Measures like Google Family Link already exist if parents choose to use them.
I don't think legislation restricting what young people can do online would necessarily help. It's illegal for kids to take drugs and drink alcohol yet it still happens. Whatever measures are put in place, there's usually a way around.
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
27 points (88.6% liked)
United Kingdom
3939 readers
255 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Also, who would be held responsible for the child circumventing the restrictions? You can't hold the child responsible, so that would fall to the parent.
Is she accepting responsibility here for not better protecting her child? No, she's blaming others, and telling other people they should take responsibility.
Not that any of this would have made any difference here. These two murderers were absolutely demented, and keeping them off social media wouldn't have done much to prevent that.
It appears that Google are now investigating it, but only a couple of days ago it was being reported that there was another secret browser in Android which bypassed all parental and system security.
https://matan-h.com/google-has-a-secret-browser-hidden-inside-the-settings/
secret browser makes it sound so illicit. This looks like the default webview implementation that is able to be accessed after a series of pretty niche and complicated steps. Something that should be looked at and closed obviously, but this type of language is clickbait 101 and actually unhelpful for the discourse.
Then you should actually read it.
It's not the default webview, and it now has an open issue with Google
Yes my friend, it is the default webview. That explains the bare bones look to it, the back button functionality, and the history or lack of. The default webview on android isn't a full fledged browser and isn't meant to be.
and it now has an open issue with Google
This is literally meaningless. You should see the amount of shite users raise on the issue tracker. What you, or the author, should do is link to the issue in question.
I note that the comments on Hacker News also aren't favourable to this.
Are you okay?
I note that the comments on Hacker News also aren't favourable to this.
Apart from being upvoted by an above average amount, the vast majority of comments talk about adjacent topics such as "I remember similar things with the NT login screen" or "WTF Google, bypassing the device restrictions is a bad thing."
Are you okay?
I'm great thanks. How're you?
It's not a secret browser, it's the system browser. Most apps do not have a browser to view web pages, they use the system one (eg to display terms and conditions pages). The exploit here involved someone accessing such a page and sidestepping into another, because the page had links away, allowing a Google search or something and avoiding restrictions that were only applied to the main browser app.
This is more of a failure in parental control features not being fully comprehensive. The story is also much older than a couple days.
That's such an obscure vulnerability that I highly doubt any significant amount of kids would know about it, if any.
Err, as soon as a way to bypass parental settings is found it will be shared far and wide with those who would be impacted by it.
I find it a bit weird how she only want to speak to the mother of the girl involved not the mothers of both kids.
Could be because the other kid was transphobic and she doesn't imagine that a dialogue with his parents would be particularly helpful.
If your kid has already figured out how to access dark web sites then you got much bigger problems than the murder smut on those pages, you need to worry about all the physical shit getting mailed to your kid, that's going to get you in a lot more trouble...
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Esther Ghey told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg she wanted the mother of Scarlett Jenkinson to know she did not blame her for what happened.
"I also want her to know that - I understand how difficult being a parent is, in this current day and age, with technology and phones and the internet, and how hard it is to actually monitor what your child is on," she said.
Jenkinson, who killed Brianna, had watched videos of violence and torture on the dark web.
Ms Ghey, who is launching a petition to demand the changes, also wants companies to flag searches of inappropriate material, like the videos Jenkinson saw, to parents.
Ms Ghey also said that she had struggled to monitor what Brianna was consuming online - and that she had accessed pro-anorexia and self-harm material.
She told the BBC it was very powerful watching Mark Zuckerberg being confronted by bereaved American parents at a fiery hearing in the US Senate and said "greed needs to be taken out of the picture".
The original article contains 522 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
you see, people who aren't respectable usually end up on the bad side of a criminal activity