Someone else had brought up in the past few days that parents either don’t know that parental controls like this exist. Or they don’t care.
This law puts that age setting front and center and allows apps, like Discord, so say “no <13 year olds”. I think where this maybe gets tricky is if an app says “only <13 year olds”. As like people have said there is nothing stopping people from lying, and that is a two-way street.
No. All this law does it promote more data collection and impose more restrictions.
They don’t care about the children and, even if they did, it’s the parents’ job to parent them.
By “this mess” are you referring to Ch. trafficking? I’d say the responsible people for that are the ones running the criminal rings… but the responsibility for prevention (beyond just plain law enforcement) should still ultimately be with the parent, imho. Since they are the ones with the most power and control over the environment the child is exposed to (I mean, it does not matter how many authentication layers you add, ultimately a child can pass it if they use the parent’s ID…).
If by “this mess” you mean the risk of leaking private information that everyone is concerned about, I don’t think that’s really caused by the “leave it to parents” mentality… if anything, that’s caused by the “parents shouldn’t have the responsibility” mentality, which is pretty much the opposite…
No. I am more referring to how we left parents to let their children have free reign of the internet and they got injured. It is exactly because we cannot trust parents to moderate what their children do online that these laws are coming up. Do you think we would still get these laws if there were no children on the internet (maybe still for pron but that is because people are prudes).
I see that you edited your comment to take this part out but I do want to talk about it anyways.
You compared this to having automatic roads that shift risky drivers to their own space and how that would be ridiculous. Which it would be. But comparing a law like this to driving is an awful comparison.
Until recently there were very few laws regulating what a child is allowed to access online. But that is just not the same as driving. States require that you get a license, take a test, follow road rules, get your vehicle inspected, and many more requirements. We have these requirements because we know that we should not let an untrained driver on the road.
It is exactly because we cannot trust parents to moderate what their children do online that these laws are coming up.
I disagree. The reason we cannot trust parents is because we are not making them responsible in the first place… there’s not a system in place to assign them responsibility regarding the child accessing places it should not (if we do really think they should not).
So if by “trust” you mean “blind” trust with no accountability, then well, we can’t “trust” NOBODY, not just parents.
The problem is that instead of controlling the bad parent, we are trying to control everyone else to try and child-proof the world.
States require that you get a license, take a test, follow road rules, get your vehicle inspected, and many more requirements. We have these requirements because we know that we should not let an untrained driver on the road.
The reason I removed it is precisely because I expected this kind of misunderstanding. You are assuming that in my comparison getting a license is comparable to a sort of age limit permit, but the way I framed my comparison, the equivalent of “getting a license” would be educating the parents and keeping a “parental license”. The parent is the bad driver.
there’s not a system in place to assign them responsibility regarding the child accessing places it should not (if we do really think they should not).
That’s what this law does. It provides a system (age attestation) and penalties for violating it.
Parental controls means the control is done by the parents… not by the companies. I don’t need to tell any company what age bracket my kid might be, all I need is for them to tell me how can I block / restrict access to their services in my parent-controlled network (or how to allow them, if using allowlist).
Standardization of parental controls would be if routers and/or the OS of the devices came with standardized proxy settings that allowed privoxy-style blocking of sites in a customizable way so we can decide which services to allow… with perhaps blocklists / allowlists circulating in a similar way as adblockers do.
If a web service wants to offer a highly restricted and actively moderated kid-friendly version of their service, they are the ones who need to provide facilities to us so WE can make the filtering (say… they can use a separate subdomain… or make use of special http headers that signal for kid-friendliness), not ask personal information from us just so THEY can take the decision on our behalf…
Isn’t this an example of pushing for standardisation of parental controls?
Standardization of optional parental controls (and accessibility while we’re at it) would benefit most linux distros imho.
Someone else had brought up in the past few days that parents either don’t know that parental controls like this exist. Or they don’t care.
This law puts that age setting front and center and allows apps, like Discord, so say “no <13 year olds”. I think where this maybe gets tricky is if an app says “only <13 year olds”. As like people have said there is nothing stopping people from lying, and that is a two-way street.
No. All this law does it promote more data collection and impose more restrictions.
They don’t care about the children and, even if they did, it’s the parents’ job to parent them.
Leaving it to parents is the reason why we are in this mess.
By “this mess” are you referring to Ch. trafficking? I’d say the responsible people for that are the ones running the criminal rings… but the responsibility for prevention (beyond just plain law enforcement) should still ultimately be with the parent, imho. Since they are the ones with the most power and control over the environment the child is exposed to (I mean, it does not matter how many authentication layers you add, ultimately a child can pass it if they use the parent’s ID…).
If by “this mess” you mean the risk of leaking private information that everyone is concerned about, I don’t think that’s really caused by the “leave it to parents” mentality… if anything, that’s caused by the “parents shouldn’t have the responsibility” mentality, which is pretty much the opposite…
No. I am more referring to how we left parents to let their children have free reign of the internet and they got injured. It is exactly because we cannot trust parents to moderate what their children do online that these laws are coming up. Do you think we would still get these laws if there were no children on the internet (maybe still for pron but that is because people are prudes).
I see that you edited your comment to take this part out but I do want to talk about it anyways.
You compared this to having automatic roads that shift risky drivers to their own space and how that would be ridiculous. Which it would be. But comparing a law like this to driving is an awful comparison.
Until recently there were very few laws regulating what a child is allowed to access online. But that is just not the same as driving. States require that you get a license, take a test, follow road rules, get your vehicle inspected, and many more requirements. We have these requirements because we know that we should not let an untrained driver on the road.
I disagree. The reason we cannot trust parents is because we are not making them responsible in the first place… there’s not a system in place to assign them responsibility regarding the child accessing places it should not (if we do really think they should not).
So if by “trust” you mean “blind” trust with no accountability, then well, we can’t “trust” NOBODY, not just parents.
The problem is that instead of controlling the bad parent, we are trying to control everyone else to try and child-proof the world.
The reason I removed it is precisely because I expected this kind of misunderstanding. You are assuming that in my comparison getting a license is comparable to a sort of age limit permit, but the way I framed my comparison, the equivalent of “getting a license” would be educating the parents and keeping a “parental license”. The parent is the bad driver.
That’s what this law does. It provides a system (age attestation) and penalties for violating it.
What reason is that? What mess? I don’t give a shit what other people’s kids do on the Internet.
Parental controls means the control is done by the parents… not by the companies. I don’t need to tell any company what age bracket my kid might be, all I need is for them to tell me how can I block / restrict access to their services in my parent-controlled network (or how to allow them, if using allowlist).
Standardization of parental controls would be if routers and/or the OS of the devices came with standardized proxy settings that allowed privoxy-style blocking of sites in a customizable way so we can decide which services to allow… with perhaps blocklists / allowlists circulating in a similar way as adblockers do.
If a web service wants to offer a highly restricted and actively moderated kid-friendly version of their service, they are the ones who need to provide facilities to us so WE can make the filtering (say… they can use a separate subdomain… or make use of special http headers that signal for kid-friendliness), not ask personal information from us just so THEY can take the decision on our behalf…