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

391–400 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#391

Post by nine_k »

senordevnyc wrote: post #389
nine_k wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: are you a parent? My daughter, when she was 6 or 7, was terrified by certain things she accidentally found on YouTube, and asked me to have them filtered out. At 13, she already didn't need that, of course, but the notion of "kids" includes "small kids" , who definitely should not be exposed to everything the Internet has to offer, or let to go out unsupervised.

Honest question (from a parent): why was your six year old using YouTube unrestricted and unsupervised?

Mostly because restriction was hard to implement before YouTube Kids was introduced, and I could not revise and download every cat video, or similar. There are limits to supervision.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#392

Post by petermcneeley »

GaryBluto wrote: post #374
petermcneeley wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not even sure where you get "smashing a device violently in front of a child" comes from. He said gets the hammer as in he would perma destroy it.

Anyway I tend to agree for the most part anyway. I was just making a guess about your age irl based on what you said. However some other data actually indicates you are likely gen-x.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#393

Post by lovich »

lovich wrote: post #354
selectively wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where are the faangs hiring people with skills sans the credentials? Everyone I’ve talked to at faangs has basically described it being the next step after college for everyone they hire, other than Amazon

Ah, too late to edit but this is another sub year account making statements like

> 22 is recently a kid. We have nothing further to discuss; you are unreasonable.

Using a semicolon correctly while claiming another human held position is unreasonable. Definitely regular human activity.

@dang, is this forum just going to be humans talking with a forest of bots are you guys going to have any moderation

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#394

Post by ndriscoll »

Rohansi wrote: post #194
knallfrosch wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A GameBoy would have been cheaper, offline and worked without an account. Yet the author chose to spend his money on the Switch2. What's the market to learn from this? You're saying one thing but voting with your wallet.

I agree with you but you can't just go out and buy a Gameboy anymore. And gaming is more of a social activity now where you'll need internet access.

They're called retro handhelds and you can get them for ~$30-40 at the low end, which can apparently run up through Playstation 1.

In the $200-300 range (so still less than a Switch 2), you can apparently run up through Switch and maybe PS3.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#395

Post by tomhow »

lovich wrote: post #393
lovich wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the faangs hiring people with skills sans the credentials? Everyone I’ve talked to at faangs has basically described it being the next step after college for everyone they hire, other than Amazon

Ah, too late to edit but this is another sub year account making statements like > 22 is recently a kid. We have nothing further to discuss; you are unreasonable. Using a semicolon correctly while claiming another human held position is unreasonable. Definitely regular human activity. @dang, is this forum just going to be humans talking with a forest of bots are you guys going to have any moderation

We don't see everything, and we don't see anything instantly, especially at this time of day/week/year. We've said many times that bots and LLM-generated comments are banned on HN but we can only take action if people use the mechanisms that have been in place for years – flagging bad comments and emailing us (hn@ycombinator.com) to draw our attention to things.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#396

Post by sowbug »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #381
sowbug wrote: post #198

It's easy to say "oh, this is just enterprise controls, and your family is an enterprise." But then I remember every time I've had to delve into actual enterprise administration, and yeah that's its own full-time job. Side rant: when will businesses acknowledge that an account might be owned by two people (spouses, for example) and allow separate logins for the same account? Their terms of service almost always prohi…

On the other hand it’s easy to say “just give me enterprise level controls but in an easy and intuitive interface” I’m not saying that’s not possible, but if you have somehow figured the “right” abstractions and interface to achieve this in an incredible simple and sensible yet just as powerful and complete way that any parent can manage it, then you’d make a killing in enterprise sales. It’s not like enterprise IT a…

I agree. There was a while when I, the sweet summer child that I am, hoped that the late 90s-early 00s crop of founders would start families of their own and naturally steer their companies toward the family-as-enterprise-but-actually-usable model. I'm still waiting.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#398

Post by ip26 »

alembic_fumes wrote: post #69

This pervasive desire to block, protect, monitor, and control your children's online activities through nebulous supervision tools seems like a particularly American solution to a particularly American problem. Much like how little Timmy simply can't go out to play without a GPS anklet and an air tag behind each ear, so too can't he go online without a supervised account on a supervised device on a supervised connect…

You know where my child learned how to swim? A small pool, progressing from a hands-on adult to an arms-reach adult to lifeguards nearby. They may eventually swim in the sea, but they will have countless hours practice by then - most of them in a pool where they can stand up if they use their tiptoes.

I didn’t start by giving my kindergartener a lecture about the dangers of riptides and then let them navigate the risk of the ocean themselves as they learn to keep their head above water.

Granular parental controls are a way to create that kind of progression, allowing them gradually increasing autonomy within a managed environment.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#399

Post by galkk »

BeetleB wrote: post #343
DebugDruid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain the problem with 'mature' rated games? As kids (under 10), we played Mortal Kombat and GTA III, laughing when we interacted with hookers in GTA. It was fun, and we had a great time playing these games. What's the issue? It's no different from playing with a wooden sword and shield.

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…

I follow some games but have 0 idea about those. Are those telltale/telltale-like story games?

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#400

Post by Jesus_piece »

basket_horse wrote: post #118
dosman33 wrote: post #29

It's not an accident that its so hard to get this stuff right, I've heard countless stories like this from friends who are parents. If the market wanted parents to be able to figure this out it would be getting it right. It's obviously a dark pattern that benefits everyone but the parents and their children. If more people stopped to think deeper about this they would and should be very disturbed by what this means.

I disagree. I think it is an “accident” that stems from organizations rather than anything sinister. Companies generally want good parental controls, but let’s face it, it’s not the cash cow or particularly interesting. This leads to understaffed teams of b-list developers with high churn, hence the overly confusing and half-baked features.

It is sinister that this is overlooked by corporations by “accident”. What you are describing exactly what is sinister, that children’s safety controls and parents ability to decrease the risk comes last.

> If more people stopped to think deeper about this they would and should be very disturbed by what this means.

Post reply on HN