@erincandescent "only ever going to be filled in on the machines of children administered by parents who want such restrictions enforced"
You say this as if it's not a huge problem in itself. We should not be building or shipping tools for abusive parents to use to surveil or control their children.
@erincandescent That doesn't justify being part to it and essentially forcing distros to ship an abuse-mechanism unless they actively patch it out (thereby having to make a highly charged political statement).
Yes a determined parent with technological know-how can always find a way to put such malware onto their child's machine. We should not be making it an out-of-the-box feature of "Linux".
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@mgorny/116274748222570834
@erincandescent Combined with other things, yes. See for example:
@erincandescent Right now, there is no standard place for a DOB field to be stored or for applications to know how to access that information or use it to enforce rules blocking access to information.
By creating standard places to store it and standard APIs to access it, you setup the infrastructure needed for these abuses to be something available out-of-the-box rather than requiring a ton of custom hackery by the abuser to setup.
@dalias i’m not sure what your actual argument is here.
Is it
@erincandescent @dalias that's fine, but don't make it easier for evangelicals to murder people along the way.
btw, when you say CNC I assume you don't mean computer numerical control, unless you want to block access to all of the precision machining content on YouTube.
@erincandescent @emma Nobody "accidentally wanders into pornography". That's an excuse.
If you're really worried about this, you mandate that porn sites have a splash page that says "this is a porn site. what you're about to see is sexually explicit. do you want to continue?"
Children who are not actually looking for porn are going to hit the back button stat.
