The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Parental Responsibility Meets Internet
Henroid
Mexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
Mexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
A link in a G&T thread, this one here, has me wondering again what it is going to take for people to realize what the nature of the internet is.
The link above is an article from a developer who was working with Disney to create HercWorld, an online community Disney wanted made that never saw the light of day (the reason being that meeting the Disney standard with chat filtering was impossible). The article also goes on to explain another related project:
Another thing I'll bring up on this topic is the "Playstation Pornable" bullshit that happened a couple years ago (has it been a couple years?). Now, I don't think the stupidity ever spread out in a large way, more of a localized event with a crazy reporter. Mike and Jerry from PA have a podcast where they read the article outloud, providing their commentary (it's hilarious), but also making good points. Such as Mike's, "No shit, maybe a little Net-nanny?"
So the point on all this... 10 years ago, when the internet was still relatively new, I can understand people not understanding things about security, what kind of content there is, etc. At the point in time we're in right now though it should start becoming generally known that there are some things that cannot be stopped (that is, where there is a will, there is a way). Parents also aren't seeking the education they need to know about these things.
Am I just being pessimistic? Am I expecting too much from the people in our nation to get onboard (online even)? I certainly don't expect them to become masters of their own net security like a lot of us forumers are, but they should know some basics here and there, maybe know people to help instead of trusting that their sacred offspring would NEVER do such things.
The link above is an article from a developer who was working with Disney to create HercWorld, an online community Disney wanted made that never saw the light of day (the reason being that meeting the Disney standard with chat filtering was impossible). The article also goes on to explain another related project:
Now that's all about Disney, a family safe corporation, trying to cover its ass. You can see the methods implemented failed.Third time's a charm
But the concept resurfaced at Disney a few years later [2002] in the form of SpeedChat in ToonTown. It was refined - you select a subject and then from a submenu of sentences, each automatically customized to the correct context. Selecting "I need to find ...", would magically insert the names of the items you have quests for. For all walk-up users, all interactions would be via SpeedChat.
They added a method to allow direct chat between users that involves the exchange of secret codes that are generated for each user (with parental permission). The idea is that kids would print them out and give them to each other on the playground. This was a great way for Disney to end-run the standard - since Speed Chat was an effective method of preventing the exchange of these codes, and theoretically the codes had to be given "in-person", making the recipient not-a-stranger. Sure, some folks post them on message boards, but presumably those are folks who 1) are adults, or 2) know each other, right? In any case, as long as no one could pass secret codes within Toontown itself, Disney feels safe.
The Ghost of BlockChattm past
Soon after ToonTown opened its doors, they added Toon Estates - a feature that gives you a house with furniture, initially just a bed, gumball machine, chair, and armoire. Then they added the ability to buy more furniture of all shapes and sizes from catalogs, and then you could invite people to visit your house to see how you have arranged all your cool stuff.
Sure enough, chatters figured out a few simple protocols to pass their secret code, several variants are of this general form:User A:"Please be my friend."
User A:"Come to my house?"
User B:"Okay."
A:[Move the picture frames on your wall, or move your furniture on the floor to make the number 4.]
A:"Okay"
B:[Writes down 4 on a piece of paper and says] "Okay."
A:[Move objects to make the next letter/number in the code] "Okay"
B:[Writes...] "Okay"
A:[Remove objects to represent a "space" in the code] "Okay"
[Repeat steps as needed, until...]
A:"Okay"
B:[Enters secret code into Toontown software.]
B:"There, that worked. Hi! I'm Jim 15/M/CA, what's your A/S/L?"
Another thing I'll bring up on this topic is the "Playstation Pornable" bullshit that happened a couple years ago (has it been a couple years?). Now, I don't think the stupidity ever spread out in a large way, more of a localized event with a crazy reporter. Mike and Jerry from PA have a podcast where they read the article outloud, providing their commentary (it's hilarious), but also making good points. Such as Mike's, "No shit, maybe a little Net-nanny?"
So the point on all this... 10 years ago, when the internet was still relatively new, I can understand people not understanding things about security, what kind of content there is, etc. At the point in time we're in right now though it should start becoming generally known that there are some things that cannot be stopped (that is, where there is a will, there is a way). Parents also aren't seeking the education they need to know about these things.
Am I just being pessimistic? Am I expecting too much from the people in our nation to get onboard (online even)? I certainly don't expect them to become masters of their own net security like a lot of us forumers are, but they should know some basics here and there, maybe know people to help instead of trusting that their sacred offspring would NEVER do such things.
Henroid on
0
Posts
I wish it was the case that people weren't stupid about the internet, but it's still seen as the big evil with no way of stopping your little kid watching beastiality.
Did people hear about the UK politician who thinks it is feasible to have age certificates on all websites? linky.
People just seem unwillig to take some personal responsibility for what they see and teaching their kids what they can do online.
The interwebs is relatively new and seems complicated, so abdicating responsibility to the government for keeping kids safe from its more 4chan-type content is an attractive proposition.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So she registered as Babpenis instead. That worked.
Another one of my favorites:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bluegrbutt
http://www.google.com/search?q=clbuttical
My friend's parents put NetNanny on their computer when we were young because of his younger sister. It worked...until I cracked it for us to use, but it worked. It kept his little sister safe from the big bad interwebs. But unfortunately, people like that don't speak up when it comes to these kinds of issues. Why? Because they've already solved the problem, they don't need to talk about it. It's the ones who don't solve the problem, despite the solutions being there, that yell and scream about the subject.
I mean come on, the local Blockbuster has The Dark Knight cardboard standees in the middle of the children's section because due to a TV show that was on 40 years ago and a movie from the late 80s, people think the entire series is for kids.
The Australian federal government would agree with that viewpoint.
PSN:TheRockingM
And then various lobby organizations want in on that action, now that the government has the surveillance/censoring framework in place. Hello, recording industry.
It's not like it hasn't happened already.
Found something interesting about that "bluegrbutt" site:
I recall hearing that Sony's "Home" for PS3 had similar ridiculous word filtering issues.
But on the parent front, it's my responsibility to monitor what my children had access to as they were growing up (I'm sure I've posted about this before), whether it was TV, books, videos, DVDs or tinterwebs, not my government's. Yes, that meant I supervised everything when they were small, but also taught them why, cos I wanted them to understand the reasons for it. This worked when I wasn't with them, too - Lewie's sister told their aunty that a video she wanted to rent for them wasn't appropriate for them. It made my sister-in-law think about her assumptions, and she rented something different. I was very proud of my daughter's judgement call, and she was only 7.
We have never had a net nanny system thingy on our PCs, instead, we talked about what was appropriate for us all to access, what wasn't, and why.
I had to talk to the Head of English at their school, cos the set book was giving Lewie's sister nightmares. I explained about the problem, and that she wasn't going to read the book, but would read privately during the lesson, and would do homework on the book she wrote. The teacher was OK, went to talk to another of the English teachers (who I knew outside of school) and they agreed to not use the book again.
We once stayed in a hotel as a family that had porn channels on the TVs, the receptionist asked did I want the porn blocking on the TV in the children's room, I said "No", and immediately told Lewie and his sister that there was porn on channel whatever, and to make sure not to go on that channel. They didn't, and watched the first ever South Park episode instead!
If you instill sensible values into your children, with clear explanations to support them, they will make decisions based on information.
Having said that, some of my friends thought we were wrong in what we told our sprogs when they were young - for instance, if you get lost from us, find a mummy or a grandma for help. They also knew about child abuse, that it could happen to them, that we couldn't stop it that first time, but we would be able to as soon as they told us about it, and that telling was good, that bad people could hurt them cos they were only children and adults were strong, but that we'd always make it stop when they told us. We taught them about grooming, and the risks of chatrooms, how to protect their identities and how to keep safe.
I know one woman who's daughter did go to meet someone she met on line - she was 14, she thought he was the same age, he was 30+ - her mum followed her after she told her best friend what she was going to do - she told her mum, she told the girl's mum. The girl was frightened by the experience, as was the mum, not surprisingly, but she'd been remiss in not checking what her daughter was doing.
I could go on and on, cos parental responsibility is something I feel very strongly about, but I'll stop.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Spider-man? Uncle got shot. Girlfriend got thrown off a bridge.
Batman? Parents got shot. Sidekick got beat to death.
Superman? World destroyed. Died (sorta).
Punisher? Family guy shot. Kills all the goddamn time.
Iron Man? Shrapnel in heart. Was a freaking alcoholic to the point it made him completely unable to be a superhero.
Death is common in comics, just like violence in cartoons. And creepy people on the internet.
It's there. It's not for kids. This does not make the media, media DELIVERY, or everything related to that media/delivery system somehow kid unfriendly. Nor does the inclusion of Kid-Friendly stuff make it Kid-Friendly.
The issue here is that parents only speak out when shit goes WRONG. Rarely do you see the good parents stand up and go "Umm, my kid watched the same cartoons and played the same video games. Why did YOUR kid go on a killing spree?"
Did they charge for porn blocking, or something? I'm just sort of wondering why you would actively choose to grant your children access to something you don't want them watching when given the option.
In general, I endorse parental responsibility, and I also endorse responsible parents being granted tools to help make their lives easier. Things like NetNanny and the V-Chip and such are cool and useful, to a point. I can certainly see the value in making it more difficult for your child to inadvertently stumble across objectionable materials. I wouldn't want my 4 year old accidentally stumbling across a slasher flick on TV. For the most part we know what she's doing, but she gets up in the morning before we do and likes to watch TV. Nothing wrong with something that makes it easier to protect her.
It only becomes problematic when parents start assuming these tools are infallible, or a substitute for doing their jobs.
Its cos I trust them to use their judgement - did then, knew they wouldn't watch it, and didn't see the point in blocking it when telling them worked just as well. I think its important not just to trust my children, but for them to know I trust them.
Alan Garner, "Weirdstone of Brisingamen" - it was the supernaturalness of the book that frightened her and gave her nightmares - and I remember watching "The Owl Service", also by Alan Garner as a child on TV, and being really scared by it, too, but in a bad way, not a good way. (like Dr. Who, that still scares me, but in a good way)
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
But yeah treating kids like actual humans tends to get a much better response than "You are too young and stupid to ever do good without my intervention."
I noticed in the supermarket, while walking down the cereal isle, that Fruit Roll Ups and some granola bars had Dark Knight promotions on them. It's just kids that eat Fruit Roll Ups, right?
Bottom line I may have been an asshole but I'll be damned if one of my kids ends up on a milk carton (or worse).
I expect that plenty of high-school or college types do as well. They are basically a form of junk food.
Off topic maybe but you did the right thing. That was shady on your daughter's part. Good call.
Personally, I think LewieP's Mummy has the right idea. Make it clear that pornography is for a restricted audience, establish a verbal agreement to stay away from it, and ultimately trust your kids to obey you as best as they can.
When they do ultimately violate your trust, though, don't flip out and don't shame them for something they really can't help and which you yourself probably would have done in their shoes. Use the trust you hopefully developed over the years and talk to them, make it clear that pornography is a fantasy that strips sex of all its meaning and consequences, and most importantly offer an alternate and more helpful source of information about sex so that everything they know doesn't come from the internet, late night cable, or their friends.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I agree. Good work.
And then once they're adults, you can tease them mercilessly at family events for years and years.
You can't say Hello or Christmas.
What The Fuck?!?!?
I don't celebrate ******mas, I'm a ***.
Not for me. Kids are kids, and have the right to grow up slowly, not have inappropriate stuff pushed at them. Porn is only 1 area I'm concerned about protecting children over, they also didn't watch inappropriately violent, aggressive or gory stuff. I vetted things before I'd allow them to watch/read/play with them, cos that's my responsibility as their mum.
Thank you, I hope I have, but you can only tell by the fruit the tree produces. But it isn't just about porn eg. Spiderman was originally rated a 12 here, meaning children under the age of 12 couldn't watch it. After parental pressure, some local councils (Stockport was the first) caved, and denoted it a 12A (never existed before) which meant under 12s could see it if accompanied by an adult. My (then) 6 year old foster son was taken by his grandparents, with whom he lives full time. He is an aggressive little boy, with poor impulse control, poor social skills and generally quite challenging behaviour. He did not need to see this film. They then bought it for him on DVD, and tried to make me take it home for him to watch when he came for the weekend. No way - he's way too young for this, but I had to tell them 3 times before they gave up.
Also, last year, Tesco on-line introduced a pole dancing kit in the toy section of their website, and only stopped selling it after parental pressure.
Simple, it was scary.
Anyway, what I really think is that if you have children, they're your responsibility to bring up; to instil values; to teach right from wrong; to protect from harm, not the state's, although government does have a part to play in legislation, setting standards and expectations, and in providing the means to educate.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
PSN:TheRockingM
I think this thing came with my first PC, a 486 DX2.
I think I still have the CD.
Part of it is also an effort to protect kids from not just pornography but depictions of sexuality until the kids are capable of absorbing it. There's a lot of sexuality floating around our culture that will confuse the hell out of little kids, and they don't need to be worrying about it just yet.
Well, when they ultimately violate your trust you shame them for violating your trust, not for their urges.
I'm not a parent, but this strikes me as an unnecessary temptation.
Sometimes it's better to teach your children to resist self-indulgence than to artificially block them from even being able to make the choice.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
If porn was just sex then that would have a lot more weight.
I'm still uneasy about the 12a certificate; I've seen one too many little kids at very scary movies since it came in. There was a six/seven year old girl with just her dad at The Two Towers who was very clearly not enjoying it; the film does have decapitations and suchlike.
Otherwise, how will they be able to do that for themselves when they are older and you're not there to support them?
Nooooooooooo, this is not what I mean at all - there are too many parents who don't understand/don't think through the impact of what they expose their children to - they see the promotional material (lunch boxes, other film tie-ins), remember the cartoon series from their childhood (Spiderman) and just let their kids go to see a really scary film. Many parents don't understand game certification, CD certification (the "This contains explicit/violent lyrics" stickers) cos they can't be bothered and its easier to give in, and anyway, what harm can it do!!!!!!
The government should set and monitor standards, otherwise we could end up with parents taking their 6 year old to see Saw VII cos "they couldn't find a babysitter, and anyway, they won't understand it".
I am pro censorship - in the UK, we have U, PG/12A, 12, 15 and 18 certificates, with U being Universal, PG being Parental Guidance. I saw "Lady Sings the Blues" when I was 18 - it was an 18, the first I had ever seen - it was rated 18 because of the shot of her mainlining heroin in a toilet. That film would now be rated 15 if it were to be released today - as a society, we have become innurred to sex and violence on the television, and what would have once shocked and offended doesn't so much. In some ways, this is a good thing, as some taboos have been broken, relationships normalised, with society becoming more accepting of a changing world, but in other ways, its not good.
I realise I'm starting to sound like Mary Whitehouse, so I'll stop, cos I'm not like her.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
I'm not a parent, but the last thing I want to do is watch porn with my sister.