This could have been an http header. It's hard to identify people, but blocking child-locked devices should be easy, since the devices can be built to cooperate.
Then it's up to parents to give their kids child-locked devices and for stores to not sell unlocked devices to kids.
There is just such a HTTP header, for adult sites. It's not granular enough to set individual age ratings, just to mark a page as 18+.
<https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php?content=howtofaq>
Is that the "don't put my website into Google Safe search because it's porn" header?
Maybe we need a "it's not for kids but it's not porn either" header.
People keep saying it’s the parents responsibility to keep their kids safe, and don’t give them the tools! This is such an obvious one. I should be able to lock down a laptop for a child, and then have the browser limit websites to those that are actually child safe. I don’t care if a government agency is the one issuing “child safety certs”. This gets around the whole “identify everyone no matter what” thing, and it means that parents don’t have to run an entire IT department level of security infrastructure to keep their kids safe online.
There's a reason why nobody is giving the parents those tools.
And it's the same reason why everybody keeps pushing the stupidier, most obnoxious and invasive tools to "protect the children".
my kids are not teenagers yet, what am I missing? the iPad I let them use has child safety enabled and it seems to do exactly what the comment above you is suggesting.
What you are missing is that it's not enough for a fraction of devices to have parental control.
If you want kids to not access social networks, you need to have most of them out. If only a minority is out, they will just be outcast.
That said, "everybody must do that thing that Apple does" may be a very good example of good regulation. IDK what Apple does, though.
Apple does parental controls right. The easy path is parental controls.
Companies like epic and Microsoft dont. The easy path is just a default install
I suspect this is by design.
Child-locked devices can already whitelist/blacklist sites and apps. The issue is not capability.
And before anyone blames the parents, parents will always be shitty. They are an impediment to children's health society must work around.
I wish we would just pull the plug on ad-based social media altogether. The incentives add up to destroying society.
I don't think passively assuming you'll end up on the relevant lists is going to do it for websites that need to keep kids out for whatever reason.
Regulating such a list seems like a very backwards and expensive way to do this when kids will just use their parents identity (or make up one wholesale). Surely this is really about trying to hold people liable for speech politicians and lobbyists don't like.
> And before anyone blames the parents, parents will always be shitty. They are an impediment to children's health society must work around.
...huh? This is completely backwards. We should be making laws that punish parents for failing to parent properly. Not laws that punish everyone.
If we pass a law that children under a certain age may not use social media, then giving your child a non-child-locked device should be treated the same way we treat giving your child alcohol or cigarettes.
"parents will always be shitty"
Maybe cut nontechnicals a little slack? Their adversaries have invested literally billions of dollars in R&D.
This isn't a question of technicality....