946
Federal Bill Would Bring OS-Level Age Verification to the Entire U.S. (linuxiac.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
332 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I'll appreciate that it's hard to be a devil's advocate on an argument and provide a nuanced take. But I will say the points made on the Ageless Linux website demonstrate why that's an issue, primarily around how you're teaching kids from their first time on the internet to lie. It really doesn't matter whether this happens through a drivers' license pic or a DOB selector.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Their argument is entirely based on the assumption that the child can change their DOB on the device at any time. That's trivially easy to avoid with a simple admin password requirement. If this was implemented in any competent way (granted, that is a lot to expect of legislators) the DOB would not be able to be changed once the device/user account is setup, or would require an administrator password which obviously shouldn't be given to the child.

    But they turn around and say this is good and how things should work:

    This app lets you chat with people on the internet. If you're a kid: ask an adult before chatting online.

    Yeah, the kid that's willing to change their device settings is definitely going to go check in with Mom before they access something they know they shouldn't be on. That's just an unbelievably bad argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they're likely to recognize it has an "admin setup", or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they're likely the one to figure it out.

    I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.

    "Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn't work!"
    "Okay...sweetie, I'm running late for my shift, what's the problem?"
    "It says I'm...that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-"
    "Did you give it your age?"
    "My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?"
    "Put in...put in 1980 for the year. It's fine. I gotta go. Love you."
    "Really? Okay. ...Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
    slam
    "Huh. What's HotChat...?"

    Versus this: (What the website proposes)

    "Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?"
    "Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?"
    "Well there's this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I can chat with people on the internet. But I should ask first."
    "Let me see. ...Sweetie, this doesn't look like something that's for you. We don't know if the people you're talking to are strangers, or even dangerous people." "Ohhh."
    "I can...I gotta go, but I'll try to find you some apps that will let you chat with kids from school. Okay?"
    "Aw. Okay. I can still play Fortnite though, right?"
    "I...yeah. Fortnite is fine. Don't put anything on there without talking to me, you promise?"
    "I promise."

    The site even backs this up: That open communication about dangers, rather than hard, automatic restrictions tends to lead to healthier upbringing from kids. Setting up fully automated barriers just leads to creative workarounds, since ultimately, adults and businesses will demand convenience - and kids will find ways to get access to it too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    So scenario one has a parent who is paying no attention to their child's questions, but in scenario 2 they're suddenly attentive and totally in tune with what their child is doing?

    Look, you can't fix everything for everyone, but a simple explanation for first time setup of a device is not difficult, especially if it was implemented as a national movement (law or otherwise). Absentee parents are still gonna absentee, but it would be a tool that parents who give a shit could really benefit from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they're not going to make the case that the child "doesn't deserve to use devices". You could even theorize that the last part, discovering "HotChat", happens on their own time.

    In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I'm even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.

    I'd need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, "simple explanation for first time setup" would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won't take simple paths for it, when most children are granted their own devices.

    I'm very much in favor of giving parents tools for those things. But the way security works is, it will always be at war with convenience. As soon as people lean towards shortcuts that circumvent the intent of security (because not everyone's lives are based around these secure systems), the tight-gripped approach to security fails out. We want parents to choose to learn these tools on their own time, not simply have them presented as a roadblock to access.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent