upvote
deleted
reply
There are already whitelisting solutions that can be installed on devices controlled by parents.
reply
That don’t really work because this isn’t a nation state level enforced system, and realistically the only state that can force such a thing is the US. If they worked, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.
reply
... that don't need the identity of the parents to work.

Nor do these devices require the identity of non-parents who will never enable the childproofing mode

Nor does legislation invert the burden of proof and require the device's manufacturer obtain and store identity documents just to use the devices, otherwise it must restrict all access to a small handful of "kid safe" actions.

These aren't "child safety" laws, they're "adult anonymity eradication" laws

reply
> the idea of a whitelist enforced on device for local accounts used by children

What’s wrong with making it the social media companies’ problem? If they sign up a child, they get fined. Everyone is then incentivized to come up with solutions. If some of those are shit, restrict them. If they’re not, great.

reply
> If they sign up a child, they get fined. Everyone is then incentivized to come up with solutions.

This already is the threat, and all the solutions social media comes up with are eerily “Age Verification” shaped. They are all going to be shitty.

reply
> They are all going to be shitty

But constrained to those using the platforms. My issue with these broader measures is even if I don't use social media, I'm still caught up in the dragnet.

reply
Because your "solution" creates massive privacy violations unless age verification and age assurance are banned, and result in even larger fines.
reply
Did you actually read the post that you’re replying to?
reply
Yes. It goes off into the same on-device wilderness the lawmakers have wandered into. It also fails Mozilla’s objection list to the status quo proposal.
reply