[array_key_first]

C and D, combined. New internet for kids-only. This internet would be WHITELIST only. We would not be wack-a-mole trying to catch porn sites (sigh...)

Rather, companies would have to submit a formal proposal to get their website listed on Kid Internet. This inverts the responsibility. It's not my cost, or your cost, it's their cost now. If they want kids, they better prove it.

Then, you can trivially configure your router or any computer, with any operating system, to use the Kid Internet DNS. It's now completely operating system and device agnostic. It can be organizational wide with the flick of a switch. It can be global, if we want.

The proposal we're seeing here is bad, bad, bad. Not just for privacy reasons, but because it will not work. Not might, will. This will not work. For many reasons:

1. Most operating systems are not going to implement some stupid ass bullshit.

2. Most websites do not give a single fuck. Porn websites will not care. Trying to play wack-a-mole is ALWAYS a losing game, no exceptions.

3. This is trivial to bypass.

4. If it's not trivial to bypass, it still will not work, but it will now be the end of computing as we know it.

[marcus_holmes]

So we have some kind of control to stop your router from connecting to Adult Internet DNS? Because the difficult bit here is not allowing connections to the Kid Internet, but stopping connections to the Adult Internet.

How do we decide what sites resolve as part of the Kid Internet? Is there some process where a site submits itself for approval to be part of the Adult Internet?

How do we stop the government from using this to stop access to parts of the internet it doesn't like?

This proposal looks even less workable

[array_key_first]

> So we have some kind of control to stop your router from connecting to Adult Internet DNS?

Yes, all routers currently have this built-in. Most software outside of routers does, too.

Will it be perfect? No. But, for example, this is how content filters work at schools and just about every workplace. And it seems to be good enough for them.

And, this will work better than that. Because the key point is we're not blacklisting anything. Nobody has to maintain a list of banned websites.

> How do we decide what sites resolve as part of the Kid Internet?

Companies or people send an application. The website is reviewed by a human, and they get approved or denied. If you don't care to target kids, which most people don't, you do nothing.

So I don't have to do anything, nor do you. But Meta does. Google does. I'm fine with that.

And, this "board" or whatever who hands out Kid-Friendly certificates can also take complaints. Why not?

> Is there some process where a site submits itself for approval to be part of the Adult Internet?

No, this it the beauty of it. If you want to be a part of adult internet, you do nothing. You already are.

Every website is implicitly adult internet, and it naturally completely subsumes kid internet. So, if you're just making a blog or whatever, nothing changes. In fact, you don't have to update anything from right now. It will all still work. Because Kid Internet is new thing, and it's whitelist only.

> How do we stop the government from using this to stop access to parts of the internet it doesn't like?

Related to above, adult internet is what we currently have. Nothing changes. You and I won't notice, and we can't notice. There will be the free-range internet, and then the subset of the internet approved for kids.

[MidnightRider39]

> content filters work at schools

Maybe they are vastly more sophisticated now but when I was a kid it was a sport for us to break these filters - and pretty easy too

It would imo be much easier to effect a culture change so that not every kid needs or gets access to the internet or internet capable devices.

[array_key_first]

Yes, they are more sophisticated, or at least I'm assuming from how pi-hole and my workplace blocking works. Meaning, it works.

But those are not the best solutions, because of blacklisting. There are basically infinite porn websites. So, if you're going to try to block every porn website, you will lose, point blank.

So, even considering that, they do quite good. So if we just take the principle and invert it, it will be very good.

I mean, whitelisting vs blacklisting is why I am able to open my computer up to the internet via SSH. I'm not out here blocking 1 billion sites. No, I'm just allowing my laptop. And that gives me a lot of confidence, and it works.

And, I agree with culture change. But, culture change is very hard and I don't think it's something we can rely on.

[marcus_holmes]

So, you whitelist Kid Internet sites, and you have a DNS server that handles Kid Internet.

And everything else is Adult Internet, and there are many DNS servers that serve Adult Internet.

You sign your household router up for Kid Internet, and it ignores Adult DNS servers, and only routes according to Kid DNS, is that right?

I can think of about 50 ways around this already, but let's assume we're not talking about anyone with any knowledge of how the internet works. So the entire household is signed up for Kid Internet, and there's no way an adult can view an Adult Internet site from this household, is that right?

[array_key_first]

Well most DNS can be done per-device, just like in an IT setting. For example look at iOS. The device controls DNS, so set up little Timmy's iPhone to do Kid DNS.

That sounds an awful lot like this proposal, right? Well yes and no. No because this would actually work. Just letting the iPhone say "im a kid" does fuck all, because all the websites we're targeting with that will just ignore it.

And of course there are ways around this. Wanting a solution with no ways around it is dystopian. But is it a better solution than this? I think yes, it is.