this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
124 points (91.3% liked)

Technology

68772 readers
3362 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This gives me the same vibes as the fucking New York Times annoying me with the popover prompt to use their app every day. The app to read websites on phones already exists, it's called a browser, and I'm using it. Asking a hundred more times won't change my mind.

I even opened a support case which only resulted in them "passing on the suggestion".

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I passed that suggestion into the "don't show me content from the New York Times anymore" selection box.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The worst part is that for most of these services, the child accounts are still functionally useless for parents.

We have a kid who actively seeks out content they know they're not allowed to watch, which means unfortunately a Netflix subscription simply won't work for us because Netflix doesn't allow you to actually password protect your profiles. So our kid can just select the parent profile, or make a new one if they want to watch whatever they want.

As far as I know only Disney+ (and HBO i'm told) allow you to put a login pin on parent accounts to lock kids out. That would be useful, except the Roku we use to watch things on the tv doesn't password protect all of its channels, so we still have to be on top of him to make sure he's staying within disney+...

I gotta be honest, I kinda miss cable tv.

[–] mrpollo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

You can restrict certain content (16+, 18+) with a 4 digit pin on Netflix.

[–] arararagi@ani.social 2 points 1 day ago

He's gonna be a fine rebel.

[–] MrAlternateTape@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

HBO also allows a code on profiles.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That's good to know, thanks! I wonder if there's actually any content for him on HBO, I'll check it out I guess.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 82 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Frankly, if a child somehow makes it into my home, and is left unsupervised long enough to work out which of the 7 remote controls turns on the TV and surround sound system, and figures out how to access Netflix - I'd say they're mature enough to watch whatever they want.

Gold.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

My kids are savants about media control systems. You don't need to explain anything, they've got it figured out before they touch the first button.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

I just removed the content filter and gave the kids account to my parents. Free account!!

[–] arararagi@ani.social 3 points 1 day ago

The UX really is terrible on these, a never ask again option is really simple but they refuse to do it.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

Just say yes, only use it to watch "Fireplace for your Home." I think you can change the "Kids" icon to whatever character you want it to show.

[–] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is pretty minor on the scale of enshittification that it happening in pretty much every tech product, but stuff like this is just an example of features being added so someone at the company can point to "improving" the product (so they can point to it during raise or promotion time), because it is safer for kids ignoring that it degrades user experience for a large portion of the customer base.

Unfortunately we've lost our attitude that parents should actually parent and supervise their children. So instead they force everyone to deal with it.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

When "parenting" consisted of making sure the rugrats were off the streets by the time the streetlights came on in the evening, it was a little lower maintenance than today.

Now, they have multiple global access terminals in the home, open 24-7-365, that can connect them to anyone/anything anywhere anytime. The physical threats of broken bones, abduction, etc. are less than in Beaver Cleaver's neighborhood, but these days you don't have to worry about the one drug dealer that got chased from the neighborhood last year, these days they can have anything delivered "in discrete packaging" if not to your home then to a convenient parcel pickup box not far from the school bus stop.

They can get into video-chats with law enforcement agents trolling for child-sex, they can access porn you didn't know existed, and they can do it all from "safe mode" of their phone browser after "lights out." Smuggling a porno mag to look at under the covers by flashlight has gone far far more more interactive and easily hidden.

My approach is to confront the challenges in the open. When the OnlyFans.com charge shows up on the bank card, sit down and talk about how paying for sexy things isn't good for either party. Don't take away the bank card, don't take away the internet access, try to teach why the whole thing is a bad idea. I suppose if it gets to be a habitual problem then denying access is the next step, but with respect to internet problems, I don't think we've had that issue yet (after 45 child-years...) Other habitual problems requiring access denial? Sure. All depends on your particular circumstances, but attempting to deny internet access seems like a seriously losing battle in today's landscape.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Netflix does this so that (most of) the children's content appears only in the children's section. This means you don't have to sift through 800 versions of cocomelon to find Singles Inferno. They're literally acknowledging you don't have children and helping you find the content you want, and simultaneously not preventing you from accessing it when your sisters little crotch goblins come over for a visit.

Most first-world-problem shit I've ever heard.

[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Most first-world-problem shit I've ever heard.

Yeah I shouldn't criticize my paid service because there are bigger problems out there

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.

The second is that it's just good UI to add a little box that says "never show this message again". It wouldn't take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago

If there ever is anything remotely competitive to Netflix, I'm gone like a shot.

Their "suggestive sell" interface is such garbage. We, the paying customers, should be able to default to a genre search without having to jump hoops every time. We, the paying customers, should be able to hit "not interested" and actually not see suggestions to watch the "not interested" title again. We, the paying customers, should be able to view the available catalog as we choose, not as their manipulative algorithms choose. The only reason we're still with Netflix is because the ad-free version is still affordable, but their content selection system is heavy advertising in and of itself.

Honestly, folks, if you want to watch a couple of movies a week I bet your local public library has a better interface allowing you to choose from new releases and a deep catalog, all for free - you just have to drive by once a week to pick up / drop off your selections.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, that is not the reason for a child account that has age based restrictions. That is a reason for having multiple profiles so the recommendations and watch history are separated.

Being forced to have additional profiles you don't need is terrible design.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago

Don't need yet, and that's my whole point.

Netflix's approach is: "we know you probably don't want this shit, but if you ever do it's behind this big button on page 1".

That's helping you avoid kids content, not hindering you.

[–] noobface@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

But I want my own content bubble organized antithetical to my convenience and I want it now.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 16 points 2 days ago

"Won't someone think of the children?"

NO.

[–] hazypenguin 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Nima@leminal.space 5 points 2 days ago

i used to be on that when I was on reddit but I had to leave due to too many instances of me reading about people who actually wanted to harm or kill children.

so I'm a bit nervous. i would assume the lemmy instance is a more chill place, maybe? 😅

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago

I can't imagine what it is like for bereaved parents who have recently lost a child. Or for those struggling with fertility issues.

Don’t dress up your petty annoyance at having to share a world with parents as saving the bereaved and barren.