Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyuser583 | Hacker News Reader

Unpopular opinion: schools have a responsibility to moderate (yes, censor) the media students consume.

By default, the Internet is rated X. That's just a fact. Mainstream platforms pull any material that's explicitly pornographic, but there is a delay, and children will be exposerd to adult content.

LGBTQ stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Queer" - which are both legitimate sexual identities and genres of pornography. If the software is confident it can distinguish between the very different meanings of "lesbian" vis-a-vis content, then great. But I don't believe that for a second.

I have a child who is regularly exposed to terrible things online. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Schools are one of the big chinks in the armor. I can't control what she's exposed to there.

If I couldn't afford private school, I couldn't even chose what school she went to. I'd be stuck with whatever policies the local public school has.

We don't let any stranger just come on to the playground and chat with kids.

View on HN

Parents have responsibility to teach children to self-moderate what content they consume. Yes, I mean even the youngest kids. Do they have access to the internet? If they want to see porn, they will see it - regardless of any content filters you put on. Kids are fully capable of using and understanding the need for and the high-level concepts behind VPNs by the time they are 7. They will get creative with their keywords and ways to see porn (e.g. erotic games that might not be caught by your filter). I've seen 10 year old kids use portable Tor browser to bypass school content filters.

Anything else will lead to problems in later life (overconsumption of porn for example).

At home, I block the internet at the router level - including VPNs. I also don’t give my daughter admin access. So even if she knew what a VPN was, she wouldn’t be able to use it.

I'm pretty sure a motivated kid would just need some time to bypass your filter. Don't underestimate children. If they can access the web, they can access porn. You'd have to block all - including HTTP(S) - traffic and even that covers just what happens at home.

It might be as simple as connecting to the neighbor's open WiFi, the local McDonalds public WiFi, or their best friend's mobile data plan or their unrestricted home WiFi.

There are HTTP proxies operating via port 80/443, full with an app just like a VPN. I've seen a 10 year old kid use a free SSH shell account (via port 80) to proxy their traffic. There was another kid who just used a public cloud provider's free tier and had a full desktop environment running there, accessed via some web VNC interface - that one was 12 y/o though.

Regardless, you're just putting off the inevitable - and then it will be like a whole new overwhelmingly fascinating world has just opened, which is not great for a young mind not yet fully capable of moderation because you didn't allow them to practice it.

> I also don’t give my daughter admin access

Kids can boot Linux from USB too.

Yeah I grew up in Iran. There’s really not much you can do to completely ban everything. All you’re doing is creating mistrust between you and your kids. Your kid is far far more susceptible to being groomed etc if you have draconian parenting policies.

It's unlikely that a single paragraph covers OPs entire parenting method. At best we're seeing one small part. For all we know, they have regular conversations about why some content is blocked, thus making it more of a collaboration.

Thanks for the reminder to remain curious. Perhaps OP would be interested in sharing more. This is a discussion site, after all. I'm honestly a little surprised that things have remained mostly civil in this discussion page. Credit to HN's culture and the moderation team.

My philosophy to keep rules simple. She gets a certain amount of internet time.

I also place restrictions on types of media. For example, she loves listening to techno-pop music, but that’s not allowed a less than an hour before bedtime. So there’s a de facto “no music an hour before bed rule.”

Kids YouTube is treated like a very low quality tv service. She gets a certain amount of “video time” but I allow more time if she uses an established steaming service (Netflix, etc).

She’s allowed to see content creates adults pretty freely. She can also talk to her friends pretty freely.

I am very restrictive when it comes to communicating with unknown “children” online. Kids social media platforms attract predators. Some predators are grownups, some are toxic other kids.

Ik actually much more worried about “child” content than “adult” content.

Filtering only works on domains. But most content these days in on a handful of forums (FB, etc).

I require her to preserve her browsing history. I review it if I feel there’s a reason to (she’s not good at being sneaky),

We don’t talk about the content, because she mostly just listens to techo-pop and plays browser games.

If it seems she’s hanging out in a toxic forum, I’ll discuss it with her, but also be firm about blocking it.

Understand, I’m most worried about making sure my daughter gets her homework done, does some reading, and gets a good night sleep. The internets main threat is as a distraction from that.

I really wish my daughter was the technical wizard I was at her age. It would give us something to bond over.

But she just wants to watch anime and listen to techno pop.

And she will, she will just download it at another internet access point (could be a library computer + SD card) and try to hide it from you.

My daughter doesn’t know how to download things. She’s been raised on streaming the point where local storage is a foreign concept.

She understand iPhone, iPads, and streaming.

We’ve talked about this, and doesn’t like listening to music unless there’s an AI choosing the next track.

It’s actually kind of terrifying.

Oh, the things I learned in school about covert computing and "managing your manager" (i.e. teachers). Reverse proxies, guessing passwords, mapping networks, bypassing routers, etc. I wasn't even wanting to do anything bad, I just didn't like the complete lack of autonomy and self-determination. They never had a clue. Don't underestimate children. They have time and a very different set of priorities.

Of course, I never needed any of those techniques at home. My parents made it clear they trusted me and that I'd have their help if I found myself in a bad situation online. I learned self-policing early. Very handy skill.

If that poster blocks vpns, they probably know how to install a root CA and block any non-intercepted traffic (and then apply content filtering), as well as disable USB boot and set a BIOS password. Sure a sufficiently technical kid could defeat that (do motherboards still have BIOS reset jumpers?), but most kids aren't going to be that technical, and even if they were, any kind of video would be (immediately, at a visual glance) obvious in traffic monitoring software.

So at least at home, it's pretty easy to win the cat and mouse game as a technical person if you wanted to. At places like schools, the IT guy probably doesn't really care so is easy to "defeat" (mine knew we played cracked copies of counterstrike and starcraft off the network drive and never did anything about it).

I’d love to play that cat and mouse game with my daughter.

She just doesn’t care enough :(

Kids have their own interests.

She’d rather draw and paint than figure out a way for to reset BIOS.

Edit: All she’d have to do is spoof the MAC address.

I am genuinely interrested in what makes you have this draconian policy? are all doors and windows locked aswell? are you with her 24/7? is there no way she would be able to leave the premises even if she wanted to?

I accept that you have a right to parent any way you want, but I cannot possibly see how this benefits anyone, least of all your kids

Parents don’t and shouldn’t have the right to parent anyway they want. Most parents are okay, but there’s a non zero number of really fucked up parents.

Parents should have classes, and resources to help them be good parents. And bad parents should be at best made aware, and at worst ridiculed for their bad parenting decisions.

There are still a sizable number of American parents that think spanking their kids is okay. This is something that most of the modern world has completely moved away from and criminalized. So yeah, not everything should be ok.

Every resource I’m seen says “Make sure you monitor and control your child’s Internet access. There are dangerous websites and people online.”

What makes you think my approach is Draconian?

I filter at the router level because that’s the most effective way to filter. I think that’s a best practice.

I deny her root access because she has and would install anything the Internet asks her to install. She’s a kid!

Where do you think I’m crossing a line?

Ignore the armchair parents. You don't even know if they have the experience to criticize.

Bad news. The world is x-rated

Your kid can see whatever they want at most public libraries. Most libraries don’t censor internet connections.

Constant surveillance and a lack of trust by authority figures is something far more concerning and damaging than seeing a naked person.

A naked person is fine. A naked person is R rated compared to what is available.

I’m not worried about nudity. Nudity gets flagged fast.

I’m worried about toxic content: there’s really, really toxic stuff on children’s social media.

Stuff telling kids they’re stupid if they don’t get straight As, they’re ugly if they don’t look like super models, and will die of starvation if they don’t get into a FAANG.

Every type of toxicity you find on adult social media exists on children’s social media.

That’s what worried me.

You might as well just take them out of school because I promise you their peers can and will be even more “toxic” than that in person.

> Your kid can see whatever they want at most public libraries. Most libraries don’t censor internet connections.

Don't worry, the "think of the children" line of rhetoric has already invaded library systems, and books are getting banned and libraries are shutting down[1][2][3][4][5].

[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-01-27/school-lib...

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/10/lgbtq-...

[3] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-dakota-considering-ba...

[4] https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor...

[5] https://time.com/6211350/public-libraries-book-bans/

> Your kid can see whatever they want at most public libraries.

I feel like there is way, way worse stuff on the internet than at any public library I've been in. Is this not the case?

Better block a whole host of other every day words too. Can’t have your child ever use the word “Asian” online, for their own good.

Othering of LGBTQIA+ people does real harm, to which you seem to be either ignorant or indifferent.

I think you missed their point. They ale saying you cannot block these search terms.

If (by your example) "transgender" is a genre of pornography and is therefore worthy of censure, do you similarly claim that other identities often featured in adult entertainment (i.e. Italians, lumberjacks, nurses, etc) need to be filtered out unless some software can confidently determine context?

Don’t forget the infamous family genres. Can’t google “mom” anymore. That’s a porn category. In fact, we might want to start spying on their texts to make sure they aren’t using words like that there either. Your kid might be into incest porn.

Or, going by some of the top categories on PH: Asian, babysitter, blonde, Brazilian, cartoon, celebrity, cosplay, feet, German, Japanese, vintage, webcam, etc.

So what is up with our culture that regularly being exposed to violence, fucked up police, men trying to make decisions for the bodies of women is okay - but knowing that sex is a thing that exists and people have sex is bad?

Literally have these parents been teens before? Did y’all have a puritan upbringing where you didn’t learn about sex or watch porn until 18? If you did, do you consider yourself a healthy adult with a reasonable relationship with sex?

This has nothing to do with censorship. It's about monitoring students' own speech.

It's concerning that you only think "what if my child sees lesbian porn" and not "what if my child is blocked from learning about their own identity".

The internet is more likely to confuse people about their identity than to teach them anything about it.

That's a funny word for explore

You're the kind of person I don't want talking to my kids.

Exactly. You wouldn't want some stranger talking nonsense to your kids in person why should it be any different online.

It's comcerning that you believe you have the authority to tell a parent how to parent *their* child. The parent can weigh the risks to their child. Let's just leave it at that.

If a parent says I spank my kid, are you still gonna side with the parent?

How about if the parent says “in my culture the dad is the first sexual partner of the daughter”? How about then? (And yes. This is a real thing)

So no if a parent says oh my kid can’t be lesbian or gay or whatever, they’re just wrong and should be called out. The same way we call out for physical violence, we should call out for mental violence.

You're getting WAY off topic. We have an example we're speaking to. Dry your tears, stick to it, or move on.

Either way I'm not interested in your pro-authoritarian beliefs.

> The same way we call out for physical violence, we should call out for mental violence.

The problem with this is there is even less agreement on mental violence then on physical. There are a lot of people who believe a reasonably explicit sex-ed curriculum is mental violence against children.

Can we not use "mental violence" as a term? It's inherently wrong, and there are plenty of good terms - abuse, manipulation, etc.

I'm going to say confidently that a parent trying to use technology to block their child from knowing what being gay is or talking about it is doing wrong. A child isn't property and has human rights that I demand be respected, one of them is awareness and freedom to discuss such things.

And that child is not a ward of the state. Parenting has scope. Socially and legally. If you don't want anyone over-extending in to your life, beliefs, etc. then that - like it or not - is a two way street.

So you'll respect the child while disrespecting the parent? But don't recognize the hypocrisy. You're on the slippery slope. Be careful. Be very very careful. The fall can be painful.

Can you clarify what you believe this slippery slope is causing us to slip towards?

I didn’t mention anything about the state. There is no hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with respecting one or the other. There are certain human rights which are wrong to violate no matter who does it or to whom. Basic knowledge of and discussion of human sexuality is one of those rights.

The state should be involved in regulating very powerful tools that allow someone to dig in and shape the communication and information available to others. “Big brother” needs to be stopped whether it is a nation or an overbearing parent.

Links to those rights pleases. Links to the laws (in the USA) that say parents forfeit their rights to those. Either way, that child is not entitled to an unfiltered internet, especially when the parents might suffer legal jeopardy if that became public knowledge.

You're taking these children out of context, putting them on an island, and then too strongly suggesting you know better than their parents. Links to that precedent please.

Parents have no right. Kids do. And you're the arbitrator? Yes, sorry, there's plenty of hypocrisy in that scenario.

Parents are not owners of their children and as such have no right to deprive them of basic knowledge about their bodies and identities.

Sure, there's a slippery slope -- in the direction of authoritarian parental control, which results in parents imprisoning their children within a controlling and insular community to keep them indoctrinated and obedient -- all for the sake of "protecting" them from viewpoints that might one day cause them to think for themselves.

No they're not. Theories aside. Parents *do* have legal rights and responsiblities. Unless, the parent(s) drop that ball, their decisions have priority.

That's how the society works.

All this backseat patenting is not a good look. Unless a legal line is crossed, you do not and cannot know what is best for someone else's child. If you believe otherwise, you ironically probably aren't fit to parent.

This is how liberty and freedom works currently, at least in the USA.

While parents have legal obligations to their children, they have no moral right to control them independently of ensuring basic safety and order. Laws can't define right and wrong, and it is most definitely wrong for a parent to purposefully deprive their children of education and exposure to the world solely for the benefit and protection of that parent's own ego.

Children are, and have always been, raised in a society. They are not your personal slaves to lock in a closet and isolate from the world.

Our social contract protects the rights of individuals. You can't claim to be in favor of liberty while denying it to someone else.

Parents absolutely have a right to withhold information from a child until it's appropriate. Would you teach a 3 year old about the safest methods of heroin injection and not to share needles? It's about their body.

You're approaching a very nuanced subject with a very black and white view. Parenting is hard, and marred by our own experiences. In addition, every kid is different in maturity, emotional intelligence, ways of processing information, etc. The person who knows them best and who is trying to do the best they can for them probably has a better idea than you do here.

You think kids should learn about lesbians from strangers online and not their own parents?

It’s one of those things that 99% of the time heterosexual parents will not know much about.

Do you think kids should learn about Asians from strangers online and not their own parents?

There are certainly parents right now who feel like strangers shouldn't be teaching kids about Black history and are trying to remove such education from curricula.

How much needs to be censored because some identities were politicized by people who don't like them?

If my daughter is a lesbian, the last thing I want is her searching “what is it like to be a lesbian” and learning that being a lesbian means appearing in pornographic movies to appease men’s sexual appetites.

Every result for "what is it like to be a lesbian"[1] is educational and the first results are geared towards youth from professional educators[2][3][4], and none of them are pornographic or relating to men's sexual appetites.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+it+like+to+be+a+lesb...

[2] https://advocatesforyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ITI...

[3] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dcf/SHP/Brochures/I_THINK_I_MI...

[4] https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/les...

I’m happy to hear Google is doing a good job censoring pornography.

But relying a search engine to filter inappropriate content isn’t very wise.

Maybe the assumption that common identities and content concerning them are pornographic in nature is based on your own ignorance/FUD and not reality.

This is a problem of being forced to pay for school without being able to choose the school. The solution is vouchers.

Or at the very least allowing you to go to any public school.

> If the software is confident it can distinguish between the very different meanings of "lesbian" vis-a-vis content, then great. But I don't believe that for a second.

Are you dogfooding the software?

If not this is all just rank speculation.

> By default, the Internet is rated X. That's just a fact. Mainstream platforms pull any material that's explicitly pornographic, but there is a delay, and children will be exposerd to adult content.

This is a gross exaggeration.

> LGBTQ stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Queer" - which are both legitimate sexual identities and genres of pornography.

The "LGBTQ = sexualized content" dog whistle is so tiresome.

> We don't let any stranger just come on to the playground and chat with kids.

The vast majority of children are in danger from family members and friends of the family. "Stranger danger" by and large isn't a thing.

That's why it has to be an allow list not a block list.

Yea! But the stupid school requires GSuite, which means I have to allow the whole Google ecosystem. It’s possible to view images and web pages from the Google domain.

Also really bad stuff appears in Kids YouTube. It gets taken down fast, but that doesn’t seem to stop it.

You mean YouTube Kids has questionable content?

Not just questionable content - horrific content.

Google takes it down, but it pops back up.

Oh crap. I have not seen any yet, but thanks for the heads up.

Look up Elsagate. It was the example that probably made it furthest into the public eye and has recently returned in a new, similar form.

There are limits to what the school can do though.

One of my kids' first exposure to hardcore pornography was in second grade on the personal iPhone of an older kid.

might as well let see this sort of content before they get shot by classmates or whatever

Reply on news.ycombinator.com