[thomastjeffery]

The first premise you are avoiding is that a child can misuse a phone.

The second premise you are avoiding is that the government can define, for every child, what constitutes misuse.

You are advocating thought crime. You do not have my support.

My government cannot adequately manage responsibility for my cupboards. It therefore shall not have authority over them.

[Cthulhu_]

Your government does have various authorities over what you put in your cupboards though. like, you can't just put a gun in there (actually I don't know where you live but that's true for most countries). You can't just get in a car.

Anyway, ultimately it's best effort. No security is flawless, but if it stops 99% or more of cases it's better than 0%.

[thomastjeffery]

Cases of what? Beer in an unlocked cupboard? Porn on an unverified computer?

[notTooFarGone]

Do you also refuse to show id when buying alcohol because the gubbernment does not have authority over what you may buy?

That's how you sound.

[thomastjeffery]

No, because that's a public store. The government can go to the store. They can't go to my cupboards without a warrant. The same goes for my computer, and its connection to another computer.

[close04]

I replied to the content of the article and HN comments, not what you think I should have replied to. If anything you even failed to notice that I expect parents to do some of the parenting and not expect an app to magically do it all for them.

The government already defines what misuse is both for children and adults, defines responsibility for a lot of things even in your cupboard, and has been doing so for as governments have been a thing. And I don’t think you understand what “thought crime” is.

You won’t hear me say this too often but next time use an LLM to write your comments, any LLM will do, can only get better.

[thomastjeffery]

Why would I want to write better? This is a comment on a website.

You replied to a subset of the topic, and that's the point I was making. I felt the conversation needed relevant details from outside that subset, so I provided them.

I was terse in my comment, because that's how I like comments: short and to the point. That makes them much easier to skim through.

The government doesn't enforce its rules by going through my cupboards. It doesn't put a lock on them. Instead, it tells me what the rules and consequences are, placing both authority and responsibility for the cupboards themselves into my hands.

This is the primary change we are taking about: allowing the government to introduce its own code (lock) into my private digital interactions. Why are you so intent on focusing the conversation on the mechanics of that lock? Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask you to think about the rest of the topic?