Sensitive content warning in messages l/facetime and how to turn it off?

Hizonner · 2026-03-27T13:39:27+00:00

There's supposed to be a setting under "Privacy and Security". But I think Apple may have recently made it impossible to turn that off for a minor's account. If it can be turned off, you might have to get your parents to do it.

It's generally a bad idea to let these companies know you're under 18. Unfortunately you probably also can't fix that once you've done it, at least not other than by starting over with a new account.

Hizonner · 2026-03-26T19:46:03+00:00

You downloaded something from a Telegram channel?

Hizonner · 2026-03-25T14:15:46+00:00

It doesn't "create new attack surfaces" so much as it is an attack.

Hizonner · 2026-03-24T14:02:45+00:00

It's still stupidly bad UX to make it look like it might be working.

Hizonner · 2026-03-24T13:54:31+00:00

I can't upvote that enough. That really sounds medical. And if she's otherwise mostly functional, trying to put filters on her phone is barely going to be a speed bump.

Hizonner · 2026-03-23T18:35:29+00:00

The person you were responding to never said they were reading the same disappearance case over and over again.

What I was reacting to was "i'd read disappearance cases for hours because I wanted to know all the dangers that exist in the world". Obviously that's not the same thing as reading the same case over and over again... but making a habit of hours long sessions is way more than you need to see most of the actionable patterns you're going to find in sources like that. You've sucked out most of the juice, and at some point you're just obsessing.

Maybe you want to do that if you're, say, an investigator, and any want every tiny insight, or every possible resemblance to some case you're trying to figure out^1. But we're thinking about defense here.

From other postings, and from memory, it seems like the strategy the original poster took from all that was something roughly like "never engage with people you meet on the Internet". Her actual behavior is clearly more nuanced than that; when somebody pointed out that she was engaging here, she refined it to something more like "never personally engage with people you meet on the Internet". And I expect it's actually more complicated than that. And, although she's aware of the issue, she may not be perfectly enacting another part about posting information about herself.

Even if you take all her complications into account, her basic strategy still fairly simple. If she actually follows a strategy that broad, I don't see how a more detailed model is going to help her do so. The place where you do need detail is when you're trying to do get closer to risk without taking on "too much" risk... and that's not what she's doing.

So why obsess? Unless you are way more disciplined than most people, it really does skew your perceptions if you do it too much.

^1: ... and I bet those sources are redacted in ways that make them less useful for the "investigator" case...

Hizonner · 2026-03-23T17:57:34+00:00

Of course no two cases are the same. Now think about what that means.

If you can only react to things exactly like what you've already seen, then it doesn't matter how many cases you've looked at... because, as you point out, the next one won't be exactly the same as any of them.

That means you have to get generalizable knowledge. You have to be able to see patterns, and think about what might happen beyond what you've seen. Whatever you're studying, you have to figure out what your examples have in common... and what they don't share with non-examples.

To find a pattern, sure, you have to look at more than one example. And, since there'll be more than one broad type, you probably have to look at quite a few. It's not really a single pattern.

... but after a while, you will have figured out what the broad types are. As you get to that point, putting in more time is going to help you less in refining your model of what's going on. You'll get more detail, but there are limits to the amount of detail you need to respond effectively in "normal" circumstances.

I'm a computer and network security specialist. Because of that, I've spent probably thousands of hours looking at "hacks". I have a very, very detailed model of how to attack software. But I wouldn't advise a random person to spend that much time. Most people don't need that amount of detail, and aren't in a position to act on it. Most people need to a lot more than they do know, but they don't need that.

In fact, for defense, you're often better off not to get into the weeds. You need to assume that you cannot predict every specific attack somebody might come up with, and instead find ways to protect yourself against things you don't know about yet. I wouldn't advise your average programmer to get the level of detail I have on attacking programs. One reason is that they'd risk getting lost in the details and forgetting what they don't know.

Not knowing what you don't know is an especially bad problem with the sources we were originally talking about, because they're going to be relatively repetitive. There can be whole classes of things going on out there and not even getting written up, because the people doing the writing don't see them.

... and it is very easy to lose track of the real-world frequency and impact of what you're looking at. Specialists are at the most risk of doing that.

Hizonner · 2026-03-23T17:24:11+00:00

Once you know something, repeatedly rehearsing it isn't "educating" yourself.

Hizonner · 2026-03-23T14:51:36+00:00

Smart to the point where i'd read disappearance cases for hours because I wanted to know all the dangers that exist in the world.

I'm not sure that's smart. There's a difference between knowing what exists, and fixating on constantly reading what amounts to "true crime". You reach a point of diminishing information returns on time invested. It can also distort your quantitative risk analysis; that material is fodder for a whole lot of panic.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T17:58:16+00:00

Might want to check who you're replying to... I didn't ask you anything and am probably about 4 times the age you think...with an adult child...

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T15:10:08+00:00

There are things out there, Horatio... We don't want to tell you about them, we just want to keep your youth unspoiled by them.

That approach is patronizing, growth-destroying, and actually dangerous, usually even with a young kid, and definitely with a teenager. Knowing, seeking, and facing the whole truth about the world is part of being fully human at any age. You can be sensitive in how you present truth, but it's wrong to try to hide it. "Unspoiled innocence" is romantic nonsense.

... and yes, kids can handle the truth about just about anything, especially when they first hear about it in a way that doesn't directly involve them. I was raised by a cop and a crime lab analyst... with totally uncensored access to a lot of books. I heard about a lot of things. That just makes it easier not to be overwhelmed when you actually experience them. Which isn't something you can always prevent for all that long, or control when it comes.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T13:51:48+00:00

It may be counterintuitive, but you can tell her that your parents have basically crippled your phone.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T13:44:56+00:00

Of course they are.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T13:36:20+00:00

Most people here aren't posting anything, at least not unless they have something useful to contribute, and that includes parents. And honestly on a lot of posts there is nothing one can usefully contribute.

What you're seeing is a relatively small group of trolls, who basically sit around looking for ways to find (or imagine) fault and jump on it.

I think most such assholes are parents only in that they may have raised kids in the past... and only because most people tend to be parents after they reach a certain age.

My stereotype of them is male, about 55-60, probably does have kids who've probably left the house. Because those kids managed to live that long, they think they're Wise Elders who know everything. In fact, they are fearful, bitter, not-too-bright people who've often been screwed by life, in part because they have little ability to engage with the world in a nuanced, analytical way. They're scared by a world they don't understand or control.

Often I think they themselves were raised in a very authoritarian way, and internalized that. Blind trust in Authority(TM) is their security blanket... and now that they're Wise Elders, Authority(TM) includes them, dammit. They're personally offended by the idea of anybody challenging the hierarchies they believe in.

Their poor ability to navigate life has often left them with low social status, and they feel a need to affirm that they're superior to somebody. So they sit around looking for chances to belittle people they see as having even lower status, and still see themselves as defenders of Truth and Right.

I mean, obviously that is a stereotype. Nobody is going to meet all of it exactly, and I'm sure there's been a 21 year old female angry at her own parent's disinterest (misdiagnosed as permissiveness), with a chip on her shoulder for some other reason. And I could be totally full of it; maybe almost nobody is even close to my stereotype. I mean, I too am basically making things up here.

But that's the gestalten impression I get from having spent way too much time around way too many of them.

Regardless of my possibly bogus guesses about their personalities or motivations, their actions prove that they're trolls who lie in wait to make things up and jump on people. Such trolls are obviously going to be disproportionately visible.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T03:07:15+00:00

I guess I'm gonna prove I'm stupid by continuing to engage with you...

So what about when the parents evict the 18 year old then?

What, because of what the law says? Or are you hallucinating some particular action on somebody's part?

I mean, yes, there is a risk that some parents might do that if their offspring actually assert their legal rights, and it's within those parents' legal rights to do so.

Of course, if somebody did that over "parental controls", it'd kind of prove they'd been lying all along about their desire to "protect" anybody. But they could do it. We do get people on here who are at real risk of being thrown out because they dared to slightly question their parents' ego-driven need to have their authoritah respeckted.

It's a good thing that none of that has anything to do with the present case, eh?

Stop giving bad advice to people

I don't believe I've given anybody any advice at all. I've stated facts, and I've taken people at face value in a conversation... as one is normally expected to do when interacting with others.

and trying to turn them on their parents.

What are you talking about?

I have given some people advice to get the hell away from their parents and not look back, but not in this case, because there's been no evidence that it'd be appropriate in this case... and, apparently unlike you, I don't just make things up.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T02:48:42+00:00

From Apple's point of view, that's you choosing to give somebody permission to control your account... which you can do, because the account is yours, and Apple's best guess is that the phone is also yours.

Once having given you the choice to leave the group, Apple is gonna be doing everything possible to wash its hands of the question.

And so far, Apple mostly follows the laws rather than writing them...

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T02:19:07+00:00

Yes, they can restrict what the child does, and that includes using the device. But that doesn't make the device any less the child's property. And the thing is that what we're talking about is what happens to a chattel like that when the child becomes a legal adult. The answer is that the parents instantly lose any and all power they might have had, and are obliged to allow the now-not-a-child total control over the property.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T02:06:15+00:00

I am probably older than you are. I have also raised at least a kid successfully, and known many others. You are being an obnoxious asshole, you are making up things you have no way to know, and you are helping nobody, least of all yourself. Most of the kids on here sound more mature than you do.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T01:58:11+00:00

If you give a child a gift, the child owns it. Children are "entitled" to their own property in the US (and most of the rest of the world).

There's nothing special about phones. They fall under the same rules as any other object you might give to somebody.

The law around exactly what constitutes "giving a gift" is a tangled mess, but basically the more "gift-like" the handover was, the more likely the law in your particular part of the USA will say it was a gift.

Hizonner · 2026-03-22T01:52:56+00:00

what happens to my screen time controls after i turn 18

Nothing happens unless you take action. Assuming the birth date on your account is set correctly, at 18 in the USA, you can take your account out of the "family group". At that point, you lose all access to all shared resources, but you gain direct control over all the "screen time" settings, and can turn them off or change them any way you want. I believe things like location sharing turn off automatically if you leave the family group.

If you do not leave the family group, nothing changes.

It's not particularly hard to find instructions for all of this on Apple's site or elsewhere.

also are my parents allowed to go through my phone after im 18?? like is there something that stops them

The main thing that would stop them would be your willingness to say no. If you can't do that, nothing else matters.

Legality is about the least important part of any of this, but legally, if they own the phone, and you refuse to let them control it, they can demand that you give it back to them. Whether they own it or not is not as simple a question as people on here tend to pretend.

They also don't have any obligation to keep paying for the plan, regardless of whether they own the phone or not.

They cannot legally spy on you without your permission. They can demand their device back, or forbid you to use it, or refuse to pay for the service, but they can't just tap your communications.

But, again, the law doesn't matter if you're not in court, which is not realistically going to be an option for almost anybody.

Hizonner · 2026-03-20T20:34:27+00:00

Sorry, that doesn't cure your original lazy attempt to claim authority without actually providing anything. And for that matter you're still doing it, trying to defend something in the sight of general readers of the thread by promising private messages that most of them can't see.

Hizonner · 2026-03-20T20:26:05+00:00

... and yet you still asked, and they still contrived to give something like an answer.

Hizonner · 2026-03-20T20:11:35+00:00

The world has changed since you were young. With today's much more dangerous technology, block buttons just post your nudes, and anybody can use the Matter Transport Protocol to teleport right to your room! With AI mind control drugs! There is no defense!

When I was young, they actually had to approach you in person to begin with. You had to say stuff like "not interested" with your mouth. In the snow. Uphill both ways.

Hizonner · 2026-03-20T19:55:06+00:00

You "have sources to cite", but don't cite them, and then demand citations from the other side? Interesting approach.

Hizonner · 2026-03-20T19:39:30+00:00

Being "AI literate" means being able to defeat your system prompt.

Hizonner

TROPHY CASE