Here is how you prevent children from accessing weird websites without forcing every adult to give out their IDs on every website> Every OS that wants kids to use their OS make an alternate version> Windows kids, Linux kids, Mac kids, Android kids, etc...> Kids OSes can, at the OS level, only connect to a whitelist of domain names that have a "kid-friendly" certification, based on guidelines defined by law> Have VPNs not work on kids OSes> Make it illegal for adults to provide non-kid OSes to kids, the same way it's illegal to give porn magazines to kids> Kids keep doomscrolling tiktok> Adults keep gooning> Indian scammers weep cuz they can't steal your identity> OS makers rejoice in minimal work required> Governments won't ever do that because protecting the kids wasn't the actual reason they wanted ID in the first place> pic relatedWhat do you think ?
It's "allowlist" chud
let parents figure it out. I don't give a shit about their kids.
Kids in the UK are going to foreign porn sites that don't follow their rules and pornhub is crying about it.
>>109607234you're dreaming too hardhere's my take>govt approved devices for kids>strict parental controls, no browsers, no hidden browsers in apps (no webview)>only whitelisted govt apps (school, bus, chat with both parents approving the contact first)>locked down to all hell>device will constantly emit a transponder code (real scifi!)>any kid found with an unapproved device (frequency scanner for teachers/police logging searches to a central database) will subject their parents to MASSIVE inconvenience
>>109607234I think froggy, that we don't need to find a solution to a nonexistent issue in the first place.
>>109607234I don't think the government should be involved with regulating OSs or code at all, but I do think the whitelist is a better alternative. Only the websites that actually want to cater to kids have to have compliance, could even charge a small fee to cover whatever the cost is of maintaining said whitelist. Could implement it basically as a DNS service and require ISPs to cover set up for people who do want it. With the caveat that any use of such service be explicitly opt in.
>>109607298Trying to find a middle ground between the current system and what the governments are trying to push lately. Looks like there are people that really want to protect kids as hard as they can and I would rather they do this solution than the absolute dogshit they have been proposing so far.
>>109607234If a kid is caught looking at pr0n, kid gets sent to juvie or parents get fined $1000 or sent to jailThat would solve the problem really quick
>>109607346If anything such a service should be provided just as an additional resource to parents, not some mandate.
>>109607370Who catches kids looking at porn ? Parents do. Parents won't snitch on their kids only to get themselves fucked over.
Just have a DNS provider that only give you well behaving sites.Any kid that is smart enough to overcome that, deserves the porn.
>>109607234>Here is how you prevent children from accessing weird websites without forcing every adult to give out their IDs on every websiteForcing adults to give out their IDs on every website is the point. "muh childrens" is just to get the retarded christniggers and parents on board with the panopticon.
>>109607416Conspiracy nuts be wilding
>>109607234>What do you think ?I think you're an idiot. There's a far easier solution to keep this out of their reach.>>109607277>let parents figure it out.Unfortunately, that's not how this appears to be working. >I don't give a shit about their kids.Don't worry, it's being made your problem. It's either that or actually be a parent, so...>>109607290>>device will constantly emit a transponder codeSo ... Like wifi?Or did you mean more like the baseband modem hooking into the base station?>(frequency scanner for teachers/police logging searches to a central database) Why would scanning what's in the air around you require to be logged? It doesn't currently. In any jurisdiction I'm aware of.>>109607346>Trying to find a middle ground between the current system and what the governments are trying to push latelyFuck that noise.You don't want your kid to use the internet, don't give them a device that access the internet. You want to manage where they visit, you manage where they visit. It's that simple.>>109607405>Just have a DNS provider that only give you well behaving sites.Tends to happen at the ISP level locally...
>>109607416>Forcing dipshits to give out their IDs on every website is the point.FTFY.You know how you should respond to that premise?You deny that site your patronage. Assuming for no legitimate reason behind requiring. I'm willing to put money on nothing of value will be lost. And that where value exists will be worth someone like me deploying it just because I can.
>>109607573Wyd when your government says every website has to do that ?>>109607564Then provide your fucking easier solution instead of vagueposting
>>109607564>Why would scanning what's in the air around you require to be logged? It doesn't currently. In any jurisdiction I'm aware of.honestly i jumped the gun, the kid-permitted devices shouldn't be sending any beacons by default, but should be forced to respond to a specially crafted request created by the scannerif it were to send a signal permanently it would basically make a child radar for pedosas for the way it should do it, BLE or something like it should sufficeas for the logging part, it would simply be for transparency's sake
>>109607601>Wyd when your government says every website has to do that ?Stop using those sites?Again, anything of value I'll just replace... and the plan to force *me* to ask *you* for ID?>>109607601>Then provide your fucking easier solution instead of vaguepostingIf you could read then you might have noticed - or as evidence suggests, might not - the solution was presented: Be a fucking parent.>>109607606>the kid-permitted devices shouldn't be sending any beacons by default,So how is this supposed to be identified on a network?When you're trying to get somewhere, knowing where you're going sure helps...>but should be forced to respond to a specially crafted request created by the scannerYour plan to assure that it will only respond to this scanner?>as for the way it should do it, BLE or something like it should sufficePity there isn't such a thing as BT MAC spoofing or that would have just been comical...
>>109607688do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?your grievances are already solved yet you don't know the half of it
>>109607722>do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?Well. With the way I've just used facts and logic to smash holes in the steaming pile of shit you submitted, It would appear so.>your grievances are already solved yet you don't know the half of itThey are?Please anon. Enlighten.
>>109607573What is the technological solution to the state? Comply completely and totally?
>>109607742>>the kid-permitted devices shouldn't be sending any beacons by default,>So how is this supposed to be identified on a network?>When you're trying to get somewhere, knowing where you're going sure helps...for sure dude i meant all communication and not the aforementioned transponder, no, not at all, what you made up in your mind is the reality>>but should be forced to respond to a specially crafted request created by the scanner>Your plan to assure that it will only respond to this scanner?it's already being done with other devices? right the fuck now?the point is the device passively listenshow it AUTHENTICATES (i must stress this, since you don't seem to have enough working memory) is decided on the DEVICE, which could check anything the scanner sends (for example, a SIGNATURE) against a locally downloaded database of active CERTIFICATES of scannersTHEN and only THEN would it send the beacon out, revealing itself.magically assured. retard.>le bluetooth mac spoofingyeah it wouldn't use fucking MACS to AUTHENTICATE now would it? retard???and if you knew ANYTHING at all, you'd know that's not only how BLE works. RETARD.you fucking baboon get the fuck off my boardback to school. RETARD.
>>109607234Or maybe just stop caring so much about what kids see and watch chud? Millennial shits are becoming the same boomertards they once despised.
Unpopular opinion. There's nothing wrong with your 'kids'(who can absolutely make babies if they want to) watching porn.
>>109608473It's so weird parents thinks it's healthy to guard a 'child' from partaking in an activity they absolutely can. Have you retards forgotten when you were 13? You were horny af. And besides things are all so sexual all around you. You walk to a beach and see women dress like strippers but you think your 'kid' seeing that woman take off that thin piece of garment is suddenly so psychologically damaging for them?
>>109607234I said something similiar. would work with tons of these bs useless government things.Parental controls.websites have to check for if this is flagged on by the OS. If it is, they give the kiddy versions of their sites or block access. Easy peezee right? >>109607298see that way the government doesnt fuck with pcs. Just the websites. Have to have it do that check on the websites maybe not if their only for kids anyway. Parent on pc, free access. Parental control lock, no access, via website. instead of >>109607258>this
you are fucking retarded and shouldn't have made this thread in the first place. there is no problem with kids accessing any content they want. you are stupid for thinking governing someone and taking their freedom is okay. if you don't want ID verification just don't give your ID to websites, if everyone will do that the websites that comply with the ID checks won't receive any traffic and be forced to be normal again. the government is the problem. you are the problem for being stupid. use only free software. be an anarchist. don't comply. say no.
>>109610632What do you do when every website asks for ID, because the law forces them ?A boycott from the linuxfags won't do much. Most people don't know what an OS is or why giving out your ID is a terrible security breach. Most people will simply see that they can't scroll tiktok or talk with their friends on discord without giving out ID, and thus will give out ID.With this solution at least kids are the only ones getting fucked like the purist intended.
>>109608430>Stop the rockCan't stop the rock
>>109607234How do we prevent someone being struck lightning? This is the problem when the surveillance state tries to hyper optimize life and just ruin it for everyone else.
>>109610632you can't even begin to comprehend how early loss of innocence fucks with people later in life
>>109611134All the sheltered people whose parents made them watch veggie tales all day turned into stunted freaks with weird sex hangups and self hatred. Some double down and go turbo leftist. People itt are acting like pixels on a screen is the same as being physically molested and becoming gay.
>>109611160you must be fundamentally misunderstanding what innocence is. it's not being sheltered, i assure you.
>>109607234The argument is irrelevant because solutions like whitelists are already available, but the purpose is mass surveillance and the fig leaf used for it is irrelevant. There is no point in discussing a position only held disingeniously.
We simply should do nothing.
>>109611163Not really, clarify or move some goalposts idgaf society is so pussified and selectively puritanical in the worst ways.
>>109611178way ahead of you there, bud.
>>109607234Bold of you to assume that they actually want to protect children.
>>109607234You don't even need to make a separate OS. You had need to make use of the parental control software already available on operating systems. Not a thing needs to be changed. Parents just need to use the tools in front of them.The thing is, parents either don't want to do the work or actually don't mind their children accessing porn online. In these cases, why is the government trying to step in?
>>109613557Because they want a surveillance state, duh.
>>109607234>Make it illegal for adults to provide non-kid OSes to kids, the same way it's illegal to give porn magazines to kidsYou're back to square one
>>109607234I Hurt myself today
>>109607277>>109607564lock up the parents for child abuse, they are clearly not supervising them if this is the kind of ads they are shown
>>109607234Easy execute parents on live TV if they're caught handing their toddlers smartphones, tablets, etc.>muh tech solution to a social problemDoesn't exist go back to sniffing bespoke Chinese drugs and stop trying to solve problems you were never equipped to understand in the first place.
>>109607234>>109607258Op wants to make it illegal to use the family computer for general purposes, and you're worried about semantic shit?
>>109607234I was called a faggot and told to kill myself for years of unsupervised computer use. Where the fuck are these supposedly negatively affected people that can't click the X button?
>>109607234>Here is how you prevent children from accessing weird websites without forcing every adult to give out their IDs on every website:Remove all jews from positions of power and influence.
I want the pre-Trump internet back.
>>109616107me too
separate all men and women and make it illegal for men to interact with women in any way or women to interact with men in any way and isolate them so that when people see the opposite sex they'll be attracted but it won't be an arranged marriage which is happening now
implant neuralinks in everyone's head so everyone finds their partner
>>109607234I think we should treat it like driving where you have to have a license to use it, and you have to be 18
Older siblings and "Cool Dads" would break the system.
>>109607234>Parents leave home>It's computer time>trillions of dollars for nothing
