Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Dad Creates App That Forces Kids to See Parents' Texts

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 28 2017, @07:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-their-attention dept.

"exec" writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Kids have always been a little difficult.

Technology may have made things worse, as the young tend to know more about tech than their parents do.

They know, for example, how to ignore mom and dad and do whatever they like.

Nick Herbert found this a touch frustrating.

Kids have a habit of simply not replying to texts. Not because they're bad kids, but, well, they're doing something more interesting on the phone -- like playing a game.

So, as CBS News reports, Herbert conceived ReplyASAP. This is an app (currently available only on Android) that forces your child to address your texts.

By annoying the living hell out of them.

[...] Herbert insists that ReplyASAP is meant to be used only in emergencies. This isn't about annoying your kids all the time, however tempting that might be.

Indeed, he told me that it's not about forcing your child to reply. Instead, he said: "It is simply a means of getting an important message to the child, even when they have their phone on silent, and for the parent to know they have seen it."

[Ed Note - Updated Google Play link to correct a typo]

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Dad Creates App That Forces Kids to See Parents' Texts | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 68 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday August 28 2017, @09:34PM (3 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:34PM (#560527)

    Incorrect, a gift is specifically giving something without expecting anything in return. If you put conditions on it, it's no longer a gift. Don't get me wrong, you can transfer ownership by setting conditions, but if and only if you clearly define them beforehand.

    But accepting the gift while rejecting the condition is not an option.

    I did not mean to imply you can singlehandedly decide which parts of a deal apply to you.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:29AM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:29AM (#560702) Homepage
    Your absolute definition of "gift" is legally naive. Of course there exist conditional gifts. Consider engagement rings - in many states, California for example, the ring will be surrendered to the wronged party if one party calls off the marriage, either deliberately, or through fault (e.g. cheating).

    Plus, of course there's the fact that when we're talking about a parental relationship, the parents are wards who can confiscate anything they see fit, if they think it's for the good of the child. It's not an equal relationship. Likewise teachers when /in loco parentis/.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:29PM (#561100)

      My definition is the well-established common English language definition of "gift". If your local laws disagree, that a problem with your laws and not with my usage of the word.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:20AM

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:20AM (#561414) Homepage
        If you are so strict with the definition of the word, then perhaps you should stop using it for what happens when a parent hands over some chattel and says "there you go". I've never known a parent to hand over something to one of their kids and say "this is a gift, in the strictest sense, from me to you, unconditional and irrevocable", so it seems as if your strictness makes your usasge the irrelevant one.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves