With all due respect to parents that overscheduled themselves: Tough. Raise your kids. Don't try to raise mine.

> parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device

Tough luck, I say. If you’re going to bring humans into this world, you better do a great job at it and not externalize responsibility or create a nuisance for others.

Every human being creates nuisance sometimes. The only winning move in your game is not to live.

Remember that everything you have is the result of other people bringing humans into this world.

It takes less than 5 minutes to set up NextDNS with the same functionality and it costs $2 a month for unlimited DNS calls. If you download the app it absolutely can police cellular.

If these legislators cared about keeping kids safe, they’d be focused on getting them off social media, not stopping adults from exercising free speech.

Comcast’s Xfinity service doesn’t let you change DNS in their router and blocks queries to other DNS providers if you are using their router.

That really should be illegal. It looks like there might be workarounds, but that defeats the point of being easy to use.

None of my non-technical relatives have Comcast, so I’m not sure how it would work out. It works fine on ATT, Verizon, Cox and Spectrum though.

> but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people.

It really isn’t, and even if it were an ISP could offer it. Indeed I believe most ISPs do (I chose one which is unfiltered, I do my own filtering at a router and dns level, the biggest threat is DoH)

> parents that are too busy

If you are too busy to parent, then you shouldn't be one in the first place.

Just as well life is completely predictable over long time horizons making accurate judgement on this matter completely possible.

That still seems better than the proposed cure. Connected devices are overrated.

What happens when their friends have them?

It is very hard for parents who aren’t tech savvy or are busy (single parents or both work) to police this stuff.

I’m playing devils advocate because if we pretend this isn’t a problem eventually governments will force onerous regulation. It is a problem. We need to come up with better solutions if we don’t want worse ones.

It’s devils advocate because I think while kids shouldn’t be looking at porn the brain rot shit is at least as bad and possibly worse. Kids YouTube is a lobotomy.

Sounds like marketing is the problem. In fact, I'd say 90% of the Internet's more problematic aspects disappear once you get rid of marketing/monetization. We had a good thing. We let mercantilism and surveillance capitalism ruin it.

To some extent, Section 230 is to blame.

doesnt realize theyre the problem

>Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.

May be such inept people who don't care that much about their kids as to setup parent control shouldn't have kids in the first place? Why we all should take a hit to our rights/business/etc. just because of such careless and irresponsible parents?

Your kids is your personal responsibility. It the same story again and again - why can't these conservative people own their personal responsibilities without hoisting its costs onto the others?

Not the parent commenter, but they just said that most parents don't have the technical aptitude to do so.

Implying that they don't care about their kids, or shouldn't have kids as a result, is a pretty awful thing to say.

In this day and age lack of knowledge is no excuse.

Especially when everyone who would have this particular "problem" has access to various search tools and video websites that would explain "solutions".

I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology.

If my older family member was scammed by something online, and someone said "lack of knowledge is no excuse," I think they'd really be missing the mark. Or if they shouldn't reproduce because they aren't good with technology.

It's a very HN take but it's one that lacks a lot of humanity.

>> I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology.

I have actually. And do so pretty regularly.

But the comment I was replying to was presumably not about older adults, and more so about younger parents of minor children, whom I wouldn't normally class as "older adults", and for the most part I would think know basic skills like using a search engine and/or Youtube (or some other video sharing app)

Maybe parents shouldn't buy their kids technology they don't know how to use?

Middle aged adults are millennials. This isn't the 90s anymore when middle aged people were raised on type writers.

Sorry you're experiencing a bunch of downvotes over a counterpoint from your own experience.

Even though I could predict what side HN would stand on any sort of internet freedom post, reading through all the reasonable yet greyed-out comments in this thread feels like HN's last dying breath as a place for genuine debate.

The replies here are disturbing for their lack of concern or even awareness of the fact that some parents have, you know, economic pressures? Like they have to work long hours or multiple jobs? Both parents have to work?

This site can be really gross sometimes. I want to think it's just that the site skews young and people just don't know. I might have said similar things when I was 20.

It’s not gross to want parents to only parent their kids, and to leave the kids of other parents out of it. It’s your responsibility what your kid does on devices that you permit them to have. If you can’t control your kid when they’re not in your presence, or can’t trust them when they’re left to their own devices (pun intended), that’s an issue, but it isn’t a technological problem, but rather a parenting problem.

You’re not arguing it well. There are effective free tools; not expensive ones like you claim. You’re worried about regulation when the Supreme Court is supporting this burdensome patchwork that’ll outlive its usefulness because it’s politically difficult to repeal. And yes somewhere there is an unsupervised kid whose parents are overwhelmed by other pressures, but of all the risks to that kid, if porn is #1 then we’re talking upper middle class or higher.

This is a good point of course but that's always the issue, no? You may try to hide violence from your children, but if they see gang violence around them it doesn't matter. You can try to hide sexual content from your kids but if they have friends who share the content, hear people talking about it, or live in an area where prostitution occurs, you can't stop them from being exposed to it.

These were problems from before the age of devices. If anything car oriented development has made it easier to control your children's experience diet by controlling their physical proximity.

Fundamentally I think you just need to trust your kids beyond a certain point. Do your best to build constructive consumption habits with them (including restricting access to devices as needed), help build good moral frameworks, but always remember that the world is messy and it's your child's job to synthesize their upbringing with their experiences. We all did the same while growing up

Then they shouldn't let their kids have connected devices. It's that simple.

> Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.

I'm going to have to upload 3D models of my face and pictures of my ID just to use the internet because... some people don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet?