The biggest damned issue i have with the “child / teen / adult” markers is they would literally serve up minors to predators.
Malicious sites already use browser markers to tailor exploits, now they can scoop up the kiddies with ease. A 14 year old browsing substack is currently just another random user. But put in OS level markers and now they’re spotlighted.
That’s the irony. It would make kids more fucking readily ltargetted.
That is a problem, I agree. But I still feel like it would be beneficial if there was some standard on HTTP or other protocols which could limit user access based on PG-rating instead of everyone developing their own approach. It could also be something like robots.txt, but for PG-rating, where client would do the verification.
And, as I already mentioned, that should be strictly local only setting and only for parental/guardian controlling what minors can and can’t do with their devices.
The biggest damned issue i have with the “child / teen / adult” markers is they would literally serve up minors to predators.
Malicious sites already use browser markers to tailor exploits, now they can scoop up the kiddies with ease. A 14 year old browsing substack is currently just another random user. But put in OS level markers and now they’re spotlighted.
That’s the irony. It would make kids more fucking readily ltargetted.
That is a problem, I agree. But I still feel like it would be beneficial if there was some standard on HTTP or other protocols which could limit user access based on PG-rating instead of everyone developing their own approach. It could also be something like robots.txt, but for PG-rating, where client would do the verification.
And, as I already mentioned, that should be strictly local only setting and only for parental/guardian controlling what minors can and can’t do with their devices.
Of all the comments this post has generated, this is absolutely the most compelling argument against what I suggested. Thanks for your input.