I’m puzzled by the limited opposition from businesses regarding government attempts to access encrypted communications. Granting governments easy access—which inevitably leads to uncontrolled monitoring—compromises a company’s most valuable asset: its privacy. This would effectively hand over the keys to their operations, exposing them to security breaches, stifling growth potential, limiting access to competitive markets, and ultimately, jeopardizing company ownership. Corrupt officials could exploit this access to manipulate markets, facilitate insider trading, sabotage business plans, and even plant fabricated evidence within company communications and systems, leading to potential takeover and imprisonment of owners.
Before anyone who hasn’t read the actual link reacts to its current title and gets swept up by the single thread that’s dominated the entirety of this submission, it’s an interview.
Alexander Linton of the Session Technology Foundation on building decentralized messaging and why platform-wide content moderation is impractical on encrypted platforms.
Not familiar with him or the platform. But sounds like an interesting exchange.
Make sure that it's impossible for my online actions to be traced to my identity, and then I don't need privacy, because there is no association that needs to be hidden and protected.
I see this distinction mentioned from time to time and it doesn't make sense to me. IMO, your actions not being tracable to your identity is privacy. In this framing, anonymity is part of privacy. You desire anonymity because of the privacy it gives you. Which is not to say that anonymity is always required for privacy though it tends to strengthen it.
Similarly, sometimes people say there's a tradeoff between security and privacy, which doesn't make sense since privacy (confidentiality) is one dimension of information security.
If you still disagree, could you attempt at defining privacy and anonymity and how you can prioritize meaningful anonymity without caring about privacy?
For years, technical people insisted it was the parent’s job to monitor Internet safety. Parents, especially with the advent of social media, hardcore pornography, and every childhood friend having a device, correctly said this was unreasonable and impossible.
Technical people had a chance for two decades to solve this problem on their terms. Instead we collectively decided that anyone articulating this point of view must be a morally panicked maniac, and that this is a problem with “no reasonable solutions” that we would tolerate. Now we don’t get to dictate the terms, because everyone has had enough, and nobody has patience left for kids watching BDSM on their friend’s phones at 12.
Because of our industry’s refusal to take those concerns seriously, we lost our voice, we lost the grounds of sounding reasonable, and the floodgates are now open - for everything. Nobody is listening anymore to our point of view and arguably correctly so.
Why does a 12 year old have a smartphone that's connected to the internet?
When I was 12 our computer was in the living room and shared by everyone. It could access porn but you had to wait till you were the only one in the home.
There's a pretty simple solution here if you don't already see it and I'm not sure why it isn't more acceptable. It solves all the problems you mention. You don't want kids being sucked into social media? Sucked into porn? Constantly staring at their screens?
Have you ever considered not giving your kids smartphones?
Or have you decided the benefits are worth the costs?
Let's be honest here, even with strong government intervention this is always a cat and mouse game. The play of "no smartphone" is going to be far stronger than anything the government can ever do. Why is this not an option?
“No smartphone” is a boundary, and U.S. parents are often raised not to set boundaries under threat of mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse. So it makes perfect sense that we have now-parents completely unable to define and discuss boundaries with their children. Far better to capitulate in the face of an uncertain and not life-threatening risk than to allow their child to ever think that boundaries are healthy, etc. For the unfamiliar, here is a good starting point for understanding the generational cognitive dissonance in play: https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/contradicto...
Even the most Laissez-faire of parenting has boundaries; no reasonable adult is allowing their teenager to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway. The problem is that smartphone access isn't seen in the same category of danger that recreational opiates and unlicensed driving are in.
> “Reasonable” is a lynchpin bearing an awful lot of load here.
No it's not. I could imagine sentences where it would be, but not this sentence. Here, watch me replace the word:
"99% of adults are not allowing their teenager to to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway."
Even if most people aren't ""reasonable"", they are whatever adjective that sentence describes.
“Over half of U.S. adults surveyed said that it’s very inappropriate, somewhat appropriate, or were uncertain whether it’s appropriate for their child to set boundaries for their interactions” is a reasonable-sounding statement, too; it’s plausible, applies to children of all ages (below or beyond age 25!), and is demonstrably an aspect of culture represented by media and other ephemera.
The position itself is, of course, completely unreasonable — boundaries are never inappropriate to consider (and to contrast with the parent’s boundaries about immediate versus deferred conversations in unsafe circumstances, the child’s age and cognitive ability to assess risk, and so on), no matter how uncomfortable it is to teach a child about boundaries by honoring one they’ve presented one! — but that intolerance is presented in such a reasonable guise, with a tone of majority support to quash any brief qualms, that it causes many to overlook its true nature.
It's a pretty generalized phenomena too. Few people actually think about the assumptions their arguments rely upon. It makes actual discussions difficult to have and leads to more arguing than problem solving
It's starting to change in places, including in the US.
The reality is it's not the smartphone, but the slot machine type software running on it.
There's more than enough science that placing this kind of content in front of humans before their prefrontal cortex is fully formed at age 25-26 leads them to leaning on the pre-frontal context of the adults around them, and missing that, whatever they're spending the most time with that's then possibly raising them.
Screens at lower resolutions and quality didn't seem to be as much of an issue compared to the hyper saturated motion with sound effects that are consciously chosen to keep eyeballs.
Like anything, digital can be used for good, or bad, and in lieu of good, the other can to happen and become more of a default.
I agree but it is much harder to stop people from building slot machines than to stop children from using them. Even easier than telling people to stop using them.
And hey, maybe if we actually take some autonomy and remove that market from actors who don't want to build the things the market is requesting then they'll actually build the things the market is requesting... it's easy to say we want something but no one listens when we still buy the thing we say we hate. Maybe it's addiction but it's still hard to fight against. (Though we could still do better by accommodating those who are trying to break the network effects. You can complain how hard it is to get off Facebook but if you're not going to make the minuscule extra effort to accommodate those who do leave then how can you expect the ground to be laid for you to?)
At the end of the day though, with kids, the OP's argument fails because it either assumes smartphones are an inevitability or that the benefits outweigh the costs. It's a bad argument.
I remain sympathetic to parents who don't know where to start in terms of understanding technology and computers. It is a big topic. But I am entirely unsympathetic to parents who throw up their hands and make no effort.
At this point, any parent saying, "I just don't understand technology," or, "I just don't have the time to mind my childrens' computer use or monitor their Internet access," is morally equivalent to saying, "I just don't understand traffic safety," and, "I just don't have the time to teach my children the rules of the road or how to cross the street," while living in a big, bustling city.
It is lazy, entitled, and negligent. The world is full of networked computers and, barring some new massive Carrington event, is never going back to the way it was before.
Many parents think their kids are safe when they are inside the home, without realizing they are letting in the entire world, including things worse than they ever imagined into their homes, through the devices.
In the past, the general disconnection of the world and information had a natural insulation factor. Probably less so today.
Rather than admonish adults, it's actually quite common that many people in many professions don't know how to purchase, or implement software in their day to day work, let alone at home.
Maybe, this is is an aspect of digital literacy that has been lacking - we know that the consumer habit loop that smartphones go after is not always about digital health, or the user's digital literacy, it's about capturing their attention.
Parents actually seem to want the same kind of quality curation not just with the internet, but all areas of their children's lives.
The free for all they may have grown up with 20-40 years ago is simply not the same any more online, or offline.
In that way, even trying to make an effort sometimes isn't enough I'd say. Ignorance is one thing, but maybe it could seem like negligence to others.
Would there be some possible solutions or approaches you or others could offer here to help parents build the skills that lead to not giving up? Sincerely curious where folks see the starting point of these skills.
>Ignorance is one thing, but maybe it could seem like negligence to others.
In person I've found the difference to be usually very clear. It's why I distinguish between the sympathic attitude of "I don't know where to start" and the contemptible reaction that "therefore I will act as if nothing is wrong, or write it off as someone else's fault."
>Would there be some possible solutions or approaches you or others could offer here to help parents build the skills that lead to not giving up? Sincerely curious where folks see the starting point of these skills.
It's a hard problem. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and almost as much time talking to relatives with children. I have come to no happy, easy answers.
Carey Parker's Firewalls Don't Stop Dragons is a good starting point to Security and Privacy, but not really how computers work. There are various books I remember from childhood about how computers work, but I don't really remember the process of coming to understand computers distinctly because it was both early and continuous over a long period.
I think the best we'll do as a species is one-to-three computer people per extended family. And I think the key will be teaching those people how to be of service to their families. But there's not really an existing framework for a "computer court wizard" in each family nor for what maxims and/or proscriptions such a person might teach computer illiterate family members in order to use computers safely and protect the family's children from the worst of dark algorithms, surveillance, and abuse/predators online.
TV channels used to get managed. Magazines used to get managed.
There is a lot more volume now, obviously.
Tools like Circle can provide some level of family level DNS which can help.
Something that stands out is also helping parents get a handle on their own consumption and habits to be able to better teach kids on what to look out for.
The conceptual frontier of a world of networked computers is uncharted, and we are in the well along into that dark frontier now. I don't think TV or magazines are a good point of comparison, nor anything from the analog world of yesterday.
Analog mass media couldn't dynamically adapt itself to individual viewer proclivities in order to attract attention. Parents can understand that children shouldn't watch TV at night because society has agreed to constrain more mature programming to when children are mostly asleep. We can understand not to leave a Playboy magazine lying around in reach of children or, better, not to have such things in a family home at all. But digital media defies more than convention... It defies all points of reference a human computer-layperson might have in the analog world that could help to understand it fully.
Try to explain to someone on the street the sorts of things that are and are not possible with computers and networks, and why various things fall into one or the other category. Watch their eyes glaze over. Absent points of reference and useful context it's almost anticomprehensible.
>Something that stands out is also helping parents get a handle on their own consumption and habits to be able to better teach kids on what to look out for.
Strongly agree. I've always shied away from algorithmically managed feeds and dark patterns. It felt instinctual to me but I think those instincts were born from coming to understand computers at a young age. Humanity at large has basically zero instincts for the digital world... Yet. Square one may be feeling the difference when you cut slopfeed content and targeted advertising out of your life. Square two may be new, computer-age fables to cultivate those instincts among those who aren't (and largely won't ever be) deeply computer literate. The sort of parables every single American grew up deciphering in McGuffey readers, once upon a time, but concerning things like, "a person can pretend to be anyone online, and that can cause trouble," or, "the boy who gave away his secrets could never get them back."
This frames the issue in a fundamentally incorrect way.
Since the dawn of pseudoanonymous communication, politicians have been trying to get their nasty little claws into it. See Clipper Chip in the 90's. They've tried many avenues to deanonymize and centralize. Going after the parents is just their latest - they've discovered they could use convincing language like this to trick a bunch of people who previously had no reason to care about The Internet to now suddenly "realize" oh gosh it's scary out there, what can we do to help.
Unfortunately their latest tactic is working. They figured out how to recruit a (possibly) well-intentioned bloc into supporting efforts that undermine privacy in an irreversible way.
> Because of our industry’s refusal to take those concerns seriously, we lost our voice,
Fighting against demands to censor, unmask, and neuter the closest thing we've got to a global platform of freedom is a valiant effort. Not entertaining these bureaucrats isn't some moral failing of our industry, in the same sense that ignoring a persistent busker on the street entitles him to your money after some uninvolved observer has arbitrarily decided he's made the same demand enough that somehow it's starting to make sense because the victim hasn't yelled at him with a good enough argument against it.
In other words: yep, still the parents' job, yep, internet was still there when I grew up, yep, I turned out fine, yep, politicians have been trying to take away our privacy for 30 years (and unfortunately, they're finding more creative and convincing ways to disguise it). Hint: it's never about the kids
Well yes it is. It is about both the cover problem (child safety), and the ulterior motive (surveillance, control).
And not taking the reasonably concerning cover problem seriously, by finding sensible solutions, both leaves it festering unsolved in its own right, and growing in usefulness as a cover problem.
When people are operating at two levels, you can't leave either unaddressed.
That plays into the hands of those using subterfuge.
The power grab is riding on reasonable concerns about children. So its worth improving safety for children for two reasons: (1) reducing parents reasonable concerns and making parenting in the modern age a bit easier, and to (2) take that issue off the table (or meaningfully reduce the leverage it supplies), for the power grabbers.
Ironically, the fact that the underhanded motives lie beneath a reasonable concern, makes solving the reasonable concern in a healthy way even more critical.
The reality is those parents have tried nothing and are all out of ideas, or, in the vast majority of cases, simply don't care.
This is not at all about children by the way, because all millenials have grown while consuming porn and social media, and haven't turned into degenerates. It is 100% an excuse to spy on citizens, and nothing else.
If it's simple to begin with doing this, or things to try specifically that can build any parents skills and competencies in this area, mind sharing that?
While we’re posting honest opinions that run against the consensus on this site:
In my view, freedom of speech is a natural right that no government can take away. But no such guarantee exists that you can do so anonymously.
Now before you immediately flame me to death, please read a bit further:
We already have a hodgepodge of laws in basically every jurisdiction around logging IP addresses, cooperating with law enforcement when there’s a warrant, being able to track down who is (say) organizing violence, posting csam, etc. Like it or not, the government is entitled to search and seizure if there is a warrant signed by a judge to do so, and if you run an online service where can people can post things publicly, you better damn well keep logs of who’s posting things and you better cooperate if a law enforcement officer with a warrant asks you to.
So what I propose is that we streamline all of this. At age 16 you get a digital ID that works something like a FIDO chip that can be used to prove your identity to a government authentication server. Sub in/out whatever tech you want, it can be a passkey (blech), something resembling a yubikey, etc. You get them at your local post office, where you can actually prove your identity in person. There’s post offices everywhere, and they’re already meant to serve everyone in the country.
But critically, this key isn’t used to auth to any sites except a government-run signin service. The service itself would be a modified form of OAuth/OIDC that preserves privacy from the site you’re making an account on. They don’t know who you are, they just get a signed payload from the government signin site saying “this is a user over the age of 16”, and via a pre-established relationship between the website in question and the government auth site, a UUID is minted for that legal person. It will be the same UUID for that website for the same person, so you can’t just pretend you’re multiple people when you create multiple accounts.
With this system, and using Reddit as an example site that may leverage this:
- Reddit can’t know who you actually are, they only get a UUID and a signed payload indicating you’re over 16 (or whatever other set of properties are legally salient for the account.) In the event of a breach, all you’d get is a list of Reddit-specific UUID’s. You’d have to also hack the government auth service to know who these people actually are.
- The government doesn’t know who owns your username on Reddit, they only know the list of citizens that have Reddit accounts at all.
- In the event of a crime with a warrant, the government can compel Reddit to inform them which UUID corresponds to some account. Reddit continues to not know who the account belongs to.
- Every site using this system gets a completely different UUID for the same legal person and has no ability to correlate them
- Every legal person using this system has no idea what their UUID is for any site
- Every site using this doesn’t have to worry at all about proving identity. They get working auth for every legal person in $country, streamlining signups and onboarding, and doesn’t have to worry about asking the user to prove they’re over 16.
- You still get pseudo-anonymity in that you can use an alias (as many as the site allows, too), the site can remain blissfully ignorant as to who you really are, as well as everyone who reads your posts, etc.
- The government can find out who owns an account, but only with a warrant. They don’t have a list of account/UUID mappings anywhere.
This system is probably the most closely aligned to how I would do things if I was somehow “in charge”… you have a right to pseudo-anonymity, but you don’t have a right to cover your tracks so thoroughly that the government can’t track you down with a proper warrant.
With such a system, saying “social media is for ages 16 and up” is a simple checkbox in the signup flow. Done.
You can argue all day about whether a government should be able to uncloak your accounts with a warrant, but to me that question is already settled: yes, they absolutely can do that, they do so today all the time. Except today we have messy data breaches where everyone’s identity gets leaked because every site has to reinvent their own form of proving your legal identity (in the case of Facebook/etc) or simply proving you’re a certain age (uploading ID, etc.). I’d take a centralized government-run approach to what we have today any day.
You could ask “but should government be in the business of electronic authentication and identity?” And my answer is: “YES.” It’s basically the primary function of a working government! We trust them to issue passports for chrissake. To me this is basic table stakes in the 21st century. If we did government all over again, having the government provide a service to prove online identity is basically right up there with “collects tax revenue.”
Now, in the current government up to the challenge of doing this, and not fucking it up? Yeeesh, probably not. You got me there. But one can dream…
> Now, in the current government up to the challenge of doing this, and not fucking it up? Yeeesh, probably not. You got me there. But one can dream…
The question should be about whether any future government would be up to the challenge of not fucking it up, as the system would stay in place and only grow in size. That's why privacy-invading infrastructure like this should be kept to a minimum.
Treating users like adults and allowing them full control over setting system capability and app launch restrictions on devices (and even implementing fully optional, widely blocking restrictions as "parental safety options") was the industry taking it seriously. You considering the freedom of choice to the user as disastrous and the lack of heavily restricted lockdowns by default as "refusal to take concerns seriously" is just a reflection on your attitudes about other people, not any real argument for improving privacy or safety. You ARE a morally panicked maniac if your only grossly offensive things you want to keep pretending are horrifying examples have absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of privacy of children and more to do with puritanical outrage on children accessing adult material.
> implementing fully optional, widely blocking restrictions as "parental safety options") was the industry taking it seriously
The myriad of settings, accessed differently on every site or service, that everyone needs to be aware of, and actively fight dysfunctional defaults and frequent "helpful" resets after updates, are not the solution parents or anyone else are looking for.
Why are the defaults set to favor the company, in a way that makes them real customer/user-targeted security holes that people have to play endless wack-a-mole to secure themselves?
That is industry taking plausible deniability and the monetizing potential of parasitical behavior at scale "seriously" indeed.
> Parents, especially with the advent of social media, hardcore pornography, and every childhood friend having a device, correctly said this was unreasonable and impossible.
It is neither unreasonable or impossible. No need to hand the kids a device that can access the open internet. If parents do, restrict or deny gadget time. Stick to a Nintendo or console.
Learned helplessness and codependency on internet is part of the sales pitch of big tech, salesmen in general. They push self doubt and sell their solution.
Fill the time showing kids how to rotate tires and change oil. Show them how to make pizza crust.
Learned helplessness is a feature of capitalism. Not immutable feature of physical existence.
It's still moralist pearl-clutching in service of totalitarian horseshit no matter how you'd like to justify it.
I don't even think you're strictly 100% incorrect here. That said, I refuse to entertain the "think of the children" horseshit when parents happily park their kid in front of an iPad for hours a day because it shuts them up, not with kink content they shouldn't see, but with AI/algorithmically generated garbage, or for that matter, human generated garbage, that rots their brains far more than any gimp costume ever could.
For fucks sake, 12 kids in America die PER DAY due to mass shootings, and we can't even pass common sense gun regulations that the vast majority of gun owners are completely fine with. We don't give a fuck about our kids here. This has from jump, and continues to be, astro-turfed puritan whining not merely to pornography of whatever preferred kind of the moment, but to the existence of queer people as a whole.
It IS parents' fucking responsibility, and maybe that is an onerous burden, but instead of even attempting to meet it, the majority of parents have abdicated it. And it isn't porn fucking their kids up, it's non-stop screen exposure leaving them with no attention span and no ability to simply BE BORED.
There is probably nothing that is safe for a toddler to have displayed on a screen 6 inches from their face for an hour+ a day, either for their physical or mental development. Adults suffer as well, but at least by their own agency.
Also to point out, if a 10 year old walks in to the street and is hit by a car, their parent gets charged now (in some US jurisdictions.) The idea that the adult is not responsible for the child does not correspond with US law. Maybe it's different in Europe.
A secondary issue is tech companies on-boarding children to having public social media profiles (and their parents posting the child's entire lives on their own) -- which is completely asinine and appalling. That bridge was breached years ago and somehow no one complained loud enough. Certainly a mistake.
I guess, but there's a philosophy that goes something along the lines of: Government is not the answer to every problem. It's a very divisive issue, clearly. Technical people were never going to solve the problem of kids having access to adult materials online because tech people are only interested in making gobs of money, not in dealing with delicate social issues. Government isn't going to fix anything, either, mind you, because the moment the crackdowns begin, the technologists will walk right in with a solution. Maybe we'll finally have the distributed, peer-to-peer network we always thought we were getting but instead got centrally controlled nodes featuring mass surveillance.
I stopped worrying about it as a parent. My kids want to look at porn? Let them. If they want to see horrible, violent shit that gives them nightmares and they can't un-see it, let them. They'll either figure it out or they will be lifetime children looking for big daddy government to solve all their stupid problems for them and society will collapse.
I don't know whats more damaging - watching some beheading video when 12 or having controlling parents that do not leave you any autonomy even in the digital space.
Personally i prefer the beheading video as its not far from whats already on TV.
I’m puzzled by the limited opposition from businesses regarding government attempts to access encrypted communications. Granting governments easy access—which inevitably leads to uncontrolled monitoring—compromises a company’s most valuable asset: its privacy. This would effectively hand over the keys to their operations, exposing them to security breaches, stifling growth potential, limiting access to competitive markets, and ultimately, jeopardizing company ownership. Corrupt officials could exploit this access to manipulate markets, facilitate insider trading, sabotage business plans, and even plant fabricated evidence within company communications and systems, leading to potential takeover and imprisonment of owners.
Before anyone who hasn’t read the actual link reacts to its current title and gets swept up by the single thread that’s dominated the entirety of this submission, it’s an interview.
Alexander Linton of the Session Technology Foundation on building decentralized messaging and why platform-wide content moderation is impractical on encrypted platforms.
Not familiar with him or the platform. But sounds like an interesting exchange.
Today's FTFY: s/Privacy/Anonymity/
Make sure that it's impossible for my online actions to be traced to my identity, and then I don't need privacy, because there is no association that needs to be hidden and protected.
I see this distinction mentioned from time to time and it doesn't make sense to me. IMO, your actions not being tracable to your identity is privacy. In this framing, anonymity is part of privacy. You desire anonymity because of the privacy it gives you. Which is not to say that anonymity is always required for privacy though it tends to strengthen it.
Similarly, sometimes people say there's a tradeoff between security and privacy, which doesn't make sense since privacy (confidentiality) is one dimension of information security.
If you still disagree, could you attempt at defining privacy and anonymity and how you can prioritize meaningful anonymity without caring about privacy?
Let me be blunt with what I think happened here.
For years, technical people insisted it was the parent’s job to monitor Internet safety. Parents, especially with the advent of social media, hardcore pornography, and every childhood friend having a device, correctly said this was unreasonable and impossible.
Technical people had a chance for two decades to solve this problem on their terms. Instead we collectively decided that anyone articulating this point of view must be a morally panicked maniac, and that this is a problem with “no reasonable solutions” that we would tolerate. Now we don’t get to dictate the terms, because everyone has had enough, and nobody has patience left for kids watching BDSM on their friend’s phones at 12.
Because of our industry’s refusal to take those concerns seriously, we lost our voice, we lost the grounds of sounding reasonable, and the floodgates are now open - for everything. Nobody is listening anymore to our point of view and arguably correctly so.
When I was 12 our computer was in the living room and shared by everyone. It could access porn but you had to wait till you were the only one in the home.
There's a pretty simple solution here if you don't already see it and I'm not sure why it isn't more acceptable. It solves all the problems you mention. You don't want kids being sucked into social media? Sucked into porn? Constantly staring at their screens?
Have you ever considered not giving your kids smartphones?
Or have you decided the benefits are worth the costs?
Let's be honest here, even with strong government intervention this is always a cat and mouse game. The play of "no smartphone" is going to be far stronger than anything the government can ever do. Why is this not an option?
“No smartphone” is a boundary, and U.S. parents are often raised not to set boundaries under threat of mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse. So it makes perfect sense that we have now-parents completely unable to define and discuss boundaries with their children. Far better to capitulate in the face of an uncertain and not life-threatening risk than to allow their child to ever think that boundaries are healthy, etc. For the unfamiliar, here is a good starting point for understanding the generational cognitive dissonance in play: https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/contradicto...
Even the most Laissez-faire of parenting has boundaries; no reasonable adult is allowing their teenager to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway. The problem is that smartphone access isn't seen in the same category of danger that recreational opiates and unlicensed driving are in.
“Reasonable” is a lynchpin bearing an awful lot of load here. Most people unfortunately aren’t very reasonable.
> “Reasonable” is a lynchpin bearing an awful lot of load here.
No it's not. I could imagine sentences where it would be, but not this sentence. Here, watch me replace the word:
"99% of adults are not allowing their teenager to to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway."
Even if most people aren't ""reasonable"", they are whatever adjective that sentence describes.
“Over half of U.S. adults surveyed said that it’s very inappropriate, somewhat appropriate, or were uncertain whether it’s appropriate for their child to set boundaries for their interactions” is a reasonable-sounding statement, too; it’s plausible, applies to children of all ages (below or beyond age 25!), and is demonstrably an aspect of culture represented by media and other ephemera.
The position itself is, of course, completely unreasonable — boundaries are never inappropriate to consider (and to contrast with the parent’s boundaries about immediate versus deferred conversations in unsafe circumstances, the child’s age and cognitive ability to assess risk, and so on), no matter how uncomfortable it is to teach a child about boundaries by honoring one they’ve presented one! — but that intolerance is presented in such a reasonable guise, with a tone of majority support to quash any brief qualms, that it causes many to overlook its true nature.
See also “pleasant”, as in “Pleasantville”.
It's a pretty generalized phenomena too. Few people actually think about the assumptions their arguments rely upon. It makes actual discussions difficult to have and leads to more arguing than problem solving
I'm sure you've got some hard data about the crazy amount of parents knowingly letting little Timmy develop an addiction to street drugs
It's starting to change in places, including in the US.
The reality is it's not the smartphone, but the slot machine type software running on it.
There's more than enough science that placing this kind of content in front of humans before their prefrontal cortex is fully formed at age 25-26 leads them to leaning on the pre-frontal context of the adults around them, and missing that, whatever they're spending the most time with that's then possibly raising them.
Screens at lower resolutions and quality didn't seem to be as much of an issue compared to the hyper saturated motion with sound effects that are consciously chosen to keep eyeballs.
Like anything, digital can be used for good, or bad, and in lieu of good, the other can to happen and become more of a default.
I agree but it is much harder to stop people from building slot machines than to stop children from using them. Even easier than telling people to stop using them.
And hey, maybe if we actually take some autonomy and remove that market from actors who don't want to build the things the market is requesting then they'll actually build the things the market is requesting... it's easy to say we want something but no one listens when we still buy the thing we say we hate. Maybe it's addiction but it's still hard to fight against. (Though we could still do better by accommodating those who are trying to break the network effects. You can complain how hard it is to get off Facebook but if you're not going to make the minuscule extra effort to accommodate those who do leave then how can you expect the ground to be laid for you to?)
At the end of the day though, with kids, the OP's argument fails because it either assumes smartphones are an inevitability or that the benefits outweigh the costs. It's a bad argument.
I remain sympathetic to parents who don't know where to start in terms of understanding technology and computers. It is a big topic. But I am entirely unsympathetic to parents who throw up their hands and make no effort.
At this point, any parent saying, "I just don't understand technology," or, "I just don't have the time to mind my childrens' computer use or monitor their Internet access," is morally equivalent to saying, "I just don't understand traffic safety," and, "I just don't have the time to teach my children the rules of the road or how to cross the street," while living in a big, bustling city.
It is lazy, entitled, and negligent. The world is full of networked computers and, barring some new massive Carrington event, is never going back to the way it was before.
Many parents think their kids are safe when they are inside the home, without realizing they are letting in the entire world, including things worse than they ever imagined into their homes, through the devices.
In the past, the general disconnection of the world and information had a natural insulation factor. Probably less so today.
Rather than admonish adults, it's actually quite common that many people in many professions don't know how to purchase, or implement software in their day to day work, let alone at home.
Maybe, this is is an aspect of digital literacy that has been lacking - we know that the consumer habit loop that smartphones go after is not always about digital health, or the user's digital literacy, it's about capturing their attention.
Parents actually seem to want the same kind of quality curation not just with the internet, but all areas of their children's lives.
The free for all they may have grown up with 20-40 years ago is simply not the same any more online, or offline.
In that way, even trying to make an effort sometimes isn't enough I'd say. Ignorance is one thing, but maybe it could seem like negligence to others.
Would there be some possible solutions or approaches you or others could offer here to help parents build the skills that lead to not giving up? Sincerely curious where folks see the starting point of these skills.
>Ignorance is one thing, but maybe it could seem like negligence to others.
In person I've found the difference to be usually very clear. It's why I distinguish between the sympathic attitude of "I don't know where to start" and the contemptible reaction that "therefore I will act as if nothing is wrong, or write it off as someone else's fault."
>Would there be some possible solutions or approaches you or others could offer here to help parents build the skills that lead to not giving up? Sincerely curious where folks see the starting point of these skills.
It's a hard problem. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and almost as much time talking to relatives with children. I have come to no happy, easy answers.
Carey Parker's Firewalls Don't Stop Dragons is a good starting point to Security and Privacy, but not really how computers work. There are various books I remember from childhood about how computers work, but I don't really remember the process of coming to understand computers distinctly because it was both early and continuous over a long period.
I think the best we'll do as a species is one-to-three computer people per extended family. And I think the key will be teaching those people how to be of service to their families. But there's not really an existing framework for a "computer court wizard" in each family nor for what maxims and/or proscriptions such a person might teach computer illiterate family members in order to use computers safely and protect the family's children from the worst of dark algorithms, surveillance, and abuse/predators online.
It's completely uncharted territory.
Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
I'm not sure its entirely uncharted territory.
TV channels used to get managed. Magazines used to get managed.
There is a lot more volume now, obviously.
Tools like Circle can provide some level of family level DNS which can help.
Something that stands out is also helping parents get a handle on their own consumption and habits to be able to better teach kids on what to look out for.
The conceptual frontier of a world of networked computers is uncharted, and we are in the well along into that dark frontier now. I don't think TV or magazines are a good point of comparison, nor anything from the analog world of yesterday.
Analog mass media couldn't dynamically adapt itself to individual viewer proclivities in order to attract attention. Parents can understand that children shouldn't watch TV at night because society has agreed to constrain more mature programming to when children are mostly asleep. We can understand not to leave a Playboy magazine lying around in reach of children or, better, not to have such things in a family home at all. But digital media defies more than convention... It defies all points of reference a human computer-layperson might have in the analog world that could help to understand it fully.
Try to explain to someone on the street the sorts of things that are and are not possible with computers and networks, and why various things fall into one or the other category. Watch their eyes glaze over. Absent points of reference and useful context it's almost anticomprehensible.
>Something that stands out is also helping parents get a handle on their own consumption and habits to be able to better teach kids on what to look out for.
Strongly agree. I've always shied away from algorithmically managed feeds and dark patterns. It felt instinctual to me but I think those instincts were born from coming to understand computers at a young age. Humanity at large has basically zero instincts for the digital world... Yet. Square one may be feeling the difference when you cut slopfeed content and targeted advertising out of your life. Square two may be new, computer-age fables to cultivate those instincts among those who aren't (and largely won't ever be) deeply computer literate. The sort of parables every single American grew up deciphering in McGuffey readers, once upon a time, but concerning things like, "a person can pretend to be anyone online, and that can cause trouble," or, "the boy who gave away his secrets could never get them back."
This frames the issue in a fundamentally incorrect way.
Since the dawn of pseudoanonymous communication, politicians have been trying to get their nasty little claws into it. See Clipper Chip in the 90's. They've tried many avenues to deanonymize and centralize. Going after the parents is just their latest - they've discovered they could use convincing language like this to trick a bunch of people who previously had no reason to care about The Internet to now suddenly "realize" oh gosh it's scary out there, what can we do to help.
Unfortunately their latest tactic is working. They figured out how to recruit a (possibly) well-intentioned bloc into supporting efforts that undermine privacy in an irreversible way.
> Because of our industry’s refusal to take those concerns seriously, we lost our voice,
Fighting against demands to censor, unmask, and neuter the closest thing we've got to a global platform of freedom is a valiant effort. Not entertaining these bureaucrats isn't some moral failing of our industry, in the same sense that ignoring a persistent busker on the street entitles him to your money after some uninvolved observer has arbitrarily decided he's made the same demand enough that somehow it's starting to make sense because the victim hasn't yelled at him with a good enough argument against it.
In other words: yep, still the parents' job, yep, internet was still there when I grew up, yep, I turned out fine, yep, politicians have been trying to take away our privacy for 30 years (and unfortunately, they're finding more creative and convincing ways to disguise it). Hint: it's never about the kids
> Hint: it's never about the kids
Well yes it is. It is about both the cover problem (child safety), and the ulterior motive (surveillance, control).
And not taking the reasonably concerning cover problem seriously, by finding sensible solutions, both leaves it festering unsolved in its own right, and growing in usefulness as a cover problem.
"because everyone has had enough, and nobody has patience left for kids watching BDSM on their friend’s phones at 12."
Is that the reason? I really don't think so.
I just think it's a power grab by the participants in government and tech companies.
When people are operating at two levels, you can't leave either unaddressed.
That plays into the hands of those using subterfuge.
The power grab is riding on reasonable concerns about children. So its worth improving safety for children for two reasons: (1) reducing parents reasonable concerns and making parenting in the modern age a bit easier, and to (2) take that issue off the table (or meaningfully reduce the leverage it supplies), for the power grabbers.
Ironically, the fact that the underhanded motives lie beneath a reasonable concern, makes solving the reasonable concern in a healthy way even more critical.
Is it a reasonable concern?
Parents are supposed to raise their children.
The reality is those parents have tried nothing and are all out of ideas, or, in the vast majority of cases, simply don't care.
This is not at all about children by the way, because all millenials have grown while consuming porn and social media, and haven't turned into degenerates. It is 100% an excuse to spy on citizens, and nothing else.
I don't think it has much to do with caring.
If it's simple to begin with doing this, or things to try specifically that can build any parents skills and competencies in this area, mind sharing that?
BDSM at twelve!?! Thats nothing compared to what we grew up with… just make it really really slow to download, being back the old internet!
While we’re posting honest opinions that run against the consensus on this site:
In my view, freedom of speech is a natural right that no government can take away. But no such guarantee exists that you can do so anonymously.
Now before you immediately flame me to death, please read a bit further:
We already have a hodgepodge of laws in basically every jurisdiction around logging IP addresses, cooperating with law enforcement when there’s a warrant, being able to track down who is (say) organizing violence, posting csam, etc. Like it or not, the government is entitled to search and seizure if there is a warrant signed by a judge to do so, and if you run an online service where can people can post things publicly, you better damn well keep logs of who’s posting things and you better cooperate if a law enforcement officer with a warrant asks you to.
So what I propose is that we streamline all of this. At age 16 you get a digital ID that works something like a FIDO chip that can be used to prove your identity to a government authentication server. Sub in/out whatever tech you want, it can be a passkey (blech), something resembling a yubikey, etc. You get them at your local post office, where you can actually prove your identity in person. There’s post offices everywhere, and they’re already meant to serve everyone in the country.
But critically, this key isn’t used to auth to any sites except a government-run signin service. The service itself would be a modified form of OAuth/OIDC that preserves privacy from the site you’re making an account on. They don’t know who you are, they just get a signed payload from the government signin site saying “this is a user over the age of 16”, and via a pre-established relationship between the website in question and the government auth site, a UUID is minted for that legal person. It will be the same UUID for that website for the same person, so you can’t just pretend you’re multiple people when you create multiple accounts.
With this system, and using Reddit as an example site that may leverage this:
- Reddit can’t know who you actually are, they only get a UUID and a signed payload indicating you’re over 16 (or whatever other set of properties are legally salient for the account.) In the event of a breach, all you’d get is a list of Reddit-specific UUID’s. You’d have to also hack the government auth service to know who these people actually are.
- The government doesn’t know who owns your username on Reddit, they only know the list of citizens that have Reddit accounts at all.
- In the event of a crime with a warrant, the government can compel Reddit to inform them which UUID corresponds to some account. Reddit continues to not know who the account belongs to.
- Every site using this system gets a completely different UUID for the same legal person and has no ability to correlate them
- Every legal person using this system has no idea what their UUID is for any site
- Every site using this doesn’t have to worry at all about proving identity. They get working auth for every legal person in $country, streamlining signups and onboarding, and doesn’t have to worry about asking the user to prove they’re over 16.
- You still get pseudo-anonymity in that you can use an alias (as many as the site allows, too), the site can remain blissfully ignorant as to who you really are, as well as everyone who reads your posts, etc.
- The government can find out who owns an account, but only with a warrant. They don’t have a list of account/UUID mappings anywhere.
This system is probably the most closely aligned to how I would do things if I was somehow “in charge”… you have a right to pseudo-anonymity, but you don’t have a right to cover your tracks so thoroughly that the government can’t track you down with a proper warrant.
With such a system, saying “social media is for ages 16 and up” is a simple checkbox in the signup flow. Done.
You can argue all day about whether a government should be able to uncloak your accounts with a warrant, but to me that question is already settled: yes, they absolutely can do that, they do so today all the time. Except today we have messy data breaches where everyone’s identity gets leaked because every site has to reinvent their own form of proving your legal identity (in the case of Facebook/etc) or simply proving you’re a certain age (uploading ID, etc.). I’d take a centralized government-run approach to what we have today any day.
You could ask “but should government be in the business of electronic authentication and identity?” And my answer is: “YES.” It’s basically the primary function of a working government! We trust them to issue passports for chrissake. To me this is basic table stakes in the 21st century. If we did government all over again, having the government provide a service to prove online identity is basically right up there with “collects tax revenue.”
Now, in the current government up to the challenge of doing this, and not fucking it up? Yeeesh, probably not. You got me there. But one can dream…
> Now, in the current government up to the challenge of doing this, and not fucking it up? Yeeesh, probably not. You got me there. But one can dream…
The question should be about whether any future government would be up to the challenge of not fucking it up, as the system would stay in place and only grow in size. That's why privacy-invading infrastructure like this should be kept to a minimum.
Treating users like adults and allowing them full control over setting system capability and app launch restrictions on devices (and even implementing fully optional, widely blocking restrictions as "parental safety options") was the industry taking it seriously. You considering the freedom of choice to the user as disastrous and the lack of heavily restricted lockdowns by default as "refusal to take concerns seriously" is just a reflection on your attitudes about other people, not any real argument for improving privacy or safety. You ARE a morally panicked maniac if your only grossly offensive things you want to keep pretending are horrifying examples have absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of privacy of children and more to do with puritanical outrage on children accessing adult material.
> implementing fully optional, widely blocking restrictions as "parental safety options") was the industry taking it seriously
The myriad of settings, accessed differently on every site or service, that everyone needs to be aware of, and actively fight dysfunctional defaults and frequent "helpful" resets after updates, are not the solution parents or anyone else are looking for.
Why are the defaults set to favor the company, in a way that makes them real customer/user-targeted security holes that people have to play endless wack-a-mole to secure themselves?
That is industry taking plausible deniability and the monetizing potential of parasitical behavior at scale "seriously" indeed.
Except parents not being trained to really use it unless they look for it specifically.
> Parents, especially with the advent of social media, hardcore pornography, and every childhood friend having a device, correctly said this was unreasonable and impossible.
It is neither unreasonable or impossible. No need to hand the kids a device that can access the open internet. If parents do, restrict or deny gadget time. Stick to a Nintendo or console.
Learned helplessness and codependency on internet is part of the sales pitch of big tech, salesmen in general. They push self doubt and sell their solution.
Fill the time showing kids how to rotate tires and change oil. Show them how to make pizza crust.
Learned helplessness is a feature of capitalism. Not immutable feature of physical existence.
It's still moralist pearl-clutching in service of totalitarian horseshit no matter how you'd like to justify it.
I don't even think you're strictly 100% incorrect here. That said, I refuse to entertain the "think of the children" horseshit when parents happily park their kid in front of an iPad for hours a day because it shuts them up, not with kink content they shouldn't see, but with AI/algorithmically generated garbage, or for that matter, human generated garbage, that rots their brains far more than any gimp costume ever could.
For fucks sake, 12 kids in America die PER DAY due to mass shootings, and we can't even pass common sense gun regulations that the vast majority of gun owners are completely fine with. We don't give a fuck about our kids here. This has from jump, and continues to be, astro-turfed puritan whining not merely to pornography of whatever preferred kind of the moment, but to the existence of queer people as a whole.
It IS parents' fucking responsibility, and maybe that is an onerous burden, but instead of even attempting to meet it, the majority of parents have abdicated it. And it isn't porn fucking their kids up, it's non-stop screen exposure leaving them with no attention span and no ability to simply BE BORED.
There is probably nothing that is safe for a toddler to have displayed on a screen 6 inches from their face for an hour+ a day, either for their physical or mental development. Adults suffer as well, but at least by their own agency.
Also to point out, if a 10 year old walks in to the street and is hit by a car, their parent gets charged now (in some US jurisdictions.) The idea that the adult is not responsible for the child does not correspond with US law. Maybe it's different in Europe.
A secondary issue is tech companies on-boarding children to having public social media profiles (and their parents posting the child's entire lives on their own) -- which is completely asinine and appalling. That bridge was breached years ago and somehow no one complained loud enough. Certainly a mistake.
I guess, but there's a philosophy that goes something along the lines of: Government is not the answer to every problem. It's a very divisive issue, clearly. Technical people were never going to solve the problem of kids having access to adult materials online because tech people are only interested in making gobs of money, not in dealing with delicate social issues. Government isn't going to fix anything, either, mind you, because the moment the crackdowns begin, the technologists will walk right in with a solution. Maybe we'll finally have the distributed, peer-to-peer network we always thought we were getting but instead got centrally controlled nodes featuring mass surveillance.
I stopped worrying about it as a parent. My kids want to look at porn? Let them. If they want to see horrible, violent shit that gives them nightmares and they can't un-see it, let them. They'll either figure it out or they will be lifetime children looking for big daddy government to solve all their stupid problems for them and society will collapse.
Do you have kids? Do you give them unfiltered Internet access? Do you have any experience with PTSD caused by viewing the worst output of humanity?
I don't know whats more damaging - watching some beheading video when 12 or having controlling parents that do not leave you any autonomy even in the digital space.
Personally i prefer the beheading video as its not far from whats already on TV.