Of curse, but it's not terribly easy for the average person to put
sophisticated filters into multiple content pipelines on every child's
device (imagine having 4 or 5 kids of different ages and needs).
So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open
interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial
or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end
digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely
rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the
government naively proposed.
In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech,
It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined
by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State
to define harms and control the selectors.
What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the
real aims of the bill.
And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the
government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to
greater tyranny.
> So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed.
What you're proposing would likely enable the creation of some fairly invasive stalkerware. Don't forget that 1) just because a feature says it's for use by a parent on their child's device doesn't mean that it can only be used in that context, nor that 2) not all parents have their children's best interests in mind.
So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed.
In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech,
It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State to define harms and control the selectors.
What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the real aims of the bill.
And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to greater tyranny.