[moritonal]

I don't get why the device changes the blame logic.

If child-services knew a parent was constantly watching/leaving around adult-content near children, that'd be considered the parents fault. If a parent lets a kid watch anything they want on TV and the kid watches adult content, it's the parents fault. But if the parent gives the child a phone, and doesn't manage what apps they use or content they watch, now it's the companies fault?

[sdoering]

I could just as easily turn this argument around:

If my younger self, went into a store to buy a bottle of Vodka, before I came of age at 18 here in Germany, it wasn't my parents fault. It was the shop that did not check my license that was liable.

If they sold me beer before I was 16, same situation. Analogous for cigarettes. Or me trying to enter an amusement arcade (with monetary gains possible, not just pinball like things.

So why should "online stores" / "arcades" / "non kid friendly/appropriate venues" be treated differently than brick and mortar ones?

Wouldn't that be the same argument?

[pardon_me]

The company should be responsible for providing options to block all or part of the content, and warn users of the content type, depending on their place in the pipeline.

For example, Apple and Google should provide tools for the parents to set up a device appropriately for a child, much like the shop should not sell alcohol to underage customers. Similarly, content producers should specifically need to label content targeted for children or specially 18+, like the producer of alcohol must warn customers on the label and inform the retailers.

Parents and caretakers need information to make an informed decisions before being able to consume the media themselves. They also need some granular tools on the device to avoid banning them entirely. The burden is shared between creator, distributor and consumer.

We already had laws for this and it makes sense for some type of access control to the open internet. The shocking part is the requirement for everyone to verify ID to multiple public and private institutions, more than once per.

An analogy for the UK now would be needing ID to enter the supermarket (access the internet), ID to look at anything aimed at adults and potentially harmful such as alcohol, chemicals, sugary food, medicine etc. (know "potentially harmful" subjects exist), ID to look at anything lawfully 18+ such as alcohol and cigarettes (view the content), then ID again to make the 18+ purchase from an account needing ID to open.

[ASalazarMX]

> If my younger self, went into a store to buy a bottle of Vodka, before I came of age at 18 here in Germany, it wasn't my parents fault. It was the shop that did not check my license that was liable.

Except this can only be fair if they carded everyone who buys liquor, not only people who appear young, otherwise it's subjective, and businesses shouldn't be liable if a tall, bearded teen buys vodka, because he looks older than 18.

Of course, in reality, liquor store cashiers are allowed to judge subjectively, but VPN providers won't be allowed to. And they'll probably be asked to share records of registered adults in the future, given the repeated efforts to backdoor encryption in the same UK. This is unlikely to be only about protecting the children.

[moritonal]

That's a really fair point. I suppose it's reasonable to point out that adults do have to provide ID quite often to buy things, but it's skipped so often because people can just look at us so we don't "feel" it. I think my problem comes from how I don't believe my cornershop records my ID when they see it, whilst I imagine these services would.

[luplex]

the problem is that devices are meant to be tools. They do not provide access to services, but you use them to access them. Limiting my devices' ability to do what i ask of them is more like geofencing my shoes, because you might use them to walk to the casino.

[simion314]

Does big tech help the parents? Can I set the age of the child in the phone user account and then the browser will report the age to the websites and the nice websites will aknowledge it and deny minors to watch adult content?

No big tech and browser makers did not put their hurds of developers to handle this and forced the governments to try more retarded solutions.

This big OSes should have a super easy activation procedure where a parent will enter the birthday of the account user and then the tech should do the magic,/

What are the current solutions for Android and iOS? To buy some apps and give them root permissions and they will filter out webpages or block entire domains ?

[teekert]

This makes the tech companies the decision makers over what is suitable content for children. But this has many problems. A big example is that some people are more open about sex than others. I'm reminded of a scene in an anime of a father in a bath with his daughters, normal in many cultures, deemed perverted by many (particularly christian US residents). Also here in the the Netherlands, a pretty open society when it comes to these things, we have parents complaining about books that show genitals to kids, even though they'll see them when they look down.

This is a hard problem, from about 0 to 18, kids go from being, well, kids, to being expected to be full adults and are expected to be able to deal with every liberty, every temptation that comes with it. There is no single best path to achieve this.

I want to educate my kids about sex, about alcohol, gambling, drugs, I want to teach them that the internet is a source of many good things, and many bad things. I'll make arrangements, determine the suitability of online materials, and will set boundaries together with my partner, thank you.

[lemoncookiechip]

You can block the entire internet and whitelist specific domains. There's multiple ways of doing this, from router parental controls, specific OS tools in iOS/Android, Windows, as well as apps specific to it, and all it takes is for a parent to care enough to make a simple Google or Youtube search and learn if they don't know, and don't even know to know that they should care in the first place.

The failure here is two-sided.

One and the most glaring are the parents who let devices raise their children, this hasn't changed since before home computers were a thing.

Secondly it's a failure of the state for not educating both adults and teenagers on best practices when using online platforms to be safe. If they're interested enough in policing people's web habits, they can spend time and resources on educating the masses. The best time to start doing it was 20 years ago, the second best is now and it could take a decade plus for it to have a meaningful impact.

Also this is important. The UK, like it or not, is a nanny state. They like to use child safety as an excuse to police adult habits, and more important their speech. There's quite a few times they've admitted to this plainly without any ambiguity.

"The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act...

There's also examples of them being asked directly in interviews and they admit to wanting to police adults speech and content they consume online.

Australia is in a similar predicament and honestly most of the world is rolling towards this, just not as fast as the UK.

The UK unfortunately has incarcerated people for simply lifting cardboard signs saying Free Palestine. They've jailed people for innocuous social media posts on Facebook and other platforms.

I'm not proud of the USA for a lot of reasons, especially lately, but one thing that any and all Americans should be proud of is their Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment, it's the most American thing and one of the best aspects of America that other countries should aspire to, and I hope that the jabs Freedom of Speech has taken over the past decade doesn't make it crumble away.

[u8080]

Because this is push to identify and track internet users, noone genuinly cares about kids.