• gon@lemmy.world
    178·
    1 year ago

    A classic. So many questions arise from this simple text+image post:

    1. Is this person’s child named really “Strairdrac The Netherwatcher”?
    2. Is Strairdrac even human?
    3. Why does Strairdrac want to teach crabs how to read?
    4. Why is it considered forbidden knowledge?
    5. What other knowledge is forbidden?

    We will never have all the answers. Still, the questions are themselves a sort of answer.

  • Stovetop@lemmy.world
    163·
    1 year ago

    I get the “haha” of this particular search getting reported on…but I think that this sort of surveillance is definitely stepping into creepy territory that will end up doing more harm than good.

    There were definitely web searches I performed about topics back when I was younger that I would never want my parents to know. When you live in an oppressive household where you are taught never to think outside of the box or be anything your parents don’t want you to be, having the internet available is supposed to be a path to liberation.

    If they want to set up filters that block certain results, fine. But tattling is just unethical, especially if the child does not know their search history is being monitored by their parents.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        11·
        1 year ago

        The thing is, parents get incredibly conflicted messages about this. When a child DOES end up looking at something bad parents get all the blame for not supervising and controlling their child and get called abusive. If they supervise and control their child they get called helicopter parents or abusive as well.

        And it’s not only regarding the internet. When parents let their children roam, for example, the neighborhood and something bad happens, the parents get the blame and called abusive for letting their child roam the neighborhood. If they control outdoors time for they child, they are abusive again.

        It literally doesn’t matter what you do as a parent, a lot of people will call you a bad parent or an abuser for it. I believe it is one reason why some people don’t want to have children at all. It’s basically an impossible task.

        • xyproto@programming.dev
          3·
          1 year ago

          When a child DOES end up looking at something bad parents get all the blame for not supervising and controlling their child and get called abusive

          Not everywhere. This is typical for the US.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          15·
          1 year ago

          it is not a speculation nor a prophecy lol, it’s stories exploring the human condition with technology as the driver of the story

            • Ganbat@lemmyonline.comEnglish
              5·
              1 year ago

              Merriam-Webster definition for “explore” 1a:

              to investigate, study, or analyze : look into
              ➡️sometimes used with indirect questions

              This definition makes no distinction between factual and speculative, and in fact invites speculative use with the second point. Additionally, there’s a long history of using the word “explore” in this exact type of situation.

              Anyway, the point is, don’t be such a wet blanket, plz.

              • Llewellyn@lemmy.ml
                1·
                1 year ago

                I just don’t think some fiction is reliable source of information.

                And I can’t see in the definition the meaning you are implying. You’re overstretching it.

                • ChargedBasisGrand@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  it’s unwise to take literary advice from someone that uses words without taking the time to learn their definition

    • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
      15·
      1 year ago

      This sort of oppressive situation is my childhood in a nutshell. And you’re right, it’s entirely unethical, and in combination with other factors can be used as a factor in psychological abuse. I know I at least am traumatized from it, and surveillance was definitely one of many signifigant factors.

        • alvanrahimli@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Kids grown in high volume of surveillance (e.g. my nieces) end up being more aggressive towards rules, which creates people who think rules are there to be broken.

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      94·
      1 year ago

      Kids need access to the internet at a super young age these days for school. If you don’t have some sort of filter in place when they are in single digits or tweens you are just negligent. The internet has some dark corners.

            • Fluffery@lemmy.ml
              2·
              1 year ago

              thats not the kid, thats the parent, how do I know? My parents used filter Software when i was younger. And if i was myself, i wouldnt want any of my kids to have raw unfiltered access to the Internet and thats coming me; a teenager. A teen can very easily develop a porn addiction, sorry if I’m a religous zealot and I’m a horrible being for going to church. but I also check your post history and I think you need a therapist or something. Your not ok in the head

      • sounddrill@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        26·
        1 year ago

        Harder the surveillance, harder the kid works to bypass them

        Kids are smart, good on OOP to teach their kids to use a VPN, about dual booting, and more

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          38·
          1 year ago

          If the kid is old enough to purposely bypass the security, they’re probably around the right age to find some of the stuff on the other side. But you don’t want them accidentally stumbling into it because they searched something seemingly innocent.

        • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
          6·
          1 year ago

          If the kids old enough to figure out VPNs, dual booting, and all the other pretty simple workarounds then it is what it is. You can’t control everything. I am talking about the little guys. And this dudes kid is googling how to teach crabs to talk. If someone is searching that they probably aren’t ready to get completely unrestricted access because they are probably pretty young. Like I said, single digits or tweens.

          • sounddrill@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
            4·
            1 year ago

            It is what it is

            If the parents still try to restrict, which most unreasonably will, then the kid will simply grow better at this

            This leads to the kid growing up with confiding in random people more than their family(this might lead to said friends being a bad influence on them, since they didn’t learn how to differentiate good and bad people)

            That or a general sense of distrust and surveillance

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              2·
              1 year ago

              Parents can literally get sued by the state for letting their children watch inappropriate stuff (at least where I live). You are obligated as a parent to restrict the access of your children to inappropriate media.

              • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
                1·
                1 year ago

                There’s a HUGE difference between restrictions via blockers and surveillance. I can assure you that no one here is arguing in favour of letting kids watch porn…

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        18·
        1 year ago

        And the proper way is to teach your kids about it and stop treating kids like super fragile glass beings.

        Your city probably has some dark corners too, but you don’t set up geofenced tracking beacons to be alarmed if they stumble slightly off the path you intended them to go.

        Children should feel comfortable enough to talk to you about bad stuff they encounter, not feel frightened, that they broke a rule.

        • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
          17·
          1 year ago

          By the time I was 17, at least on my windows PC, every search I made was reported. Every setting I touched was reported. Every app I use, and how long, reported. Every startup and shutdown reported. Games with chat features were banned. Online games were banned. Every week on Sunday, an email with all this went to my parents, and my dad would forward it to me as a kind of intimidation that “we know all”…

          And yes, they used geofenced tracking too.

          But I’m a geek, so my Linux laptop and phone were no longer bugged (my only access to other people at the time) by the time I figured it out (around age 16).

          Still had to turn the tracker on so they wouldn’t ask why the location pings stopped though.

          This kind of obsessive control ought to be illegal. I propose privacy rights at age 16, enforceable by fines, with a safe hotline for those with obsessive parents. They were emotionally abusive, control by external restrictions is often only part of the story in cases like mine.

          I’m all for safety filters, but parental controls that can be classified as spyware have no place in a parent-child relationship after the age of 16…

        • Rukmer@lemmy.world
          13·
          1 year ago

          If you use these trackers and barge in “hey I saw what you did on the internet, you’re in trouble.” then you’re doing it wrong. Kids need guidance. If you were negligent enough to let your kid roam the city without supervision, you SHOULD have a tracker on them. We’re talking about little kids not 16+. Many young kids get themselves killed or groomed or into some kind of cult online. When that happens to young kids, parents are negligent. When 12 year olds get addicted to porn, negligence. You can guide your children without being an asshole. I know a lot of us grew up either completely neglected or completely terrified to make a mistake, but there is an in-between.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            14·
            1 year ago

            When I look outside, there are 5 year olds playing without supervision. They get along just fine.

            Not every country is a paranoid dystopia.

            • Misconduct@lemmy.world
              9·
              1 year ago

              Not every state in the US is the same so your comment is mostly based on smug ignorance anyway. It’s not paranoia if you live in a city with a lot of crime etc. You just wanted to try and feel superior. Giving me reddit vibes tbh.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          1·
          1 year ago

          The thing is, parents can get sued for not restricting access of their children to inappropriate media. When you think just talking to your children “the right way” and they will suddenly act wise and smart and good all the time you are incredibly naive.

      • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        1 year ago

        thinking about my p history and that one video

        Wasn’t quite different back then, it is easier now, and full of advertisements and stuff that make the happy chemicals go brrrr

      • Misconduct@lemmy.world
        27·
        1 year ago

        Not giving your kids access to the internet at all is insane. You’re setting them up for failure by not actively teaching them how to navigate the Internet and what bs to look out for. Anyone that does this is just trying to indoctrinate their kid and prevent them from being exposed to any other ideas. The ego on parents that think they know enough to entirely prepare their kids for the world is ridiculous. Especially these days. You’re just setting them up to be behind when they’re older and they’ll resent you while they struggle to catch up.

          • Zabjam@lemm.ee
            3·
            1 year ago

            The thing is, the internet does exist now. And it is part of the world kids grow up in. So the question is not what someone thinks what the children will miss. They will not miss anything because they will have friends who will show them what the internet is. The question is: who do you want your kids to learn from what the internet is and can do?

            From you or from their peers

      • Llewellyn@lemmy.ml
        19·
        1 year ago

        Better yet, don’t let them use the internet.

        Good luck with that. And also spying is the best way to lose your kid’s trust.

      • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
        8·
        1 year ago

        My parents used this as part of their obsessive-control emotional / psychological abuse. Mostly to try to indoctrinate me into their cult, and their extremist right-wing ideology. There is a place for filters, and even search reports - but search reports ought to end around 14 years, and by 16 there needs to be some form of legal recognition of privacy rights as a human being for cases of isolating abuse as a part of indoctrination. P*rn blockers etc on the router are fine though, the network legally belongs to the parents. But human being, at least after puberty, requires privacy for proper psychological development. Complete surveillance after that time is psychologically and emotionally harmful to both the child and the relationship.

    • smellythief@beehaw.org
      1·
      1 year ago

      If there’s a reliable way to only be alerted to specific activity, then the parents aren’t really actively spying, in the sense that the kids still have privacy when they aren’t transgressing into prohibited space. As long as that prohibited space is reasonable (huge debate possible there of course) and the kids know about the restrictions. imo

      • ChargedBasisGrand@lemmy.ml
        2·
        1 year ago

        this post is about a child being blocked then reported to their parents for ‘teaching crabs to read’
        I don’t think you can defend it as a reasonable prohibited space

  • Ben Haube@lemmy.world
    115·
    1 year ago

    When I was a kid (way too many years ago) my parents gave up trying to restrict my Internet usage because no matter what they did I could easily get around it. I knew more about networking than they did. Then I grew up to become an IT administrator.

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          40·
          1 year ago

          I dunno… A lot of the newer gens didn’t have to tinker with everything to get it to work so they’re less familiar with the ins and outs of stuff. Not to say they all are because it’s silly to generalize that many people but many of them grew up with this stuff. Just like how I couldn’t tell you how a TV works or fix one but I’ve built all my own pcs. That happened naturally because I had to learn it early on to have a computer. That being said they definitely seem to be developing a unique skill set for navigating the internet and social media as a whole. I’ve noticed they’re a lot less likely to trust a generic Google search or various articles online. I guess when you’re raised around bullshit you’re gonna end up more critical of it. This is mostly about gen z of course and maybe younger millennials. Gen alpha is feral and weird we should all be worried lmao

          • alvanrahimli@lemmy.mlEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            This is very true. We had to fix all the shit happens to our systems and stuff. But now, they have perfected by implementing this restrictive environments like mac os, chrome os, and stuff like this (windows is trying to implement same thing these days too). So, their devices don’t break. They don’t have to learn how to fix that.

            Nowadays kids don’t even understand basic file structure, lmao.

          • Woland@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            If they were really applying critical thinking to bullshit, mainstream media wouldn’t be forced to literally put together entire departments dedicated to fighting fake news.

            • Ben Haube@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              I think you misunderstand the reason they need to fight fake news. It’s for the boomers. Kids these days are very media literate and skeptical of everything. It’s really all the boomers who are falling for misinformation and spreading it on Facebook.

        • KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          The fresh college grads getting hired at my work imply this is becoming an inaccurate generalization. Particularly in regards to tech. We may be reaching the brain’s natural knowledge saturation point, and with so much knowledge available, there’s a natural tendency towards a wide but shallow pool.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            7·
            1 year ago

            Also the fact that unless we have some very notable breakthroughs the tech adults of now grew up with will probably be relatively similar to those kids born now will grow up with.

            We saw massive technological growth over the last 70 years especially for computer and to illustrate my point im gonna note when my mother, grandmother, and myself were born and note the standard computers available.

            Me(1999) Computers were similar enough to modern ones that there isnt much to note outside of processing power and startup, sure theres clear differences but if you know how to operate windows 98 you can probably figure out windows 10 with ease.

            My mother(1979) Congrats you have the apple II computer, some weird texas Instruments computers, and whatever IBM is making. The commadore 64 will be released in three years. Almost all the knowledge is irrelevent for these computers because between the internet and the march of progress not much is gonna be recognizable.

            My grandmother (1956) Computers are the size of rooms and their consoles resemble radar equipment more than anything else probably cause it is old radar equipment. Colored television is a luzury item and the average person thinks a computer is someone good at mathmatics.

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      26·
      1 year ago

      My mom asked my uncle to restric access.
      I researched how to unblock it during my time :)
      Was seemingly IP-based and the router probably just created an DHCP reservation for my device. Changing IP to static and done. They should do it via MAC. And even that is useless nowadays.

      Edit: Also work in IT now.

      • Ben Haube@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, with MAC randomization being readily available on pretty much any device now it is also pretty useless.

    • froh42@lemmy.world
      17·
      1 year ago

      I gave my kids completely open internet access and just chose to talk with them on what they might encounter. If I’d locked their devices, they’d just went online at a friend’s place.

    • mithbt@lemmy.world
      16·
      1 year ago

      I didn’t restrict my kids Internet access, but I did tell them that even though I’m not tracking everything they’re doing online, the ISP, the school, upstream providers, search engines, social medias, advertisers, and pretty much everyone else will be.

      • Artificial Human No. 20@lemmy.world
        8·
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong. I was so desperate to get online as a kid I was pirating my neighbor’s internet on my Nintendo DS with a borrowed copy of the browser, because that was the only hardware I had with wifi access lmao.

        • Captain_Nipples@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          Back when I was a kid, I ended up guessing my principal’s internet password for our local dial-up. His email was through our local phone company, so his login name was the same… So I had free internet from 8th grade til I graduated. Eventually, the phone company made it where only one person could be logged in at once, but by then I had the money to buy my own.

          My parents weren’t home a lot of hours in the afternoon, and I was the oldest, so I had free reign. I kind of miss those days

          I still remember the 3 passwords I got over the years. His was “kramer” and the other two were “Ozzie1” and “Chicken1”

    • EatMyDick@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      I’m not reading you CAN’T, but filtering software is FAR better than the shit we got around. If you lock your bootloader there isn’t much you’re going to be able to do except use other devices available to you.