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

371–380 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#371

Post by hnlmorg »

RandomDistort wrote: post #260
hnlmorg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they do. You should be open and honest. For us, it’s a system that’s worked well. So well, in fact, that our kids have felt comfortable coming to us when they see something concerning in a group chat rather than waiting for us to find it. And in return, we’ve learned to trust their judgement a lot more because they’ve demonstrated mature behaviour online.

Are you sure the kids aren't learning to delete the messages?

You have it backwards, it’s not trying to catch my children doing bad things (though there is that benefit too). it’s more about ensuring that other people are not doing, or trying to do, bad things to my children.

I trust my own children but you’re right that I cannot guarantee that they’re not bullying others and deleting those messages. However I’d hope other parents are monitoring their children’s phone usage and would tell either me or the school if my child was causing issues. That’s how a healthy community of parents are supposed to work.

Also your comment has a tone of “kids can find a way to bypass parental oversight so why bother parenting in the first place?” I don’t if that is intentional or not. But it’s an attitude I have seen other parents adopt and, unsurprisingly, their kids are usually the little shits that cause trouble because they know there are zero repercussions.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#372

Post by hnlmorg »

SoftTalker wrote: post #199
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.

No, we've always had effective societal gatekeeping on what kids can access. Cigarettes, liquor, porn, R-rated movies, all had general barriers to access for kids in the pre-internet world. Parents could rely on most store clerks not selling alcohol, tobacco, or adult magazines to a child. Parents did not have to hover over everything their child did. Was it perfect, of course not, but it worked fairly well and didn'…

> Parents did not have to hover over everything their child did. Was it perfect, of course not, but it worked fairly well and didn't require constant monitoring.

Except kids from families without respectable parents would always be the ones to find access to alcohol, cigarettes, and porn. There were always a few kids in every class that had an older brother, uncle, or friend who would give them access to stuff they shouldn’t have.

It really wasn’t that different in the 80s in terms of parental responsibility.

> You could let your kids go to the mall and be fairly sure that they would not be let in to an R-rated movie. They could ride their bikes to a convenience store and the worst thing they could buy was candy.

That’s still true now.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#373

Post by theoriginaldave »

I think it's an abdication of parental responsibility to let a child use Internet-connected devices without adult supervision.

Nothing connected to the Internet can protect children from seeing information they couldn't see (as determined by culture/familial mores), meeting potentially exploitative strangers, being exposed to a highly curated stream of marketing content and targeted AI messaging (including social media feeds).

I believe that Internet sites and apps should not have age controls.

I believe that physical Internet access (computer, phone, TV, etc) should require an adult ID to purchase (but not logged, like cigarettes, alcohol, etc) l and the the owner of the device is responsible for its use.

If they hand it over to a minor and they are harmed, then the original adult is liable (like alcohol).

This holds someone with material motive accountable. And it becomes jurisdiction-specific accountability (location of the device).

And in the case of parents, if they allow their kids to use one of the parent's devices then they are responsible for how the kid uses it. And directly responsible for how it's used, what's allowed and what's not.

You can't trust a mega+corp with protecting your kids.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#374

Post by GaryBluto »

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

Can you actually refute anything I'm saying without having to resort to ad hominems?

I believe in discipline but smashing a device violently in front of a child is not the way to go about things.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#375

Post by BeetleB »

sojsurf wrote: post #322
BeetleB wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For my kids, guns are absolutely not in the toy category. They are tools, used for hunting and protection, and access to these tools comes with guard rails and significant responsibility. The same is true for cars. Are you also against toy cars? > By the time they graduated, many of these guys had real skills they could support their family with. In our rush to protect kids, this kind of work is no longer taught in…

> Are you implying one cannot be taught those skills if they have access to games? Nah, I think games can be very valuable, especially communal, in-person games. I don't mind access to games at all... I think I look at the various forces around children and teens today, and it feels like we've taken away a lot of the things that were very valuable for development because they might be dangerous, and replaced them wit…

> I'm sure you've heard people talk about the "infantilization" of young adults. What factors do you see behind this? How would you suggest we teach young people how to do hard things?

I've heard of it but haven't seen any kind of consensus on it - or even whether it exists.

If it does, though, games hardly seem relevant. People were addicted to TV long before they had access to video games.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#376

Post by BeetleB »

dTal wrote: post #275
BeetleB wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I too use the XBox. And because there are definitely benefits of Internet access. Saved games, for example. But yeah, fair point. I should configure router to selectively enable/disable access to that device while the kid uses it to see how usable it is. It may just be good enough for his games

You can't even save games without an internet connection? sheesh...

Actually, I don't know. It's certainly convenient that they do. You don't lose anything if your HD crashes. I should try running the games without Internet access to see if they also save them locally.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#377

Post by Desafinado »

Welcome to parenthood in 2026. I can't walk into a Chapters or book fair with my kid without the tentacles of the game industry reaching him.

That academics are failing worldwide due to overexposure to screens is the least surprising thing I can imagine.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#378

Post by ruszki »

DebugDruid wrote: post #347
ccppurcell wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad says the same thing about seatbelts.

So you’re trying to say it’s a survivorship bias? Well, I did turn right, and everyone I know from childhood has turned out alright as well, except for a few who had problematic parents. So games did not cause harm, but rather irresponsible parents (or, to be fair, parents with mental problems...).

What if these kind of games are a problem for kids with shit parents, or kids who are in a dark places for other reasons, like bullying? The same with like drugs, gore, or porn? Should we just ignore those kids? Or what do you propose?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#380

Post by HumblyTossed »

BeetleB wrote: post #172

Just recently did this with XBox. I cannot prevent the kid from seeing the marketplace. I cannot prevent the kid from seeing installed games that are rated Mature. It won't let them play it, but it lists all the games installed in the XBox. I cannot prevent them from downloading free stuff. It was frustrating and clear to me that this wasn't designed for the benefits of parents. I just want it to act like a console w…

And depending on the community you go to to ask questions, the likely response is, "just be a parent". Wanting seat belts made just for kids IS BEING A PARENT.
Post reply on HN