Children are not just the responsibility of parents it is the job of society-through government- to protect and support them.
So no we can't just tell parents to deal with it.
Children are not just the responsibility of parents it is the job of society-through government- to protect and support them.
So no we can't just tell parents to deal with it.
The laws being made to “protect” children seem to always have the side effect of removing security and privacy protections from adults.
There has to be a middle ground.
The tech community has had pretty much free reign over the last few decades, and has always chosen adult convenience over child safety (and mostly profit over both). The "middle ground" probably involves a bigger transfer than this.
There's probably a much better solution than "adults vs children" but very few with our expertise seem seriously interested in solving for safer children, which essentially leads to inexpert solutions gaining popular support.
I won't call myself an expert in this field, and haven't given it much thought, but a couple options just off the top of my head...
1. Limit child accounts to "classic" social network functionality. They get to see things from mutual friends. No algorithmic feeds, kids aren't in the user search, and no way for messages to be sent/received unless both sides have consented.
2. Disable chat for child accounts. How many chat apps do children really need? Each one is another potential vector for issues that parents would need to monitor.
I'm sure there is a monkey paw here, but either option seems better than no end-to-end encryption for anyone, at a time when government surveillance is a bigger issue than ever.
Frankly, I think option 1 would be better for all users, not just children. Go back to classic "social networks". This "social media" experiment has failed.
This is not a widely shared opinion.
Is that definitely not a widely shared opinion?
I feel like I can think of lots of situations where society puts in to protect children rather than leaving it to the parents (age ratings on films and games, YouTube Kids, regulations around advertising to children, the whole concept of school, reduced speed limits around playgrounds to give a few examples off the cuff).
It's fine as long as the state aligns with you and is generally sane.
History shows its not necessary always the case.
My point more was that you said it wasn't a widely shared opinion, but to my mind, it is broadly the status quo. Whether that is good or bad is a separate point.
"it take a village ...."
depends on your culture.
Since when was DJ David Guetta a reactionary?
(Yes, I read your comment history. I was tryinna figure out if you were in fact that guy and saw a bunch of conspiracy-ass right wing misinformation.)
Im not the guy obviously.
Its not reactionary to say you dont want the state to interfere too much in your child éducation.
Whether you are left or right its fine as long as the state aligns with you. But if you open an history book, you will sée it VERY OFTEN happened that states get crazy / ideological or just plain eugénist / liberticide.
Its dangerous to give too much power to the state