Parental controls aren't for parents • Hacker News Board

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#441

Post by watwut » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 8:30 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #331

istjohn wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A supporting citation: > In 1965, mothers spent a daily average of 54 minutes on child care activities, while moms in 2012 averaged almost twice that at 104 minutes per day. Fathers’ time with children nearly quadrupled – 1965 dads spent a daily average of just 16 minutes with their kids, while today’s fathers spend about 59 minutes a day caring for them. https://news.uci.edu/2016/09/28/todays-parents-spend-more-ti..…

1-2 hours a day? That does seem sky-high...

It is double of what they spent in 1965 for moms. It is actually quite a huge chunk of a day, enough to make parents isolated and overworked.

And yes, expectations on parents are sky high compared to before. From small stuff to large stuff.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#442

Post by TimTheTinker » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 8:33 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #162

TimTheTinker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europeans have trouble understanding in part because social trust is still high in many parts of Europe due to regional monoculturalism.

"Horrific betrayal..." Online grooming happens on a gigantic scale in Europe. It just doesn't get the headlines it should. And parents don't care to protect their children. They're busy.

> parents don't care to protect their children. They're busy.

That is horrifying. Dictatorial takeovers feed on vulnerable and naive kids. Mao's Red Guard, Hitler Youth, the Bolsheviks, the Komsomol ... the spread of communism and other evil forms of government has always been fueled in large part by youth organizations and organizing efforts.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#443

Post by zen928 » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 8:43 PM UTC

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #368

zen928 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, your entire post screams "older generation knows better, newer generation stupid losers" in unifying accompaniment with my initial caveman comparison. It's always interesting seeing the divide of generational vs cultural values from the point of view of people in the country, and the absolute insistence that their values represent one side vs representing the other. If you're observant, you get to witness in real time the cold and deafening silence of society moving on and losing interest with whatever hill-of-the-week people want to dramatically die on through over performant thrashing about. I mentally frame this timeline and context to be the equivalent of a child tantrumming in a grocery store while everyone else is just focused on shopping and going home, except I get to stop and point and laugh every once and a while in moments like this one. The death of stoner culture and commercialization of THC as a product instead of a lifestyle was pretty similar.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#444

Post by sjducb » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 8:44 PM UTC

hosh wrote: post #145

The author of article seems under the impression that parental controls allows parents to stop having to assess risk for themselves.

The problem is that most parents are not competent to assess the risk. The environment is different to the one we grew up in.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#445

Post by galleywest200 » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 9:20 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #424

rafaelmn wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nearly impossible to block YouTube on a smart TV without third party apps, even worse on non-android ones. And the app is not uninstallable. I don't think this is b-tier devs, feels like intentionall neglect.

LG let's me put a PIN on apps like YouTube, so the kids can't watch it alone.

Your kids will figure out that PIN.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#446

Post by oblio » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 9:23 PM UTC

DoctorWho70 wrote: post #433

master_crab wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you have government regulation. It’s not perfect, but at least a government is accountable to something other than a profit motive.

In the US, the government is expressly prohibited from regulating video games sales on the basis of content, per the First Amendment (with an exception existing for pornography). This was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchant’s Association (2011).

And that's the problem. The US Constitution isn't Moses' 10 Commandments chiselled in stone. It can be changed and improved. To quote Jeff Jefferies: "That's why it's called an AMENDMENT!".

The fact that the US government is frozen in amber overall will be the downfall of the US.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#447

Post by micromacrofoot » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 9:26 PM UTC

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.

no I blame the rapist personally, predators exploit any tools they're able to

there was plenty of "you need to get your kids on computers so they can get the jobs of the future" in the 90s that parents fell into, and information about online predation was almost non-existent at the time - I didn't even have to share my home address or name, I was encouraged to meet this person at their church

mind you my guardian at the time didn't even graduate high school

I shouldn't have been given access to tools my parent didn't understand, but corporations still pressure this constantly today

I doubt even a single digit % of parents know what they're doing when giving kids free access to youtube for example... and recently the CEO of roblox called pedophiles an "opportunity"

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#448

Post by oblio » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #208

elros wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a certain level, it’s also a question of different parenting philosophy. > Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old. I agree, but I also see absolutely no reason why 5 years old children would have access to a gaming device. Pretty much any other activity I can imagine is better for them.

> I agree, but I also see absolutely no reason why 5 years old children would have access to a gaming device. Pretty much any other activity I can imagine is better for them. I suggest expanding your imagination skills. There are definitely worse activities, like watching TV. And there's physical limit to how much physical activity one can be doing. There's definitely a point of diminishing returns there. And the ski…

The could play physical games such as board games or card games or...

Computer games aren't really needed for anything special at 5 years old.

Digital skills can be developed much later and they can be developed really fast, plus if the parents are very computer literate, their kids will be waaay ahead of the average kid in the world, so this isn't a real concern.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#449

Post by mmmBacon » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC

Parental controls are all about illusion of control. In reality the kids all know how to get around them. Try just try to block Gmail. It’s impossible. Gmail is the gateway to kids getting on services they aren’t supposed to be on.

Gmail can circumvent almost any security feature even if you set up a profile on iPhone (which is not documented and good luck with that). This is definitely not an accident.

Don’t mean to pick on Google; Apple is also bad, iPhone parental controls are very leaky. My son found a way to jailbreak his phone to completely unlock screen time and disable all parental controls.

Any of the consoles are also bad, PS4, etc… although it is possible to block stuff that PS4 can do via a firewall.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#450

Post by TimTheTinker » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 11:07 PM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #442

carlosjobim wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Horrific betrayal..." Online grooming happens on a gigantic scale in Europe. It just doesn't get the headlines it should. And parents don't care to protect their children. They're busy.

> parents don't care to protect their children. They're busy. That is horrifying. Dictatorial takeovers feed on vulnerable and naive kids. Mao's Red Guard, Hitler Youth, the Bolsheviks, the Komsomol ... the spread of communism and other evil forms of government has always been fueled in large part by youth organizations and organizing efforts.

Relevant paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1950882