Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Government issued versus corporate issued age verification is a false dichotomy. There are other options, such as refusing games that require them. (Yes, we do have a teen, and yes we did exactly that with Roblox.)
Pretending that those options are equal is a false dichotomy. Not participating is an option up to a point, and then it is increasingly limiting all other options.
Thats obviously fine to do but it is very much going to have consequences for some kids. My kids spend hours a week playing roblox with their IRL friends. 10 - 15 kids on a group call on speaker phone all logged into the same code laughing and yelling for a couple hours a night. If I was to suddenly tell them that they can't play those games with their friends it would have very real effects on their social life. My kids spend a ton of time outside with friends but to ignore that they also spend time gaming with them is not an option.
loading story #48909478
Fwiw we did that with Roblox too, but I hate it because Roblox Studio was a pretty damn fun collaborative gamedev experience.

I mean his classmates argue with their parents about whether they can install TikTok (and most parents lose). Meanwhile I’m denying my son the right to make a game together with a friend. It’s so creative and so educative and I’m saying no to it. It sucks and I hate Roblox for making something so cool and then taking it away for such stupid reasons.

I’d happily pay a license fee or sth. But I’m not gonna let them scan my son’s face.

loading story #48910211
>There are other options, such as refusing games that require them.

How about the option of the state not being so tyrannical in meddling about what people anonymously do online in their free time?

This is generally my opinion, and goodness it's swung around quite a bit. This entire debate feels like it should be solved by adequate parental controls.

To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision. (Maybe a lab monitor that can roam the room and see screens?) And for homework, don't assume the kid has internet access, because that is the parent's choice, and they may well not. On the flip side, if the parent trusts their kid with that access, or intends for them to learn through real world experience, let them. That should not be the state's decision.

The problem of course is that this idea in my head is a pipe dream. Schools seem to be well onboard with digital coursework, presumably for efficiency reasons? Unclear. I'm not sure what a more practical middle ground actually looks like.

To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision.

Don't get me started. We try to restrict internet time, no Youtube (Shorts are poison/heroin), TikTok, etc. They go to primary school and there is a teacher that makes TikTok videos at school, they can play Roblox in breaks, etc. (Aside from this issue, the teachers are great though!)

There are only so many battles you can choose as a parent (not getting your kids photographed, put on Facebook, etc.).

In contrast to what the grandparent states, the government should unambiguously state: no smartphones, social media, and online games in primary school, period. That's the only way to make it work. Ironically, smartphones are forbidden in all high schools here.

The California Digital Age Assurance Act is a law mandating adequate parental controls. And it's a great law that should be copied instead of doing the verification nonsense.
Homeschool and exercise close, very close, supervision over what your kids do on the internet.

I'd have hated this as a child. But the case for unrestricted internet and social media access for children being harmful, at this point, seems pretty shut.

For those who sadly cannot homeschool their children... well, we need to push for school choice and to dismantle the teachers' unions. Which probably ultimately is the same thing.

loading story #48911774
You think most of the unsupervised internet time is happening at school? I mean, maybe it is, but that's an assertion I haven't seen before.
loading story #48911162