That's infuriating. I think more and more EU member countries citizens start noticing it and are thinking that the regime change might be necessary, because this is just ridiculous.
I think that war with Russia is approaching and they know that Putin will do something; thus while it's done under the oretense of saving the children, it's for wartime...
Right. Russia has been grinding for 50km in eastern Ukraine for 4 years, and now suddenly it wants to attack an alliance 7x its population and 20x its economy. It sounds like yet another excuse to erode liberty than an actual threat to the west.
They're 2 weeks away from having ~~nuclear weapons~~ invading Europe! Sorry, we need to scan all of your communications to prepare for this looming threat.
I say this again and again in various places - something wise needs to be done about children and the internet.
Previous interventions have failed miserably.
I think the solution is giving parents maximum power: create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response; and, if desired, white listing at ISP account level.
I’ve had to deal with a child seeking out toxic materials - although fortunately not the kind discussed here.
Conventional blocking software fails because the worst parts aren’t bad domains but mixed domains - Reddit, for example.
If you’re going to enact laws, enact laws that require mixed domains to not frustrate blocking software - Reddit does this. If it detects a blocker it throws up a fake subreddit, so you have no idea what your kid tried to access.
Messaging is fairly easy to manage - delete the messaging apps. Also the immutability and white listing would do great things there too.
But when the domain spitting out toxic content is Google Classroom - there’s nothing you can do.
I don’t want to dig on this too hard, but safe harbor rules probably shouldn’t apply when the content comes from or to minors.
The idea behind safe harbor is to effectively route lawsuits to the person who created the content, not to the platform hosting it. But if it’s routing legal liability to a minor who cannot be sued - that doesn’t seem effective.
Also consumer protection laws that require companies that offer child protection features to have some kind of liability if they are merely performative. Many companies will stop offering, which is fine, because a failing system is far worse than no system.
One thing I've seen discussed that throws a wrinkle in all of this is the question of whether or not a parent can have control over what their kid can see when they're at a friend's house, and if the answer is no, does that mean something more global like mandatory age verification is necessary to ensure they are still protected.
The argument I've seen goes that even if a parent has complete control over what is available on their home network and on their children's devices, the fact that another parent in their children's friend group does not enforce the same means in practice the amount of control a parent can exert on this problem is effectively zero and a higher-level approach to eradicate this loophole is necessary.
I don't think I agree with that, but that's the strongest case I've come across for implementing such policies.
What I think it really calls for though is a solution in the space of community and communication rather than direct governmental intervention.
The friend part is less important than you think. Devices are very personal these days. Most kids are unwilling to hand over their phones and tablets to a trusted friend. It’s like a diary.
Even if they are willing, it’s only for a short time.
The bigger problem is schools. I touched on that with Google Classroom. Lots of schools require devices and rely on third parties like Google Classroom (which is horrible for filtering).
Another problem is family members: grandma and grandpa. Nice people but not tech savvy.
This isn’t an academic study. I’m reporting from the trenches here. And I’m trying to give advice that will make things better, while not encumbering adults.
> I say this again and again in various places - something wise needs to be done about children and the internet.
There already is. It’s called parenting.
If your child cannot handle the internet, do not give him access to it.
If your child can only handle supervised internet, only allow it from the home pc.
If your kid, like quite some children, is perfectly capable of navigating the internet and talking about worrisome content they encounter, give them a personal device.
This sounds like the parents who are shocked that their kid does criminal stuff, but let him or her be on the streets till midnight without any supervision.
This increasingly popular take comes across as a generational rung-pulling exercise. We pine for the 80s and 90s of unbridled freedom, lament that a 7 year old boy can't go out walking by himself in the neighborhood anymore without his parents going to jail, and then talk about "toxic materials" by saying things like "create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response", as if that's not a preposterously toxic environment in which to raise a kid, for a plethora of reasons.
I was raised in that environment. It was but one aspect of my abusive upbringing, but a key one; the internet represented free information, which is dangerous to a child one is attempting to religiously indoctrinate. I can tell you now, it is a horrible way to raise a child, leads to zero trust and if anything, encourages antisocial, subversive behaviors.
I get that I really do. For a while our compromise was that our child could go to the library - that way they had access to free information.
But after some chats with the librarian, it became clear that wasn’t working. The libraries filtering software wasn’t great (it never is), and some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages.
They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.
What happens then, man? I understand your concern. My current rule with the one is: you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.
I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.
When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage. But when that system is never initiated, there needs to be a presumption of parental benevolence.
This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.
I appreciate your response, and I'll address your concerns in turn.
> some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages
My great aunt was the main librarian at my elementary and middle school. Early on, I'd pretty much read every book that was interesting to me in our library. The rest of the material was not engaging for various reasons. Sensing my appetite and believing I could handle more adult-oriented material, she gave me access to a secret shelf in the back which contained adult novels deemed not suitable for the shelves. I was really into slasher and supernatural horror at the time, and there were a surprising amount of such novels already on the normal shelves, and quite a few novels had sexual content (I read a lot of Judy Blume, etc).
But this adult section gave me what I was missing. The stories weren't just more adult because more killing, or more sex, or whatever, the stories themselves were written for more advanced minds. Having taught myself to read at age 3 and having commanded a collegiate reading level by second grade, I finally felt like I wasn't stuck and could continue to progress as a reader. Since my computer use at home was heavily monitored and firewalled, this was great. The agreement was that I would not tell my grandparents about this arrangement; she knew to some degree how oppressive her brother was.
Later on in high school, I made friends with the bus driver who went by the local library, and convinced her to take me to the library after school instead of home, so that I could read and have unfiltered internet access to learn what I wanted without oversight and avoid a few hours of potential abuse at home. The library was my lifeline. I inundated myself with the staff to get extra privileges and slack. I hosted an open mic night, etc. When I met the love of my life, that's where I would take her to spend time. We would study together and get to know one another in a safe place, away from our oppressive parents/guardians. We're still together, 16 years later, and I owe that to the library providing a safe space.
At this point, my guardians literally just wanted me to end up dead in the street, so they stopped paying attention enough when I wasn't home that I was finally able to grow and discover myself. Up until that point, I had no concept of a personal identity and struggled to form one, because most aspects of my life and thoughts were controlled by my religious zealot guardians.
> They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.
The above situation might be why.
> you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.
I've read some very subversive things on paper, from 120 Days of Sodom to the manifestos of deeply-troubled individuals, and plenty in between. And anything can be printed out. I used to print out adult or erotic stories as a kid and hide them so that I could read them later. I had a small, but coveted secret stash of adult magazines. My belongings were regularly searched, as I was not even allowed so much as to draw anime figures with swords, or journal freely, so everything had to be routinely searched. Sometimes I didn't have a door. All that happened is I got better at hiding things.
Anyway, the material being on paper seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
> I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.
While hopefully unintentional, what you're saying is, "Because I can provide a privileged household where my child has (what I consider to be) reasonable restrictions, I should be allowed to have access to absolute and chilling effect inducing levels of surveillance and control over my child, and if that means that less privileged children with objectively abusive households live in a total hellscape, that's their problem and not mine. I only care about the welfare of my children, and other children are just collateral damage. Besides, it's statistically not many children who have to live in a total hellscape. And I didn't have to experience that myself, so it's fine."
> When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage
That's a nice idea, for sure. That is not how my life played out. I had two drug addict parents who went in and out of jail and homelessness, and lived with my abusive grandfather who was an ex boxer turned Catholic deacon. He would regularly beat the shit out of me and do awful things to me, and controlled every aspect of my life, would strangle and shake me while telling me that I'm Satan, etc. Cops were over all the time because the violence would get really bad and everyone in the family would join in on physically assaulting me.
The "mitigation" was them telling me that if I didn't listen to my benevolent grandfather, then I would be taken to a foster home or juvie, where they assured me my life would be even worse, and I would have even less access to an opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty and abuse.
> This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.
It's so easy to write things off by saying, "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette" or something, when you or your family aren't the eggs being broken. Instead, this impacts a disproportionate number of impoverished children like me who did not have other financially stable environments in which to flee. It's classism, when you peel back all of the layers.
I hope you don't take this post negatively and understand why I feel the way I do about these things, and why "getting it" isn't enough if the conclusion is still, "this system works for me and therefore the lives it ruins are worth it."
Related: "EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707719 28-06-2026 380 comments
This is the fifth time they've done so, or?
That's infuriating. I think more and more EU member countries citizens start noticing it and are thinking that the regime change might be necessary, because this is just ridiculous.
I think that war with Russia is approaching and they know that Putin will do something; thus while it's done under the oretense of saving the children, it's for wartime...
Right. Russia has been grinding for 50km in eastern Ukraine for 4 years, and now suddenly it wants to attack an alliance 7x its population and 20x its economy. It sounds like yet another excuse to erode liberty than an actual threat to the west.
Sounds like Russia is Europe's Iran.
They're 2 weeks away from having ~~nuclear weapons~~ invading Europe! Sorry, we need to scan all of your communications to prepare for this looming threat.
Scanning convos for leaks; spies, and so on.
Oh, okay, so how you are planning on keeping spies and so on on the platforms that will implement the scanning?
Highly suggest you read 1984.
I say this again and again in various places - something wise needs to be done about children and the internet.
Previous interventions have failed miserably.
I think the solution is giving parents maximum power: create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response; and, if desired, white listing at ISP account level.
I’ve had to deal with a child seeking out toxic materials - although fortunately not the kind discussed here.
Conventional blocking software fails because the worst parts aren’t bad domains but mixed domains - Reddit, for example.
If you’re going to enact laws, enact laws that require mixed domains to not frustrate blocking software - Reddit does this. If it detects a blocker it throws up a fake subreddit, so you have no idea what your kid tried to access.
Messaging is fairly easy to manage - delete the messaging apps. Also the immutability and white listing would do great things there too.
But when the domain spitting out toxic content is Google Classroom - there’s nothing you can do.
I don’t want to dig on this too hard, but safe harbor rules probably shouldn’t apply when the content comes from or to minors.
The idea behind safe harbor is to effectively route lawsuits to the person who created the content, not to the platform hosting it. But if it’s routing legal liability to a minor who cannot be sued - that doesn’t seem effective.
Also consumer protection laws that require companies that offer child protection features to have some kind of liability if they are merely performative. Many companies will stop offering, which is fine, because a failing system is far worse than no system.
One thing I've seen discussed that throws a wrinkle in all of this is the question of whether or not a parent can have control over what their kid can see when they're at a friend's house, and if the answer is no, does that mean something more global like mandatory age verification is necessary to ensure they are still protected.
The argument I've seen goes that even if a parent has complete control over what is available on their home network and on their children's devices, the fact that another parent in their children's friend group does not enforce the same means in practice the amount of control a parent can exert on this problem is effectively zero and a higher-level approach to eradicate this loophole is necessary.
I don't think I agree with that, but that's the strongest case I've come across for implementing such policies.
What I think it really calls for though is a solution in the space of community and communication rather than direct governmental intervention.
The friend part is less important than you think. Devices are very personal these days. Most kids are unwilling to hand over their phones and tablets to a trusted friend. It’s like a diary.
Even if they are willing, it’s only for a short time.
The bigger problem is schools. I touched on that with Google Classroom. Lots of schools require devices and rely on third parties like Google Classroom (which is horrible for filtering).
Another problem is family members: grandma and grandpa. Nice people but not tech savvy.
This isn’t an academic study. I’m reporting from the trenches here. And I’m trying to give advice that will make things better, while not encumbering adults.
> I say this again and again in various places - something wise needs to be done about children and the internet.
There already is. It’s called parenting.
If your child cannot handle the internet, do not give him access to it.
If your child can only handle supervised internet, only allow it from the home pc.
If your kid, like quite some children, is perfectly capable of navigating the internet and talking about worrisome content they encounter, give them a personal device.
This sounds like the parents who are shocked that their kid does criminal stuff, but let him or her be on the streets till midnight without any supervision.
This increasingly popular take comes across as a generational rung-pulling exercise. We pine for the 80s and 90s of unbridled freedom, lament that a 7 year old boy can't go out walking by himself in the neighborhood anymore without his parents going to jail, and then talk about "toxic materials" by saying things like "create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response", as if that's not a preposterously toxic environment in which to raise a kid, for a plethora of reasons.
I was raised in that environment. It was but one aspect of my abusive upbringing, but a key one; the internet represented free information, which is dangerous to a child one is attempting to religiously indoctrinate. I can tell you now, it is a horrible way to raise a child, leads to zero trust and if anything, encourages antisocial, subversive behaviors.
I get that I really do. For a while our compromise was that our child could go to the library - that way they had access to free information.
But after some chats with the librarian, it became clear that wasn’t working. The libraries filtering software wasn’t great (it never is), and some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages.
They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.
What happens then, man? I understand your concern. My current rule with the one is: you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.
I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.
When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage. But when that system is never initiated, there needs to be a presumption of parental benevolence.
This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.
I appreciate your response, and I'll address your concerns in turn.
> some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages
My great aunt was the main librarian at my elementary and middle school. Early on, I'd pretty much read every book that was interesting to me in our library. The rest of the material was not engaging for various reasons. Sensing my appetite and believing I could handle more adult-oriented material, she gave me access to a secret shelf in the back which contained adult novels deemed not suitable for the shelves. I was really into slasher and supernatural horror at the time, and there were a surprising amount of such novels already on the normal shelves, and quite a few novels had sexual content (I read a lot of Judy Blume, etc).
But this adult section gave me what I was missing. The stories weren't just more adult because more killing, or more sex, or whatever, the stories themselves were written for more advanced minds. Having taught myself to read at age 3 and having commanded a collegiate reading level by second grade, I finally felt like I wasn't stuck and could continue to progress as a reader. Since my computer use at home was heavily monitored and firewalled, this was great. The agreement was that I would not tell my grandparents about this arrangement; she knew to some degree how oppressive her brother was.
Later on in high school, I made friends with the bus driver who went by the local library, and convinced her to take me to the library after school instead of home, so that I could read and have unfiltered internet access to learn what I wanted without oversight and avoid a few hours of potential abuse at home. The library was my lifeline. I inundated myself with the staff to get extra privileges and slack. I hosted an open mic night, etc. When I met the love of my life, that's where I would take her to spend time. We would study together and get to know one another in a safe place, away from our oppressive parents/guardians. We're still together, 16 years later, and I owe that to the library providing a safe space.
At this point, my guardians literally just wanted me to end up dead in the street, so they stopped paying attention enough when I wasn't home that I was finally able to grow and discover myself. Up until that point, I had no concept of a personal identity and struggled to form one, because most aspects of my life and thoughts were controlled by my religious zealot guardians.
> They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.
The above situation might be why.
> you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.
I've read some very subversive things on paper, from 120 Days of Sodom to the manifestos of deeply-troubled individuals, and plenty in between. And anything can be printed out. I used to print out adult or erotic stories as a kid and hide them so that I could read them later. I had a small, but coveted secret stash of adult magazines. My belongings were regularly searched, as I was not even allowed so much as to draw anime figures with swords, or journal freely, so everything had to be routinely searched. Sometimes I didn't have a door. All that happened is I got better at hiding things.
Anyway, the material being on paper seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
> I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.
While hopefully unintentional, what you're saying is, "Because I can provide a privileged household where my child has (what I consider to be) reasonable restrictions, I should be allowed to have access to absolute and chilling effect inducing levels of surveillance and control over my child, and if that means that less privileged children with objectively abusive households live in a total hellscape, that's their problem and not mine. I only care about the welfare of my children, and other children are just collateral damage. Besides, it's statistically not many children who have to live in a total hellscape. And I didn't have to experience that myself, so it's fine."
> When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage
That's a nice idea, for sure. That is not how my life played out. I had two drug addict parents who went in and out of jail and homelessness, and lived with my abusive grandfather who was an ex boxer turned Catholic deacon. He would regularly beat the shit out of me and do awful things to me, and controlled every aspect of my life, would strangle and shake me while telling me that I'm Satan, etc. Cops were over all the time because the violence would get really bad and everyone in the family would join in on physically assaulting me.
The "mitigation" was them telling me that if I didn't listen to my benevolent grandfather, then I would be taken to a foster home or juvie, where they assured me my life would be even worse, and I would have even less access to an opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty and abuse.
> This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.
It's so easy to write things off by saying, "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette" or something, when you or your family aren't the eggs being broken. Instead, this impacts a disproportionate number of impoverished children like me who did not have other financially stable environments in which to flee. It's classism, when you peel back all of the layers.
I hope you don't take this post negatively and understand why I feel the way I do about these things, and why "getting it" isn't enough if the conclusion is still, "this system works for me and therefore the lives it ruins are worth it."