deleted by creator

They didn’t. I don’t want my kids to repeat my experience.

No android app, and no API. 😞

The tap to link idea is fun though.

I’ve got a bunch:

• It should be possible to manage my kids’ access to all services from third party apps. Like, I want to say “no voice comms anywhere” without having to fuss with each terrible janky UI.

• There should be required messaging standards. Let me choose emails (or texts, or whatever) for friend requests, weekly summaries, etc.

• Tell me who manages my kids’ friends accounts.

• There should be a standard, easy easy to register an account for parental controls. I don’t want to dig through out-of-date support docs to try and figure out how to link my account to my kids’ accounts.

There’s lots of infrastructure that could help:

• requirements on how children are identified in parental control apps,
• requiring APIs so third party apps can manage parental controls,
• requiring standardized language in UIs so parents know what their kids are in for,
• required messaging for various events - I wanna get a goddamn email instead of a notification on an app I never use
• not requiring parents to use the service their kids are using

Being able to use a third party app to manage everything would be perfect.

I have at least six parental control apps that I need to manage. Each one is different and has different ways of expressing the same things. They all require different accounts and have different ways of identifying my kids.

It would be fucking amazing to have some standardization, or, even better, a single interface that would control all those stupid apps. A unified view of my kids interactions, friend requests, usage time, etc would be really helpful.

It sounds like you should talk to a priest.

Who are the people in the last few frames? I recognize Enstein and Bob Marley, but I’m not sure who the others are.

Ngl, that looks awesome

Computer needs practice to get program right.

It’s a really strong lock. It has to be.

might drink and drive gallop

Or the AI on shopping websites saying “I’d recommend this model…”

We don’t have a pronoun for “this non-human unit”. LLMs are marketed as conversational, so they need to conform to the limitations of English.

One could argue that “we” or “one” would be more appropriate, but that would sound stilted in many contexts.

I’d prefer linguistic markers to distinguish between people and machines, but we haven’t gotten there yet.

Don’t do catnip. Not even once.

The meh humour cheapens the tiddies.

no way to verify it isn’t beyond “trust me bro” and I don’t trust them

If the verification service is structured like oauth, then the request could be passed through the browser as signed plaintext. You could verify that the requesting site is only passing a minimum age request to the service. That would be as straightforward as viewing the interaction in your browser’s debug tooling.

If you say that you don’t trust the signature, and that it could be used to smuggle identifying information across, there’s a couple of ways to deal with that: open source and audited provider governed by legislation; information theory that would show personally identifying information wouldn’t fit into a field of that size; and “personal auditing” where you can try throwing data at the service to see if you can trick it into accepting invalid input (that really goes with the previous point, because the only field you can usefully vary is the signature).

I can’t speak to Germany’s system, but there’s no need for a site to tell the verification service its identity. If it just asks “is the current session authenticated to someone over 16” and gets an answer back. Identity of both parties remains secret.

And no real humour. I realize it’s in the eye of the beholder, but this stuff is just meh with tiddies.