I do not, in any way, support this bill. It's idiotic. I do, however, have some sympathy for parent who are not technically savvy, do not know how to block unpleasant content from the internet, and do not watch their kids all the time. If they did watch their kids all the time they'd be called helicopter parents so there's really no winning.
I'd be more motivated to sneak around my internet activity just so I could watch something embarrassing like Smurf cartoons.
Do you think there ages between 7 and 14 when kids should be allowed to watch videos unsupervised and kids should have some form of filtering they don't see inappropriate content? If so, who will provide that filtering? You probably can because you post to HN but not every parent will have that skillset
The parent ostensibly purchased that device from a business. That's where you apply the fix, not to the internet in general. This is like trying to put the cat back in the bag by legislative fiat.. I expect the same results.
Charitably, they want to protect neglected kids. Uncharitably, they think they know what’s right for everyone and want to institutionalize it.
But most of supporters probably either have no kids, adult kids, or kids who they think they parent well enough to not be in danger.
I think shadow bans are applied to accounts rather than comments on this site.
TBH "this site loves authoritarianism" seems a bit over-dramatic. But I guess we'll see what happens...
I don't believe we're on a path for this to get better either.
This is why I'm generally in support over codified + regulated child protection acts, especially the online ones.
We need to move beyond the “it’s a melting pot, everyone has their own way” and realize that people are making babies with little understanding of how to do more than keep them alive.
There is a whole field of early childhood development and another in early childhood education and none of it is taught except to specialists.
edit: I realize this is imperfect but I believe it is better than doing nothing or regulating actual reproduction (however you propose to do that).
I said "This is why I'm generally in support over codified + regulated child protection acts, especially the online ones." This is clearly not advocating for a "nanny-state." I'll rephrase in case I was misunderstood: I am generally in support of online child protection acts.
> Am I correct to say
I think it's clear you've already made your mind up by pushing what I said to such extreme examples: "nanny-state," and claiming I'm advocating for the government to fully take care of children/adults.
You folks (not specific to the OP here) have to stop assuming everyone has the same amount of free time as you do, or perhaps some of you folks don't have kids and don't realize just how much time and effort they are!
For millions of years kids never had running water in the home and they grew up just fine. In fact they grew up with fewer cases of depression etc. I’ve got a kid and I don’t let them use a sink, bathtub, or toilet unless I’m there interacting with them, doing stuff together. Maybe I’ll let them watch for 15min for a job well done but not for hours on end.
Here's what I think, but every parent needs to decide for themselves: like it or not, the Internet is an integral part to socializing today. Not allowing your children to socialize this way will hinder their social development, especially when you have no control over them in 0-18 years from now. They need to be able to learn about how to behave on the 'net from a young age, with good supervision and guidance. Sometimes it's good to prevent a child from doing something harmful, and perhaps limiting their screen time in certain ways is necessary, however an extreme version of what you say (15 minutes) is definitely going to hobble their social lives at some point.
"Provide an “obvious signal” if parents can monitor their kids’ activities online. How does this intersect with COPPA?"
Are they saying they are going to warn the kids that their parents can check up on them?
Are they utterly insane, or did I read this wrong?