Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ipython's commentslogin

Ha. Nice Brown v. Board pull.

it has the Trump stench all over it, apparently. :(

:( I had to click through because I didn't believe you at first... as someone who used to proudly work with feds, this yet another low point in many over the past ten years.

There are way more people calling it in at large orgs or FAANGs. Clearly you've never worked in a civil service position given your foolish caricature of one.

Can confirm that 70% of faang are slackers

For DOGE specifically? Would be interested to hear of those DOGE employees who truly deserved to be GS-15s due to their extensive experience in both tech and government.

> extensive experience in both tech and government.

The USDS (group that was renamed to a part of DOGE) has previously hired with an emphasis on non government experience: http://govciomedia.com/usds-developing-innovative-approach-t...


The USDS and DOGE had completely different mandates. Non government experience makes sense when you’re trying to learn the lessons of industry to improve gov website accessibility, performance and ux.

On the other hand, trying to slash spending with no understanding of the agencies you’re working at- let alone any life experience for a lot of these folks- is a very different mandate.


because, at the time, slick landers, and general good UI/UX was completely missing from government tech workflows.

All I can think of when reading this is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

how about we start with a law that requires tech companies to provide useful parental controls? Can we please stop blaming parents??

The iOS controls at least are pretty robust.

> Can we please stop blaming parents??

No? They are surely somewhere in the top 3 influences that can actually have a meaningful difference here.


Do you have kids? I'm not being glib.

Yes, I have set up technical guardrails.

But when your kid needs Internet access to do their homework, and you forget to turn off the WiFi to their device after they're done... then they sneak that Chromebook to their room and watch videos all night, you lose.

When you have a extra phone that was sitting on your desk that you were preparing to resell and your kid sneaks that to their room to watch a few hundred YouTube shorts before you catch him, you lose.

When you have parental controls set up on your wifi network, but it's trivial to shut the wifi off and use the cellular network instead, you lose.

When your friends all have personal cell phones but you don't, you lose.

Parents have their hands full enough. Make it easier for parents, don't poke at them with a pointy stick.


> But when your kid needs Internet access to do their homework, and you forget to turn off the WiFi to their device after they're done... then they sneak that Chromebook to their room and watch videos all night, you lose.

You are at fault.

> When you have a extra phone that was sitting on your desk that you were preparing to resell and your kid sneaks that to their room to watch a few hundred YouTube shorts before you catch him, you lose.

You are at fault.

> When you have parental controls set up on your wifi network, but it's trivial to shut the wifi off and use the cellular network instead, you lose.

This can be controlled via Parental Controls on iOS via Screen Time. If you chose not to, you are at fault.

> When your friends all have personal cell phones but you don't, you lose.

Not sure what you want anyone to do about this. I recognize that life isnt fair.

> Parents have their hands full enough. Make it easier for parents, don't poke at them with a pointy stick.

No one is arguing against this. They are arguing how to implement this.


Glad to hear your life is so simple that you can track all this while working full time jobs, cooking healthy meals, driving the kids to the various activities and travel sports (because you could be arrested if you let your kids walk anywhere), making sure they complete their homework on time, monitoring their interactions with friends, tracking new tech trends to find new threats (is my kid interacting with character.io or ChatGPT in an unhealthy way?)... I'm sure I'm missing a few more.

And yes, you are arguing against "making it easier for parents" - my original post literally advocated for legislating tech companies to make controls available, effective, and easy to use. If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me. Instead you're nitpicking my ability to parent my kids. Exactly the behavior that isn't working, so please continue - I'm sure it'll work now.


> Instead you're nitpicking my ability to parent my kids.

You willingly invited that conversation. I obliged.

> If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me.

Get over yourself. You have not made an attempt to ask for a solution from me to find common ground. You keep trying to remove yourself from the responsibilities of parenting in the modern world as shown in the examples you put forth and your initial post asking that parents not shoulder the blame for what is happening under their nose. Surely they have some level of culpability.

I believe that it would be good for Parental Controls on devices to have a toggle to say that the phone is being used by someone in under 13, or someone 14-18 (whatever bands you want). When enabled, this flag should be available to locally installed apps and remote connections. Laws can be passed that tell remote connections how they must act when receiving this flag. This keeps me, an free adult, from being subjected to more corpo/govt tracking.


> Get over yourself.... find common ground

Ad hominem attacks - great way to find common ground. I actually did try to find common ground, which is that we need to legislate. My argument is that the real entities that need legislation are the ones who can most afford to do so - in both time, resources, and ownership of the platforms that we are all beholden to. I will not advocate for even more punitive restrictions on parents (who already are subject to enough societal punitive pressures as it is - TBH your post is a great example. Instead of empathy, you reply with scorn and derision - as if I'm not good enough to parent my kids).

> I believe that it would be good for Parental Controls on devices to have a toggle to say that the phone is being used by someone in under 13, or someone 14-18 (whatever bands you want).

So you're admitting that parental controls are ineffective?

> Laws can be passed that tell remote connections how they must act when receiving this flag.

And those laws are enforced through what mechanism? What country enforces this law? Do ISPs now have to only accept connections from "legal" remote servers that have attested that they respect that flag? That sounds like an even more restrictive situation for you, as a free adult, than the current system.

But, I do have good news! What you described already exists! In fact, there are even W3C standards that have been around for 30 years to implement a machine readable content rating system! Just never got around to that whole passing a law thing to force all websites globally to adopt it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... and more recently https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/. You can read the ACM paper on this, aptly titled "Internet Access Controls Without Censorship" here: https://www.w3.org/PICS/iacwcv2.htm.

And the most popular web browser of the early 2000s even has this functionality built in - to filter out remote connections that advertise content unsuitable for minors! https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-...


> Ad hominem attacks

Grow some skin. I used that ad hominem in response to your false dilemma/no true support comment of "If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me". This comment ignores the obvious 3rd option that we can share underlying values (parental controls are helpful) while disagreeing on details, tradeoffs and the responsibility that comes with parenting.

> So you're admitting that parental controls are ineffective?

I never stated anything of the sort. I specifically pointed how they could be effective for you in the examples you brought forth. I think they could be made more effective, not that they are ineffective.

> And those laws are enforced through what mechanism?

If this is how you feel, than no solution you put forth is valid either.

At this point, I've stated how current parental controls can solve some of your issues, parental controls can be strengthen, outlined an implementation that does not disrupt the lives of Adults on the internet while also pointing out that parents are not immune from blame and are bare the majority of control over their childs lives. Ive engaged with you in good faith.

You just keeping shitting on everything. All because I stated that parents are not immune from blame. I stand by the ad hominem.


How does that work in practice? I've tried to do this at home. It doesn't work at all. It's not the 90s any more- there isn't one PC sitting on a desk with a modem attached to a phone line that you need to wait for 30 seconds to dial up and establish a connection before you're online...

Now you have ubiquitous WiFi and cellular connectivity across dozens of devices in a typical household. Even refrigerators have built in web browsers now. Parental controls are a joke, treated as an afterthought at best - nonexistent at worst. Oh, and the school system provides your kids with a Chromebook with Internet access starting in elementary school.

It's victim blaming at its finest IMO. Yeah, we can all point fingers at the parents who sit their kids down with an iPad. But there's many of us who struggle to limit screen time, working against the profit motive of trillions of dollars of corporations. It's a losing battle.

Edit: crazy. Instead of providing an answer to my question of "how do you do this in practice" I get downvoted. Goes to show that there are no real solutions, just a bunch of morality police and victim blaming. Yes, parents are the victims here. The tools are inadequate and trillions of dollars of incentives are lined up against them.


If the picture truly was of a child, the company is _required_ to report CSAM to NCMEC. It's taken very seriously. If they're not being responsive, escalate and report it yourself so you don't have legal problems.

See https://report.cybertip.org/.


Even if it's an Ai image? I will follow through contacting them directly rather than with the platform messaging system, then I'll see what to do if they don't answer

Edit i read the informations given in the briefing before the task, and they say that there might be offensive content displayed. They say to tell them if it happens, but well I did and got no answer so weeeell, not so inclined to believe they care about it


>Even if it's an Ai image?

This varies by country, but in many countries it doesn't matter if it is a drawing, AI, or a real image -- they are treated equally for the purposes of CSAM.


That's understandable

The company may not care, but the gov definitely does. And if you don’t report then you could be in serious legal jeopardy. If any fragments of that image are still present on your machine, whether it came from the company or not, you could be held accountable for possessing csam.

So screw the company, report it yourself and make sure to cite the company and their lack of a response. There’s a Grand Canyon sized chasm between “offensive content” and csam.


A nude picture of a child is not automatically CSAM.

It needs to be sexually abused or exploited for something to be CSAM.


That's understandable, I still felt uneasy

> It's taken very seriously

Can confirm. The amount of people I see in my local news getting arrested for possession that "... came from a cybertip escalated to NCMEC from <BIGCOMPANY>" is... staggering. (And it's almost always Google Drive or GMail locally, but sometimes a curveball out there.)


Where does this happen?

100% this. And cars are following down this road as well. For example, my Tesla 3 radio will go bonkers every so often and will refuse to change the channel, no matter what I do. Tapping a new channel icon changes the "currently playing" view, but the audio from the original channel continues to play. This happens until you restart the entire UI (by turning off the car or rebooting the display).

But, hey, they managed to add a Tron cross-over tie-in feature, and maybe some new fart noises!

Undoubtedly when they fix that radio bug, something else will fail. Like the SRS (supplemental restraint system, aka airbag) error message that was introduced at some point in the past six months, then silently got fixed with a more recent firmware update.


> But, hey, they managed to add a Tron cross-over tie-in feature, and maybe some new fart noises!

And, you know, FSD 14.2. :)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: