-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 171
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add child safety restriction: no PMs between over-18 and under-18 accounts #3337
Comments
Oh, I instantly remembered what I forgot: there are still a few accounts floating around from the days of pre-closed-beta that have an init_bdate of 0000-00-00. Because there definitely weren't any three-year-olds creating accounts in pre-closed-beta in 2008/2009 -- it was all folks who were working on the code -- just put in an exception for the purpose of this check that any account with an 0000-00-00 init_bdate should be considered over 18 (and thus not able to DM accounts with an init_bdate under 18). |
Should someone over 18 be allowed to see (in their inbox) messages to and from someone under 18 exchanged before this change was pushed? Delete them? |
Leave already extant messages in the inbox, but make them unreplyable until both parties are over 18.
Yes, same as previous: leave already extant messages in the inbox, just make them unreplyable until both parties are over 18.
Yes, once the init_bdate makes you over 18, you should be able to interact with people who are already over 18 -- this shouldn't be a permanent "you made your account while you were under 18, so your account will forever be limited", just a way of keeping people currently over 18 from private messaging people currently under 18 and vice versa.
We don't need to get that fine-grained about it -- a day or two on either side isn't an issue. (This isn't for compliance with a specific law yet -- all the ones that would introduce this as a legal requirement have been stayed on constitutional grounds -- just a way of bringing some of our features more up to parity with the current zeitgeist.) "is today equal to or greater than the init_bdate + 18 years by server time" is close enough for a check. |
Also noting that the adult interstitial uses best_guess_age (init_age with fallback on age) instead, but the spec above precludes doing that. |
We should be able to use that, just add the check for the few accounts that somehow managed to not get an init_bdate set. (Or I suppose I could get somebody to check on how many accounts were affected and contact them to set one if it's not that many.) |
nod I think I'm going to write tests for can_receive_message as a first step. (Do you want that in a separate PR?) |
OK for single PR (which will only contain age-based testing - calling testing for other restrictions out of scope for this) since they haven't replied. |
Making it conform to style will have to wait due to life interfering. Review on substance still welcome. |
It's becoming more common for social media sites with a PM/DM function to prevent people whose accounts are flagged as being under 18 from being contacted privately by people whose accounts have a birthdate making them over 18 or people whose accounts don't have a birthdate specified, for child safety purposes. This restriction does have some serious downsides, because there can be some legitimate reasons for that kind of contact (ie, queer/trans teenager living with unsympathetic/unsafe parents who can't have conversations publicly because that unsafe parent monitors their public posts/comments), but the legitimate reasons are outnumbered by the ways it can lead to bad things (and even the legitimate reasons can wind up in the bad place really easily: vulnerable teens can be taken advantage of really easily).
I've been taking a good hard look at our child safety features lately (because we've been taking such a stand in legal cases) and I think it's time to add this one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: