scare children into following rules does not and will not end well. > I've seen this done, it works. You think it works because the child has realized that they will need to be better at hiding their actions in the future.

user: GaryBluto created: 3 months ago

Well, I know what you mean but the parent comment kinda suggests accountability isn't really a thing.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#365

Post by pixl97 »

trinix912 wrote: post #296
fpauser wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young kids exposed to overly attracting games cannot limit these activities by themselves. This has nothing to do with a lack of explanation, but rather with how the brains of young kids function. Thus, accessible parental controls with a simple mechanism that limits the access to games, blocks ads, disables marketplace access and sets a maximum gaming time per day are a much-needed tool that parents should have in t…

Young kids are usually also too young to get a phone or buy games themselves, so it's mostly the parents who let them play on their devices. By this I mean parents who hand their 3 year old a phone with YouTube at the dinner table. It's also parents who get them their first phone and choose what kind of a phone to get them (it's not all that unusual to see kids with dumbphones anymore). Of course there should be a wa…

>My generation grew up to be generally fine people,

Correct, because the devices are powerful and cheap.

The devices that tend to be made for kids directly are normally extremely underpowered and expensive for their capabilities and anything you want to add to it is expensive. Most people have an extra phone that still works

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#366

Post by BeetleB »

soperj wrote: post #327
BeetleB wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair points, but understand that this is a multidimensional issue, with each dimension being a continuum. I know plenty of people using the exact same arguments to argue that kids should not waste time with Lego. There are better physical activities.

people are definitely crazy.

It's no crazier than saying the same things for video games. :-)

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#367

Post by BeetleB »

mcherm wrote: post #348
BeetleB wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can quibble about the actual age but in principle I agree about GTA. That's because it's a game designed to be fun for kids. Let me tell you about elements of games I'm thinking about: A girl is bullied at school to the point of committing suicide. This isn't a game of vindication. Justice isn't served. Things aren't set right. It's just how things are. Your brother committed suicide a year ago. As part of the gam…

It's been a long time since I kept current on games. Reading these descriptions, I have only one comment: What the *HELL*?!!?!!!

Don't knock it until you try it. 3 of the 4 games are highly rated, winning multiple awards. One frequently is mentioned on HN as one of the best games ever.

Games are a medium to tell stories. If you can conceive a TV show or movie tackling these themes there's no reason to think games should be exempt. In fact they are far superior in addressing these themes than movies are.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#368

Post by OkayPhysicist »

zen928 wrote: post #355
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.

Drinking is an archaic caveman activity that newer generations dont really care about, observed on a global trend. GenX and older millennials ring this bell continuously for a crowd that doesn't care. Shouldn't you focus on issues that actually impact and hurt people instead of trying to point out some "inconsistency" about the usage of the land of the free slogan that no one ever brings up in any conversation about…

Drinking is taking a nosedive because larger segments of society are shut-in losers, who are not engaging in real-world social spaces which are lubricated with alcohol. That's 95% of the reason, the rest is people smoking when they would have been drinking.

The fall in alcohol consumption is directly tied to a fall in socialization writ-large. That isn't a win, it's a tragedy.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#369

Post by VladVladikoff »

hnlmorg wrote: post #26

I really want to sympathise with the author but this feels more like a one-sided rant piece than a constructive article. For example, in one paragraph they complain that “I don’t want my son to get online” then literally the following paragraph they complain that they need a Switch Online membership to get their son online. If you want your Nintendo Switch to “behave like a Gameboy” then don’t get the online membersh…

I appreciated it for the tone and rage. I’m not so concerned with the actual technology being discussed here, but rather the overwhelming exhaustion that we are all subjected to in managing our household devices. Not just parental controls, but privacy and ad blocking, or self hosting, etc. it all takes so much work and effort that we rarely have the time for i. Our already exhausting lives. I feel the rant perfectly captured that feeling. It was a worthy post.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#370

Post by [deleted] »

DebugDruid wrote: post #283
micromacrofoot wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and I was groomed and raped at age 13 because I had unfettered access to AOL chat rooms caution is necessary and kids can learn plenty without unrestricted access I personally would have been better off without internet access, no knowledge of hex dumps would have been worth it. It's a little upsetting that you're using that as an example of why kids should have more permissive access.

You blame unfettered access to AOL chat, I blame your parents for giving you internet access and not teaching you to never share your real name or real address online. Mine taught me that early on. Later, I learned about proxies so I could further hide my approximate IP location from danger.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN