Nether_before wrote:

No support. If you know this child personally, can't you just talk to them IRL? In most usual situations, this feature would only be used for either letting your child only talk to people they know or blocking certain people from contacting your child. In the first scenario, it's likely the people they'll know on scratch are people they'll know in real life, so they can just talk to them there pretty easily. In the second scenario, you have a suggestion that I'm pretty sure has been rejected.

In the first block, I'm requesting this feature specifically for this girl because her father is a pastor and they know the dangers of the internet, and they didn't feel safe letting their little girl be risked. This is a suggestion for little children more specifically. Most people who would even want to use this won't even know it exists. And, what's the big deal about wanting to talk to someone that you know IRL? What's the point of Facebook (unless you have relatives that live far away) if you only talk to people you know?

If anyone can go into the For Parents section, couldn't the kid just undo what the parents restricted them to?

-Cherri- wrote:

If anyone can go into the For Parents section, couldn't the kid just undo what the parents restricted them to?

I guess it would be password-protected

Sheep_tester wrote:

-Cherri- wrote:

If anyone can go into the For Parents section, couldn't the kid just undo what the parents restricted them to?

I guess it would be password-protected

By what password? The child would usually know their own password.

Tymewalk wrote:

Sheep_tester wrote:

-Cherri- wrote:

If anyone can go into the For Parents section, couldn't the kid just undo what the parents restricted them to?

I guess it would be password-protected

By what password? The child would usually know their own password.

The parent's password.

Tymewalk wrote:

Sheep_tester wrote:

-Cherri- wrote:

If anyone can go into the For Parents section, couldn't the kid just undo what the parents restricted them to?

I guess it would be password-protected

By what password? The child would usually know their own password.

So the parent changes it so the child won't know it anymore. (and if they find out anyways, they deserve whatever happens to them)

I think I would support this idea if there was a bit more to it - like, if there was a well fleshed out idea for how a parental control panel could be implemented, I would be all for it.

But I'm going to need more details on how that would work before I can really give any meaningful input. Without a well-built parental control panel, this suggestion couldn't really work.

I think that such a panel would have to have a separate password from the normal account. It may even require a special parent account or something.

ChocolatePi wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

Honestly if you're not a parent or a babysitter you don't have the background to have an opinion on this suggestion.

IMO, a babysitter shouldn't have the power to decide over who a child can talk to.

A babysitter has opinions on what children should be able to do, because they watch them and take care of them sometimes.

Random kids on the internet don't get to support or no-support this suggestion, because they just don't know what kids are like when they're out of control.

Heck, I don't get to have an opinion! Only people with experience with kids do.

Key word being “sometimes”. Of course, that's really for the parents to decide - I wouldn't want a babysitter making decisions for my parents/children/siblings!

(I'd consider myself a user with an opinion due to the fact that I have a younger sister over whom I am tasked with watching over)

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

I think I would support this idea if there was a bit more to it - like, if there was a well fleshed out idea for how a parental control panel could be implemented, I would be all for it.

But I'm going to need more details on how that would work before I can really give any meaningful input. Without a well-built parental control panel, this suggestion couldn't really work.

I think that such a panel would have to have a separate password from the normal account. It may even require a special parent account or something.

Yes, there will be a separate password for the parents. You would also have a control panel in the sense that the parents wold see a dropdown bar at the top of the page once the parent signs in. In the dropdown, they'd see the selections they have. “Everyone” “No-one” “Choose Scratchers” and “Everyone But Some”. If they select “Choose Scratchers” then they'll see a pop-up-ish type thing that has a search bar. They type in their select people, and the child can only talk to those people if those people have the child selected. If they select “Everyone But Some” then they'll get another search bar, and they type in the only people they don't want their child to talk to.

But what if the kid goes in and makes his/her's own password before the parents get to it? No support.

milkybun wrote:

But what if the kid goes in and makes his/her's own password before the parents get to it? No support.

That's for the parents to decide. Maybe they'll just have to make a new profile and put the password in. Or the child could be banned from Scratch.

This is a great idea! I'm all for it

ellielocks wrote:

This is a great idea! I'm all for it

Thanks. And, big news, you know the kid I'm talking about? She's named Hattgirl. Look her up if you don't believe me.

Tymewalk wrote:

No support based on below.

rocco32 wrote:

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.

That doesn't seem to solve the problem, and it's rather vague. Does this mean the child can't comment on the user's projects? Or will they not see replies to their comments by that user? Or are comments on that user's projects and profile disabled for that child?

rocco32 wrote:

2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.

True, but Scratch isn't just random people doing random things. There are moderators who check the site for bad things, and report buttons for everything. Even if something inappropriate is posted, it doesn't stay up for long.

rocco32 wrote:

3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Actually, there is, and Scratch already does it.
There are automatic phone number and e-mail filters that catch 99% of these things, and the other 1% get reported. Additionally, it's a strong point in Scratch's Community Guidelines not to share personal info, and to report things that ask people to do so.
Additionally, users receive an alert every time that they do something like ask or share personal info telling them to stop, and those that continue to do it (usually spambots) are blocked.

I think restricting access like this goes against Scratch's principles in the same way that creating a 7/13/14/18/X-and-up site does - it splits the community and goes against Scratch's purpose: to create a safe environment where anyone and everyone can collaborate, create, share, remix, and view peoples' works.

Yes, maybe people would limit themselves in going into the “For Parents” section and only allow certain people to talk to them, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, what if there were to be a Scratch bully? Yes, you can report them and make studios so everyone can tell the bully to stop, but what if you could just straight up block him? Now, this doesn't mean that you won't be able to see their profile and such, but they just couldn't talk to you and you can't talk to them.

Bullies do appear (as they do anywhere else), but they get reported (making studios against it is usually considered Naming and Shaming).
Blocking users has also been suggested and rejected many times before.

This sums up my opinions perfectly.

I don't think this is a good idea. Why? Because there are parents out there who will block their child from anything online that involves communicating with others, even though this does not automatically mean that you are going to get robbed or mugged just because you post something online. Plus, if someone makes a good game they want others to see it and be able to comment on it, love it, favorite it, etc. This would prevent that. What's the point in sharing a project if you won't be able to reply to comments, won't be able to comment on others, etc. Also, what if you find a big glitch in scratch and you can't post on the bugs and glitches forum about it just because your parents have blocked it? Plus, just because they are your parents doesn't mean that they automatically make good decisions. Parents make mistakes too you know, so they might completely block you from scratch even if you are like 14 years old. So sorry, but no support.

Zarlog wrote:

Tymewalk wrote:

No support based on below.

rocco32 wrote:

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.

That doesn't seem to solve the problem, and it's rather vague. Does this mean the child can't comment on the user's projects? Or will they not see replies to their comments by that user? Or are comments on that user's projects and profile disabled for that child?

rocco32 wrote:

2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.

True, but Scratch isn't just random people doing random things. There are moderators who check the site for bad things, and report buttons for everything. Even if something inappropriate is posted, it doesn't stay up for long.

rocco32 wrote:

3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Actually, there is, and Scratch already does it.
There are automatic phone number and e-mail filters that catch 99% of these things, and the other 1% get reported. Additionally, it's a strong point in Scratch's Community Guidelines not to share personal info, and to report things that ask people to do so.
Additionally, users receive an alert every time that they do something like ask or share personal info telling them to stop, and those that continue to do it (usually spambots) are blocked.

I think restricting access like this goes against Scratch's principles in the same way that creating a 7/13/14/18/X-and-up site does - it splits the community and goes against Scratch's purpose: to create a safe environment where anyone and everyone can collaborate, create, share, remix, and view peoples' works.

Yes, maybe people would limit themselves in going into the “For Parents” section and only allow certain people to talk to them, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, what if there were to be a Scratch bully? Yes, you can report them and make studios so everyone can tell the bully to stop, but what if you could just straight up block him? Now, this doesn't mean that you won't be able to see their profile and such, but they just couldn't talk to you and you can't talk to them.

Bullies do appear (as they do anywhere else), but they get reported (making studios against it is usually considered Naming and Shaming).
Blocking users has also been suggested and rejected many times before.

This sums up my opinions perfectly.

I don't think this is a good idea. Why? Because there are parents out there who will block their child from anything online that involves communicating with others, even though this does not automatically mean that you are going to get robbed or mugged just because you post something online. Plus, if someone makes a good game they want others to see it and be able to comment on it, love it, favorite it, etc. This would prevent that. What's the point in sharing a project if you won't be able to reply to comments, won't be able to comment on others, etc. Also, what if you find a big glitch in scratch and you can't post on the bugs and glitches forum about it just because your parents have blocked it? Plus, just because they are your parents doesn't mean that they automatically make good decisions. Parents make mistakes too you know, so they might completely block you from scratch even if you are like 14 years old. So sorry, but no support.

It doesn't matter if it's a good decision or not, it's their decision, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

No support, parents can just download the offline editor and if the child wants to show their friends then they can do it in real life or send the projects via email.

RitaFreeman wrote:

No support, parents can just download the offline editor and if the child wants to show their friends then they can do it in real life or send the projects via email.

Okay, that's fine. But then, if the child is only allowed offline, than what's the point in having this or not? There won't be any difference for anyone who only stays offline.
So, for this reason, your rebuttal is unreliable.

rocco32 wrote:

Zarlog wrote:

Tymewalk wrote:

No support based on below.

rocco32 wrote:

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.

That doesn't seem to solve the problem, and it's rather vague. Does this mean the child can't comment on the user's projects? Or will they not see replies to their comments by that user? Or are comments on that user's projects and profile disabled for that child?

rocco32 wrote:

2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.

True, but Scratch isn't just random people doing random things. There are moderators who check the site for bad things, and report buttons for everything. Even if something inappropriate is posted, it doesn't stay up for long.

rocco32 wrote:

3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Actually, there is, and Scratch already does it.
There are automatic phone number and e-mail filters that catch 99% of these things, and the other 1% get reported. Additionally, it's a strong point in Scratch's Community Guidelines not to share personal info, and to report things that ask people to do so.
Additionally, users receive an alert every time that they do something like ask or share personal info telling them to stop, and those that continue to do it (usually spambots) are blocked.

I think restricting access like this goes against Scratch's principles in the same way that creating a 7/13/14/18/X-and-up site does - it splits the community and goes against Scratch's purpose: to create a safe environment where anyone and everyone can collaborate, create, share, remix, and view peoples' works.

Yes, maybe people would limit themselves in going into the “For Parents” section and only allow certain people to talk to them, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, what if there were to be a Scratch bully? Yes, you can report them and make studios so everyone can tell the bully to stop, but what if you could just straight up block him? Now, this doesn't mean that you won't be able to see their profile and such, but they just couldn't talk to you and you can't talk to them.

Bullies do appear (as they do anywhere else), but they get reported (making studios against it is usually considered Naming and Shaming).
Blocking users has also been suggested and rejected many times before.

This sums up my opinions perfectly.

I don't think this is a good idea. Why? Because there are parents out there who will block their child from anything online that involves communicating with others, even though this does not automatically mean that you are going to get robbed or mugged just because you post something online. Plus, if someone makes a good game they want others to see it and be able to comment on it, love it, favorite it, etc. This would prevent that. What's the point in sharing a project if you won't be able to reply to comments, won't be able to comment on others, etc. Also, what if you find a big glitch in scratch and you can't post on the bugs and glitches forum about it just because your parents have blocked it? Plus, just because they are your parents doesn't mean that they automatically make good decisions. Parents make mistakes too you know, so they might completely block you from scratch even if you are like 14 years old. So sorry, but no support.

It doesn't matter if it's a good decision or not, it's their decision, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

Think of it this way: If you are great at scratch, have hundreds of followers, you help improve the projects of others, you make great games that always get popular, then suddenly this is implemented and your parents immediately block you from interacting with anybody. How would you feel? If I was that person, I would just quit scratch altogether. Plus, if you suddenly stop responding to comments or sharing projects, everyone is going to think your dead or something. Now, I know what you are going to say, your parents will probably not take away your freedom if you are that good at it. Well guess what? Most parents just don't care and find every excuse they can to keep kids off of technology. And the reason you posted in reply to my comment just sums up why they should not add this.

No support, some kids just go into “For Parents” and boom! Private messaging.

rocco32 wrote:

RitaFreeman wrote:

No support, parents can just download the offline editor and if the child wants to show their friends then they can do it in real life or send the projects via email.

Okay, that's fine. But then, if the child is only allowed offline, than what's the point in having this or not? There won't be any difference for anyone who only stays offline.
So, for this reason, your rebuttal is unreliable.

But if a parent is only okay with their kids seeing a tiny bit of the internet. then they shouldn't be letting them on the internet.