to be clear, this is probably a terrible idea on approximately 67 different levels and most likely not logistically possible in any meaningful capacity, but it's also an interesting concept.
to be clear, this is probably a terrible idea on approximately 67 different levels and most likely not logistically possible in any meaningful capacity, but it's also an interesting concept.
Well, you could just define a different URL scheme that still uses HTTP behind the scenes. kids://tildes.net could load a consored version. Then browsers could auto-redirect to kids versions or...
Well, you could just define a different URL scheme that still uses HTTP behind the scenes. kids://tildes.net could load a consored version. Then browsers could auto-redirect to kids versions or block access to normal websites. No need to reinvent any infrastructure.
Wouldn't this still be trusting in the content providers to appropriately tag what's kid friendly or not? If they had the wherewithal to do that, we wouldn't be needing the kid-friendly web in the...
Wouldn't this still be trusting in the content providers to appropriately tag what's kid friendly or not? If they had the wherewithal to do that, we wouldn't be needing the kid-friendly web in the first place.
Protecting kids on the internet is a sweet false reason for authoritarian governments to censor the internet. It's responsibility of parents really to keep their children away from dangers,...
Protecting kids on the internet is a sweet false reason for authoritarian governments to censor the internet. It's responsibility of parents really to keep their children away from dangers, including online. If you want your kids not see some content, block it at the family level only, other adults shouldn't be affected by that blocking.
I don't think I'd mind a youth-net as a device level flag. These days most children seem to have their own, personal devices, and while some services have special accounts for kids, it would be...
I don't think I'd mind a youth-net as a device level flag. These days most children seem to have their own, personal devices, and while some services have special accounts for kids, it would be handy if the OS could restrict them to a set which are explicitly for children.
I know this is partially doable with the parental settings most of these devices usually have, but they're both a pain to configure and easily obsolesce.
to be clear, this is probably a terrible idea on approximately 67 different levels and most likely not logistically possible in any meaningful capacity, but it's also an interesting concept.
Well, you could just define a different URL scheme that still uses HTTP behind the scenes. kids://tildes.net could load a consored version. Then browsers could auto-redirect to kids versions or block access to normal websites. No need to reinvent any infrastructure.
Wouldn't this still be trusting in the content providers to appropriately tag what's kid friendly or not? If they had the wherewithal to do that, we wouldn't be needing the kid-friendly web in the first place.
Protecting kids on the internet is a sweet false reason for authoritarian governments to censor the internet. It's responsibility of parents really to keep their children away from dangers, including online. If you want your kids not see some content, block it at the family level only, other adults shouldn't be affected by that blocking.
I don't think I'd mind a youth-net as a device level flag. These days most children seem to have their own, personal devices, and while some services have special accounts for kids, it would be handy if the OS could restrict them to a set which are explicitly for children.
I know this is partially doable with the parental settings most of these devices usually have, but they're both a pain to configure and easily obsolesce.