pyuser583

This is strange - I work in insurance, and you really aren’t allowed to do that after the policy is signed. Or at least it’s very tightly controlled and limited to straight up fraud.

Me too! I’ve seen such good come from these sorts of programs!

I didn’t want to mentioned it my initial post, but these sorts of programs seem a happy combination of keeping costs down and maximizing autonomy, while focusing on full-time on mental illness.

Some is these are technically “in-patient” at home programs, which are growing in popularity in all fields on medicine.

But they’re not appropriate all the time, and I don’t want to “recommend” them. Talk to your doctor.

Sadly it seems these sorts of programs are simply unavailable in much of the country.

Both trickle down, right?

Longfellow, and that’s a hill I’d die on. Or Shakespeare; I’d die on that hill too.

I’ve been through this situation with family members. I understand the frustration and agony.

I also understand the hesitancy to pay for two months at a “retreat-like inpatient psychiatric facility.”

In publicly funded system, it’s likely facilities like this would not exist or would be strictly private pay.

I’m not aware of any country that makes such a thing available on short notice like this.

I also understand the frustration, as often times facilities like this are all that exist in terms of medium-term care. And often times some of their services are at least formally in-network.

The understanding is you pay for it by selling your house.

We’ve been tempted to do this (sell our house), but been advised against it - but the reasoning in our case is patient specific.

I wish insurance was clearer about what covered and what isn’t. I wish we had more mainstream (not retreat-like) medium term care places.

Maybe I’m misreading the phrase retreat-like.

But id this isn’t something a public system would pay for, it seems inappropriate to blame a private system to not pay for it, unless it’s clearly in the wording.

Regardless, mental health care in America stinks, and you can always argue over the details.

The I do that it starts acting like a jerk.

I asked Fable to verify and it absolutely freaked out!

I have no idea what any of this stuff even means, but my AI thinks I’m a legend level mathematician!

Wait I read the memo - it said “duty of care.” That’s powerful rhetoric but really narrow and well defined legalese.

I checked, and Texas police only have a duty of care in narrow situations: if someone requires emergency medical care, they must call an ambulance; if they are driving an emergency vehicle, they must do so safely.

That’s about it. There’s no “general duty of care” obligation.

Maybe they’re just using scary sounding language, or maybe this narrow clause is being interpreted to grant the police much larger powers.

But “duty of care” is usually intended to hold someone accountable.

Recycling an object almost always means destroying it.

I think you intended to respond to a different comment. This is the one about Madison Square Gardens tracking database.

The first paragraph does not mention guns. Madison Square Gardens is not a club. And, yes, it is in NYC.

New York City specifically has laws that require establishments to admit journalists and critics.

Civil liberties come into play. I can discriminate based on race or sex in who I allow into my house, but not my storefront.

Some place have straight up public accolades requirements - if it’s open to the public, it has to be open to the public.

That’s not true at all. There are many rules affecting public establishments, including privately owned ones.

Your house is your house, but once you establish a venue open to the general public, you have to follow rules.

The child is mentally ill and being treated clinically. Medication, therapy, etc. I’d rather not go too into the clinical details, because I’m not an expert, I’m a parent.

Roughly they are having difficulty with emotional regulation and processing previous trauma.

They’ve attended treatment camps in the past - which were very positive exercises for them. The approach to the internet at these camps is almost exactly what I am proposing: white lists and immutable history. They have to brew their own software but it’s done. I don’t see why it can’t be offered more widely.

Speaking more broadly, what controls do you think parents should have over adolescent Internet viewing?

Keep in mind most of the really bad stuff is on mixed content domains . Nobody builds a “watch-monkeys-die.com” website. They build a watchMonkeysDie tumblr or subreddit.

My case is not the best example because of the legit mental health concerns. But the principals are the same. As a parent I have decided my child needs granular access to the internet - how does that happen?

Ok so it’s basically a political startup.

It sounds like once the party gets actual influence, its real funding will be determined by the Swedish people.

Doesn’t this make the situation less harmful, or at least fundamentally different from say Elon Musk?

No personal device - easy and done. The result is extreme social isolation, but sometimes that’s a cost worth paying.

Teachers do not generally monitor computer use during class time. They don’t have the capacity.

Chromebook’s are necessary to complete homework, including during study halls and recess. And at home, of course.

Schools are generally unwilling to create custom rules for individual students - nor are they required to.

I’m glad the responses to my comment are personal horror stories, because my comment is a personal horror story. It makes sense.

I’m dealing with a mentally ill adolescent addicted to very toxic content.

You grew up in an oppressive environment where among other horrible things information restriction was abused.

Both legitimate concerns, and both should be part of the same discussion.

But consider: it was librarian cautioning me about what my child was doing in the library. Not quite kicking my child out, but simply saying we can’t guarantee their safety.

For you the library was a safe space. For my child the library is not - according to the librarian.

I’d like to point out, nobody is saying parents should allow their children to access anything. Especially on the internet.

Are you saying that? I don’t think you are - but you are understandably skeptical of parents moral rectitude.

What tools should a parent whose child is addicted to videos of animal abuse or self harm have at their disposal? And I mean pretending to sleep until mom and dad have gone to bed and watching for 6 hours straight instead of sleeping, for multiple nights in a row. Going 72 hours straight with no sleep to watch people cutting themselves and animals being slaughtered (hypothetical).

I’m simply saying the tools parents have to effectively filter are antiquated and broken.

Also keep in mind the original article is one that discusses removing encryption and adopting some type of state surveillance. Something I am quite opposed to. My proposal is far more permissive, and affects child free grownups not at all.

Thank you for your careful reading of my post, and I am very sorry for the things that happened to you growing up. You’ve come a long way and I respect that.

The local public school gives a Chromebook they must use for class. Not optional.

More broadly your advice is very out of touch with modern life. Don’t let them go to the library? Or summer camp?

How am I supposed to supervise them 24/7?

Every actual expert I’ve spoken to has said “do what you can without driving yourself insane, and understand you’ll fail.” None have advised me to simply “do not give them access to the internet.”

I already forbid it. There are too many damn workarounds (school chromebooks).

Here’s the funny thing - I totally trust my troubled adolescent with devices that log history. Never a problem.

So that, combined with advanced cooperation on parent imposed filters should work fine.

And best part - none of this impacts adults! Don’t turn on immutable history, and don’t turn on white listing! Easy peasy! They can be off by default (and should!) so adults don’t have to do a damn thing!

I get that I really do. For a while our compromise was that our child could go to the library - that way they had access to free information.

But after some chats with the librarian, it became clear that wasn’t working. The libraries filtering software wasn’t great (it never is), and some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages.

They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.

What happens then, man? I understand your concern. My current rule with the one is: you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.

I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.

When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage. But when that system is never initiated, there needs to be a presumption of parental benevolence.

This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.

The friend part is less important than you think. Devices are very personal these days. Most kids are unwilling to hand over their phones and tablets to a trusted friend. It’s like a diary.

Even if they are willing, it’s only for a short time.

The bigger problem is schools. I touched on that with Google Classroom. Lots of schools require devices and rely on third parties like Google Classroom (which is horrible for filtering).

Another problem is family members: grandma and grandpa. Nice people but not tech savvy.

This isn’t an academic study. I’m reporting from the trenches here. And I’m trying to give advice that will make things better, while not encumbering adults.

I say this again and again in various places - something wise needs to be done about children and the internet.

Previous interventions have failed miserably.

I think the solution is giving parents maximum power: create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response; and, if desired, white listing at ISP account level.

I’ve had to deal with a child seeking out toxic materials - although fortunately not the kind discussed here.

Conventional blocking software fails because the worst parts aren’t bad domains but mixed domains - Reddit, for example.

If you’re going to enact laws, enact laws that require mixed domains to not frustrate blocking software - Reddit does this. If it detects a blocker it throws up a fake subreddit, so you have no idea what your kid tried to access.

Messaging is fairly easy to manage - delete the messaging apps. Also the immutability and white listing would do great things there too.

But when the domain spitting out toxic content is Google Classroom - there’s nothing you can do.

I don’t want to dig on this too hard, but safe harbor rules probably shouldn’t apply when the content comes from or to minors.

The idea behind safe harbor is to effectively route lawsuits to the person who created the content, not to the platform hosting it. But if it’s routing legal liability to a minor who cannot be sued - that doesn’t seem effective.

Also consumer protection laws that require companies that offer child protection features to have some kind of liability if they are merely performative. Many companies will stop offering, which is fine, because a failing system is far worse than no system.

"Meeting this project deadline is more important than your child dying."

What was the context? Did someone’s child die?

Aren’t Swedish political parties mostly publicly funded?

Does the UK have the power to try him also? If this took place in the states, he could be tried in both military and civilian courts.

Also the article seems to imply the UK does better at trying rape than the US military. I doubt that.

Some of these positions are not like the others. For example, “planned degrowth” is insanely fringe. No mainstream politician is seriously planning this, or even claiming to. It’s not a live issue.

Allowing minors access to puberty blockers without parental consent is fringe too.

These are both issues amplified by conservatives to discredit liberals.

I was initially going to “educate myself” about this but my doctors said “stop.”

For a man above 45 the answer is simply, “no.” Very few people understand why. It’s complicated, requires lots of math, and most doctors don’t care.

You trust them or don’t. Take it or leave it. Yes or no.

This was long before COVID.

And yet quality of life keeps improving.

Was your doctor following clearly and rigorously established medical guidelines?

If you think your doctor has screwed up talk to another doctor or the pharmacist. That’s legit.

But deciding you need a vaccine the guidelines say you don’t is a different matter. That’s just drug seeking.

People close to me have died from cervical cancer, so I’d love to be part of abolishing it. And by following vaccine guidelines that’s exactly what I’m doing.

I encourage everyone else to follow the guidelines too - don’t home brew this shit!

Does the approach apply to senior management?

The problem arises when moving someone from payroll to consulting creates the illusion they are not necessary.

What age do you recommend they be vaccinated?