With due respect, this comment conveys a position of privilege and surviver's bias. I, like you, eschewed online rules as a minor and I luckily benefitted from this time in my expertise. I was lucky. I didn't run into predators when using TF2, Runescape, or MySpace, but that doesn't mean the threat wasn't validated on with persons (children at the time) that fell through the cracks.

The story outlined, one of a child prodigy solo-navigating the gritty online world of pre-2000's, is old and tired. An active parent can support a child at all ages safely in these "hacker" moments that are described without giving them un-reined access to tools. A parent should be able to ask "how was your day today?" and get a truthful answer about online activity, just like the same question being asked at the end of the school day. It's out of curiosity and protection, and from a nurtured relationship.

I was one of those kids. I got a 300 baud modem the year after Wargames came out. It was a whole different world.

My wife and I disagreed about letting my son have my old desktop replacement laptop at a young age. Of course I said yes, based on my own experience, but my wife turned out to be right in the end. He got into some pretty dark places and the toxic relationships he developed with other people his age were bad enough and the trouble he got into was real and not hypothetical.

He's turned it around and is getting the support to do well relative to his Gen Z peers, but it took some harrowing experiences to get there.

My wife was right too. My kids ended up being unable to manage their device use at all, they developed seriously bad habits, lied and deceived extensively to gain access to devices, and repeatedly sacrificed relationships and trust for more screen time. There were years there where I thought surely they'd click with it and develop better habits, make better choices (with our guidance), and so on. Abstinence could be worse, right? Some exposure would be helpful and lead to useful conversations and so on.

The Internet, Internet access, and apps have changed since I was a kid. Despite their time on digital devices along with my efforts to teach them, my kids have no idea how computers work or how to use them very effectively. The skills they have developed to gain access to them were largely social engineering and lying. They exclusively waste time and brain cells when they're on screens.

One of my kids essentially can't have access to devices because he'll burn hours into the night playing really, really stupid games and watching porn. This is ALL he wants to do on phones or computers. Sometimes he will window shop.

You might think this is largely due to my failure to have insight into what my kids are doing and limiting access correctly, but that isn't the case. At first we were somewhat lenient and figured if they accessed things they shouldn't, we'd see it and have conversations. That was very early on. The conversations did nothing. I began putting severe restrictions on devices quite quickly because problems became evident quickly. I was a bit naive about it at first, my wife was not. We clashed a bit, but then device theft and social engineering started and I quickly aligned with her. Since then, many years ago, very little access has been on account of us not protecting devices properly. He is extremely good at gaining access when he's not supposed to, and extremely good at hiding it. It's like having an addict in the house.

He has no future in computers. He doesn't care about computers at all. He is incredibly compulsive, self-harming, and freely harms his relationships to get what he wants. This has been going on for about 5 years; he's 16 now, and I'm pretty scared for when he's out on his own and doesn't have anyone to protect him from himself. I think there will be some brutal lessons. Lost jobs, lost relationships, lost confidence and self esteem. I'm not looking forward to it.

I have no idea why I turned sneaking onto computers into a career rather than rotted away like they do. I wanted to learn to program. I was curious. My kids want to play NBA 2k and watch porn. That's about it.

The Internet now mostly consists of short-form garbage and dark patterns.

Also,

> He is incredibly compulsive, self-harming, and freely harms his relationships to get what he wants.

This probably indicates deeper psychological issues that aren't solely related to Internet addiction.

You were born in an era where the internet wasn't as addictive as it is nowadays.

Heroin is addictive. Physical compulsion is addiction. What you are talking about is not addiction. It shares some elements, but no one is breaking into cars so they can scroll Instagram.

They are lying and stealing from their parents to “scroll instagram”

Exactly. And what worries me is that they are essentially greasing the groove for these synapses, growing the neural network around deception and dishonesty. If they get into gambling in 5 years or so and happen to have a partner, they will already be somewhat adapted and practiced in hiding this activity quite effectively rather than seeking and accepting help. It's worrying. It's all foundational to very self-destructive habits from my perspective.

This is pseudo-intellectual nonsense - we are strangers to ourselves, we do not truly know how the mind works.

And the parents feel entitled to the truth...why? Children are not property.

What specifically do you mean by 'stealing'?

From the original comment

> lied and deceived extensively to gain access to devices, and repeatedly sacrificed relationships and trust for more screen time

It’s not about truth, it’s about lying to gain access to devices. Lying to gain access is a type of theft therefore stealing.

I disagree with that analysis. It strikes me that a parent is denying a child access to something that the vast majority of other children have access to while that child is forced to live under a structure that prevents them from generating enough income to obtain their own device independently.

As that entire structure is illegitimate, the actions of the child are understandable.

In reality, the whole "stranger danger" is way overblown and always has been. Most of the time, sexual predators are going to be either family or friends.

https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/...

93% of victims under 18 know their abuser.

Sure there's 7% thats not, but a significant supermajority is family/friends. 59% were acquaintances, and 34% are family.

Edit: seriously, -1 cause I link to actual facts, rather than shitty emotional outbursts? Family and friends of family have always been the major list of suspects for child sex abuse. They're the ones who have time and access.

But somehow linking to cited facts is -1 central. Sigh.

First, that statistic sources a study from 2000, a time when zero children had smartphones and approximately zero children played online games.

Second, even if the statistic wasn't obsolete, a groomed kid knows their abuser by definition.

I understand what you're trying to get at and suspect you're right, but the comment does not make your case well.

Keep in mind, this study is only physical sexual abuse.

Internet has opened up an entire world of virtual sexual abuse.

If your kid lies you might not get a truthful answer to that question in person or online.

You are actually expecting a lot from devices that you never had in the real world in the first place in order to mitigate a risk that is very scary but less likely to kill them than drugs and alcohol, swimming, bad driving, biking, getting hit by a car whilst walking, getting shot, or suicide.

People are freaking out over stranger danger not because it is by the numbers prevalent but because they feel like they can control it then find out the controls suck.

What if I started Bikesafe an always online dash cam / coach for your rider where AI would identify unsafe behaviour and coach your kid and virtually eliminate bike deaths. Would you feel more safe?

What if you read again and again that it didn't work because of how many accidents are caused by drivers or momentary mistakes.

Would you feel only as unsafe as before or worse?

First, I'm responding the more (politely) trivial remarks.

> drugs and alcohol, swimming, bad driving, biking, getting hit by a car whilst walking, getting shot, or suicide.

These are false equivalences-- when has a pool try to groom a child over the span of 3 years?

> What if I started Bikesafe an always online dash cam / coach for your rider where AI would identify unsafe behaviour and coach your kid and virtually eliminate bike deaths. Would you feel more safe?

This is wholesale the wrong approach. This is the parent absconding responsibility, which is my driving point of the problem.

Now to the main point:

> You are actually expecting a lot from devices that you never had in the real world in the first place ...

I'm not expecting anything from my devices because machines cannot be held accountable for human choices; a gun cannot be held accountable for being misused. The internet is a powerful tool and users should understand the ramifications of certain actions.

> If your kid lies you might not get a truthful answer to that question in person or online.

That's a parenting moment that one should relish retrospectively. To teach them good morals and values, to remind them that you love them, and that lying about safety processes can be very dangerous.

Arguably this can increase the risk of death by suicide, quite a bit.

> Also, I got my start as a “hacker” gaming, cheating, and doing less legal stuff … nothing like getting level 99 equipment to incentivize learning how to read/edit a hex dump. Be aware of unintended consequences when you (try to) cut a child off from computer use.

Yes, but no. I used to think the same, coming from the same background, and sometimes I still do but back in the day there was a big filter already (not everyone wanted or liked videogames or a PC), and we were not terminally online. Plus, for the average HNer there is a big survivorship bias on these topics because "I went earning 6 figures thanks to my experiences with computers back in the day".

Nowadays almost everyone has access to an Internet connected smartphone, owning it is not a feature in itself anymore and the vast majority are not entertained trying to hack it. So it becomes something just like any other thing relates to children/teenagers: use common sense, adapt to your kids behavior, strengths and weaknesses and don't stick to rigid rules proposed by someone else that doesn't know you, but keep those rules in mind as an inspiration.

Why are you addressing HN like a headmaster addressing schoolchildren?

and I was groomed and raped at age 13 because I had unfettered access to AOL chat rooms

caution is necessary and kids can learn plenty without unrestricted access

I personally would have been better off without internet access, no knowledge of hex dumps would have been worth it. It's a little upsetting that you're using that as an example of why kids should have more permissive access.

You blame unfettered access to AOL chat, I blame your parents for giving you internet access and not teaching you to never share your real name or real address online. Mine taught me that early on. Later, I learned about proxies so I could further hide my approximate IP location from danger.

no I blame the rapist personally, predators exploit any tools they're able to

there was plenty of "you need to get your kids on computers so they can get the jobs of the future" in the 90s that parents fell into, and information about online predation was almost non-existent at the time - I didn't even have to share my home address or name, I was encouraged to meet this person at their church

mind you my guardian at the time didn't even graduate high school

I shouldn't have been given access to tools my parent didn't understand, but corporations still pressure this constantly today

I doubt even a single digit % of parents know what they're doing when giving kids free access to youtube for example... and recently the CEO of roblox called pedophiles an "opportunity"

The main point of childhood is to develop a solid basic humanity with good habits and a good moral compass. That means moral, intellectual, spiritual, and physical development. Good parenting and a good social environment support these. As such, these goods should be prioritized.

We know that children and teenagers are vulnerable to all sorts of filth that the internet makes available very easily, and indeed even inflicts without consent onto users. Porn, for example, was something that was more difficult to encounter before the internet, and when you did encounter it, it was in smaller amounts. Today, you are a URL away from an unlimited sea of it, and the ubiquity of mobile devices means restricting access is difficult. This makes parenting more challenging. And that's a more pernicious even if common problem. Social media and SFV cause all sorts of developmental harm without suffering the same stigmas as pornography or violence, and so its use continue with the full approval of the social environment.

(And age range here is not so important to discuss; pornography consumption and social media/SFV use is bad for everyone, including adults.)

> Be aware of unintended consequences when you (try to) cut a child off from computer use.

A corollary of what I wrote about is that you have to understand what matters. Becoming a "hacker" isn't the priority of childhood, and it's odd to prioritize that. It isn't worth anything if you are left screwed up by consuming bad content. (Nor does most of the most fruitful experimentation require constant and unfettered internet access. Without maturity and discipline, the internet easily becomes an enabler of shallow and superficial engagement. Deeper exploration is often best facilitated by disconnecting.) It's also senseless to appeal to exceptions.

However, I do think that the most important factor isn't parental controls, but the family environment, what parents teach their children, and the social groups your family and your children move around in. If parents are relying on technology as a substitute for their job as parents, then children will easily fall prey to all sorts of trash. But if children have parents who communicate clearly what they should and should not be doing, maintain a healthy and active family life, and model good behavior by example while penalizing bad behavior, then children will generally stick to good behaviors.

I think law has an important role to play. The former should support the latter. And more fundamentally, this requires a certain backtracking from the anything goes/do what feels good ethos of the contemporary moral landscape. Moral confusion is the biggest factor. Law is effectively a determination of general moral principles within certain socially and culturally concrete circumstances. As the old expression goes, lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law). The point of the law is to guard the common good (which is what makes a society) and help steer people away from the bad and toward the good. We all need these to live good lives, and we need to finally put to rest the pernicious notion that the law is not about moral guidance and that all it exists for is to secure our "rights" to whatever we want, where the understanding of rights entails a destructive do what thou wilt relativism. True freedom is not the ability to do whatever you damn well please. It is the ability to do what is good, and to be able to do the good, one must be virtuous - a proper formation - that enables you to be good. Vice cripples our ability to be. A legal system and a society that is supportive of virtue and the good is good for its individual members. One that embraces a bullshit "neutrality" is an easy target for predatory exploitation. There is a great deal of money to be made from vice and stupidity. We become morally defenseless in the face of the wolves. Might becomes right, and in a culture of moral relativism, we internalize this tyrannical false principle.

Parent: All I want is an off switch!

HN: No no no let me stop you right there

Why would a 15 year old warrant a mobile phone, much less an unrestricted one?

By high school there is definitely an expectation that everyone has a phone. They will literally miss out on a normal method of communication between friends and classmates.

They miss out on the social group and then fade away from it and just become "that one guy in our class."

The last time I mentioned this several people argued that, "true friends would stick together" or some such. Well, if you already have those friends. But if you're in high school and finding yourself, you probably haven't met all of them yet.

A lot of both communication and organizing of social events happen through the phone. Kids without a phone (or some online method) will just be forgotten. This is just the reality.

Unrestricted access? That depends on the kid. We had them charge in the living room (no overnight use), and their computers were actual desktops in a single office in the house.

We never used filtering or tracking software. The one exception was blocking youtube (through /etc/hosts) for my youngest during covid when it was too big a distraction.

This is just generally true even as an adult. A lot of social events used to start out on text threads in the early 2000's and then moved on to Facebook Calendar by the mid 2000's and then Instagram and I don't even know how it would work now. But if you wanted to be in any particular social group you probably had to deal with the icky features of all of these social media apps just to do that. We needed a public square for our little villages everywhere and instead we got a man screaming at clouds and occasionally handing out invitations.

So much has moved to facebook and it's eternally frustrating. Facebook has its own priorities, and I get the last minute "hey! meet here" things the next day.

You think that missing out on talking to high schoolers is worse than missing out on the harms of smartphones?

We must have very different views of the world. I would never let a child for whom I am responsible have a smartphone. They are not required, despite what you may have been told.

I’m an adult and I’ve been experimenting with leaving mine behind when I go out. It’s more than fine.

I'm sitting here from the perspective of having 2 adult children -- both graduating early, and my youngest who enters high school next year. They all got phones starting with 9th grade (14 at the start of the school year). Generally speaking they charged the phones downstairs.

I literally addressed the problems of missing out for high schoolers. The social event they'll miss on its own may not be a big deal. But the missed opportunities to make and deepen friendships is a big deal.

As an adult, you have your friend/peer group already. You and your friends are far less likely to do things spontaneously and far more likely to be courteous and thoughtful to invite someone along. A high school teen has middle school friends and is probably discovering their peer group. A huge portion of that discovery becomes unavailable without a phone.

Say they just finished up with band and everyone chats online, "hey meet up at the pizza place." Your kid will be left out. That's the firm reality. They won't know about it. It's the opportunity cost of meeting and learning other kids which will be missed, not the riveting conversations themselves.

> They are not required, despite what you may have been told.

Required? no. Central to the social fabric that binds them, unfortunately yes.

I'm fairly confident in my methods as I'm 2 for 2 graduating conscientious adults from college.

Not having a phone will most likely make your child a social pariah.

They MIGHT be one of the few hyper-social ones that thrives despite being left out of online circles but they are the exception.

Cause practically speaking, school requires that. They will pointificate about devices, but simultaneously create rules that make them necessary.

While I agree that being this age doesn’t automatically warrant having a smartphone, any kid who has an allowance can buy a bargain-basement Android phone to use over wifi. And smartphones are very concealable.

(IMHO, once a kid has figured out how to do this, they have earned the privilege. It’s part of growing up.)

A responsible and forward-thinking parent could provide a Graphene OS smartphone if the kid absolutely insists on having one, to limit the privacy damage.

You think a high school freshman shouldn't have a cell phone? Their friends a year older are driving and they may want to do activities with them, and it's a good idea they have a reliable means of communication to their parents in case they need to come pick them up.

> Be aware of unintended consequences when you (try to) cut a child off from computer use.

In the mid 90’s I got my first PC when I was 13 but my parents would not let me online. I ended up finding a way via nefarious means. I bought a 25’ telephone cord from Radio Shack and when my parents weren’t home I would unplug their bedroom phone. I discovered that if I ran the Prodigy installer it would connect to the Internet briefly to download the latest phone numbers in my area. I found that I could alt-tab out of the full screen installer and use the lnternet unfiltered for about 10 minutes or so before they kicked me off. This worked for about a year or so.

I then had to resort to stealing my parent’s credit card and signing up for free trials and cancelling them before the charges incurred. I eventually screwed up big time. I downloaded a “free porn” BBS dialer and it made an international call to South America and ran up the phone bill $300 or so. I lost my computer privileges for a couple of months. I guess the silver lining was when I turned 16, I immediately got a job and my drivers license so I could pay for my own phone line. I kept my grades up to maintain privileges and was a straight arrow since.