[horsawlarway]

I don't understand how this is any better.

It's my job as a parent (and I have several kids...) to monitor the things they consume and talk with them about it.

I don't want some blanket ban on content unless it's "age appropriate", because I don't approve that content being banned. (honestly - the idea of "age appropriate" is insulting in the first place)

Fuck man, I can even legally give my kids alcohol - I don't see why it's appropriate to enforce what content I allow them to see.

And I have absolutely all of the same tools you just discussed today. I can lock devices down just fine.

Age verification is a scam to increase corporate/governmental control. Period.

[armchairhacker]

You should be able to choose what's age-appropriate for your kids. Giving them access to e.g. "PG-13" media when they're 9 isn't the problem. Giving mature kids unrestricted access isn't a problem. The problem is culture:

- Many parents don't think about restricting their kids' online exposure at all. And I think a larger issue than NSFW is the amount of time kids are spending: 5 hours according to this survey from 2 years ago https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/teen-social-use-mental-h.... Educating parents may be all that is needed to fix this, since most parents care about their kids and restrict them in other ways like junk food

- Parents that want to restrict their kids struggle with ineffective parental controls: https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare.... Optional parental controls would fix this

[horsawlarway]

> Parents that want to restrict their kids struggle with ineffective parental controls: https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare.... Optional parental controls would fix this

I don't think they will, and this is because there's an inherent conflict of interest from these large tech companies about actually protecting my kids.

To be blunt: They don't give a fuck, they make money. They will pick money over kids EVERY time.

My current answer is that absolutely none of my children are allowed anywhere near these devices. Mandating shitty age verification laws isn't going to somehow make these companies act responsibly... it's just going to drive alternatives that are actually respectful out of business with additional legislative burden, while Google and Apple continue to act irresponsibly and unethically.

Further - it continues to enshrine the idea that parent's aren't responsible for their kids (see your first point)... The parents that are already neglecting this space will point to laws like this and go "look, the government is doing this for me!". Which is exactly wrong, and exactly what these companies want parents to think (again - the alternative, that parents actually engage and realize just how fucking morally bankrupt these bastards are, hurts bottom lines)

If you want change - remove the damn duopoly. Break them up. Force open markets. Force inter-compatibility.

This is not rocket science. This is basic political science we've known about for literally hundreds of years, the only difference is that our government in the US has been fucking useless because of regulatory capture (of which this will worsen) and the perceived national security & economic value of "owning" the tech stack used internationally.

"Security" when used in these contexts has very little to do with protecting you, or me, or our kids. It has a whole lot to do with protecting corporate bottom lines and governmental control.

[sharperguy]

Part of the issue with phones is that they are already controlled by the Google/Apple duopoly, and hence heavily optimized for constant distraction and addiction. These laws only cement that duopoly and provide fewer means to build more friendly platforms.

[SiempreViernes]

> Parents that want to restrict their kids struggle with ineffective parental controls: https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare.... Optional parental controls would fix this

Did you mean "mandatory" parental controls? All current systems are optional and as you describe they are frequently ineffective, so not clear why keeping things like they are would be different.

[aidenn0]

> Fuck man, I can even legally give my kids alcohol - I don't see why it's appropriate to enforce what content I allow them to see.

In the USA it depends on the state. Federal guidelines for alcohol law does suggest exemptions for children drinking under the supervision of their parents, but that's not uniformly adopted. 19 states have no such exceptions, and in many of the remaining 31, restaurants may be banned from allowing alcohol consumption by minors even when their parents are there.

[gmueckl]

You're assuming that this person is in the US. Alcohol is treated far more liberally in other places. For example, in some places it is legal for restaurants to serve alcohol to minors who are accompanied by a parent...

Another thing: I fundamentally disagree with certain age rarings for kids content. Some explicit violence is rated OK for young audiences, but insert a swear word or a some skin and the age rating is bumped up? This rating system is nonhelp at all. I have to review each bit of content anyway before I can be certain.

[dcow]

Your kids can’t buy alcohol though. If you want to unlock your phone and let your kids read smut then more power to you. Age gates do not and never will stop that. But I sure as hell don’t want companies selling porn to 5 yr olds.

[alisadev]

Well they can just ban porn altogether, for everyone, and enforce it with jail time for everyone involved (from its creation to distribution); then most of the problems will be solved.

* it's a bit sarcastic, but tbh it isn't such a bad idea, considering the negative impact that porn has.

[rjmunro]

> I don't want some blanket ban on content unless it's "age appropriate"

I'm currently struggling with FitBit. Since about the start of the year, my kids can no longer sync their watches to their phones. The "solution" is to completely disable all parental controls on their Google accounts.

[IIsi50MHz]

I was going to recommend the Gadgetbridge app, but it seems to have little or no support for Fitbit. I does support hundreds of devices, though. I used it extensively with a Mi Band 3, but have yet to try it with my Garmin.

[rolph]

this seems to be an issue of being able to be a parent, period.

yup we should all be able, to talk to our kids instead of screaming at them.

[jatari]

The law is there to protect children in the case they have absent/neglectful parents. Unfortunately not every child has a parent as aware as you.

[alisadev]

Then why won't they focus on fixing the root of the problem, with educating and healing (psychologically) people before they have children so that there won't be neglected children to protect in the first place?

Having children should be a privilege, not a human right. Especially when the majority of children end up being abused either way (either physically, emotionally or both). It is far more common to have abusive or neglectful parents than it seems.

[dcow]

And to prevent companies from targeting children inappropriately.

[pelotron]

People angrily replying to the top comment on this article are going to be pissed when they find out about this guy.