[jtmarl1n]

Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution.

That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.

[GeekyBear]

You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with.

What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?

[BeetleB]

I have an Android. I want to let my kid use the phone, but without a separate account. I basically want to say "Enable Kid Mode", and I specify what apps he sees. To get out of Kid mode I need a PIN.

This is basic level protection.

How do I do this?

[OkayPhysicist]

The separate account is, in fact, the way to do exactly this. Settings->System->Multiple Users->Add User. Follow the on screen prompts to set it up the second user with Parental Controls. Selecting which user to access the phone as is available on the lock screen.

[BeetleB]

Thanks - will try it.

[broost3r]

granular control over push notifications would be great

see: recent article about Snap sending pushes to kids during school hours

[gib444]

Screen Time let's you turn off notifications.

I have all notifications on my phone off, except for phone calls

[broost3r]

yeah of course, it's all or nothing though. i have a 14 year old who is supposedly in a "no phones allowed" school, but they're on them all the time anyway (this is a separate issue)

being able to setup a schedule with only approved apps being able to deliver pushes during a particular time period would be great

[gib444]

which ones do u want to keep

[broost3r]

thank you for asking, it helped me realize i was probably using downtime within screen time wrong and it can probably get me what i really care about during school hours

[akimbostrawman]

How about not installing/allowing a grooming chat app in the first place?

[LugosFergus]

Parents have the ability to take any phone or pad out of their hands.

[simoncion]

> Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms.

So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong.

Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and/or their finances. A strictly-age-based "protection" scheme absolutely does not do that.

One might argue that one could "merely" require a "This adult is seriously intellectually damaged. [0] Make sure to protect them from scammers and predators!" flag that can be flipped on by a Registered Caretaker. I humbly suggest that that is information you should never disclose to a company that makes its money by trading in dossiers of its users.

[0] Dear downvoters: I understand that this isn't the PC term for the effects of these sorts of ailments. If you've ever had to watch over and care for someone who gets cored out bad by this shit, it's hard to describe it as anything else.

[alt227]

> So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong.

No, please dont. More regulation is not the answer. Any more restriction which is imposed on kids becomes the thing they focus on getting around.

Just dont buy your kids phones until they are older, and send them outside to play. Thats all the parental restriction you need on phones.

[simoncion]

> No, please dont.

Why not? If the parental controls in all the mainstream OSs are effective, difficult to bypass, and don't involve any communications with third-parties beyond communicating the set of prohibited topics/actions/whatever, what's left for busybodies to complain about?

NOTE: I'm not calling you a busybody. I'm calling the people who push for these "age verification" laws with the genuine belief that they're for protecting minors who lack the ability to handle the dangers of the world busybodies.

[rincebrain]

I'm not convinced this is the correct move, if only because anything short of draconian control is going to be lossy, and draconian control has catastrophic failure modes for people who are naive to the things you're trying to help them not be overwhelmed by (see: abstinence-only sex ed).

There's no one-size-fits-all pitch, but my starting point would probably be time limits per day on a smart device, killing all notifications on it, and telling them that these things are because it has bad consequences if they don't have limits, so if you catch them getting around the limits, the privileges of such things will be temporarily or permanently removed.

I don't love it, but unless someone comes up with a wonder drug to dampen addictive effects of things in humans and we're all somehow convinced this is a great idea to give to everyone, all you can do is avoid the parts that are a race to the bottom of gamified attention and focus, until they're old enough that they hopefully have an informed opinion and are the ones making the choice to drink the poison chalice or not.

[account42]

They are not good compared to what? The control that parents had what kids did in the woods or at the mall before smartphones?