My son is 15. My talk to him went something like this: There's a lot of porn and nasty things that you can't unsee, so be careful what you look at. Also, those extortion gangs target teenage boys, so if some girl is suddenly hot for you online, come see me immediately so we can troll the ever loving fuck out of them. I think it went pretty well. We like doing things as a family, but more like the Addams family...

Yes! I'd call this preparation for life.

Education and believably honest offers of support are needed to navigate the world, which is ugly and evil in some parts. Restrictions are really just counterproductive because curious young people are drawn to restricted stuff, and age restrictions build a sense of 'us (the young) against them (the adults)', so it's hard to convince that you actually offer honest support. Restrictions also focus on the bad parts, while we should instead focus on the good parts, the advantages of a global network of anything, which is totally amazing. Restrictions are counter productive.

Humans need to learn to live here, and it starts when we're young and curious.

Ok, now we have no restrictions. Timmy just got his driver’s license at 13 and is on his way to 7-11 to pick up a 24 pack because he’s young and curious.

The context is in the article. The context is access to information and communication. This is about forbidding young people to listen and to talk.

That's the only way that can work in the long term.

Also have a 15 year old, same talk. Seemed to be just fine.

Holy Kimchi on a Popsicle Stick!

I feel validated!

Bless you the holy spirit of Bad Religion.

Remarkably, Youtube's logged out experience will still be completely available to all age groups. And an a Australian HN user mentioned that one 14-year old had another (presumably older looking) 14-year old do the "video selfie" for her to verify her account on one the sites. So I'm not sure the fight will go away, but it may be slightly more tractable.

It will normalize people thinking that uploading their state-issued ID to whatever contractor is validating accounts is safe and normal.

Most people probably agree something needs to be done at scale. Banning kids sounds neither effective nor long term beneficial though, and at the core of it seems to deflect from solving deeper issues.

It looks like they're "doing something" while nothing really changes or potentially gets worse. Trying to regulate Meta/YouTube from there has IMHO become harder, as kids are on paper supposed to be out of the picture.

Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all.

Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.

How do you know you’re not losing?

How many years of evidence do you have?

I think I won my battle against being addicted to games… but I don’t go back to find out.

I'd view that as more of a works for me argument than necessarily actionable. Social dynamics are complex and personality, status, etc, plays into which relationships end up mattering, being convincing, etc. I.e. some children bond closer to a grandparent not because parents have failed in any way at honest conversations.

You don't know you lost until after it happens. Then it's too late.

3 kids, same honest conversations, 2 where it worked and works very well, 1 where it is a constant battle.

So sorry but no, the platforms are addictive and not all the kids can resist against an armada of statisticians ensuring the systems stay addictive only through honest conversations.

By the way, this would mean you could solve all the addiction issues if it would be working...

> It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.

Sorry, but this just isn't the case. I have children very much in the target age here, and they only have a passing understand of what social media even is due to us explaining how unhealthy it is to them.

It's unfortunate you feel incapable of achieving the same, but abdicating your responsibility as a parent to the state isn't the answer.

I remember there being an experiment where parents were placed in a room with some toys their children were allowed to play with and some toys their children weren't allowed to.

They measured the parents perceived level of control against their actual level of control by seeing if they stopped their children from playing with the researchers laptop that had been left in the corner of the room.

Part of me wonders if it was apocryphal, I'm not sure if a test like that would get past an ethics committee (at least since laptops existed)

Likewise, the state abdicating its responsibility and placing the burden solely on parents isn't fair either, and that is exactly the environment we currently find ourselves in.

And make sure you do it at their friend’s houses too, and on every public device, and make sure they never leave that locked down app bubble ever.

and delete the web browser?

Computers (they each had their own) in public space and no phone until 14. Worked great w/o no filtering or whitelisting of any sort.

there are similar mechanisms for controlling website usage. school computers do it all the time

ballpark percentage of parents that are technically savvy to set this up? I'd put that at 0.0284%