Slashdot Mirror
AOL Protects Kids From Liberals
bitty writes: "This article over at CNET is yet more proof that filtering content to 'protect your children' just isn't the answer." This is interesting - it's talking about Cyber Patrol's "white list," which is a deliberately-selected set of appropriate sites. If there is this kind of bias in their white list, what's lurking in their black list? We may never know, because it's (apparently)
illegal
to look at it.
This is absurd... We have had HOW MANY Cyber Patrol stories? This is a discussion site, right? Nobody in the Slashdot community is going to come out in support of them. Even if some did, they get marked down as trolls.
As a result, this is another story to karma whore by walking the party line.
I love slashdot, but this is ABSURD.
When there is a real technical topic, I love this forum as it is the only place that I know of with REAL discussions on very meaty subjects.
When there is a Linux topic, sometimes there is interested subjects, although the Linux is G-d's OS crowd as moderators try to kill it by only allowing one view to show.
But this is rediculous. I mean, if there was a bill banning technical debates online, it would warrant a story, as it would effect us. But if you ran it constantly, it is dumb, because there is NO room for discussion.
We ALL know everybody's view of censorware, can we stop reporting EVERYTHING that can result in 300 censorware sucks posts?
Alex
This is nothing new.
I doubt that there really IS a conservative bias -- I think it's just one more symptom of the incompleteness and idiocy of filtering lists. In fact, to support its point, CNET brings up such examples as AOL filtering out that great bastion of liberalism, Ross Perot's Reform Party.
Any list which attempts to include every site on the Internet that's safe for children will necessarily miss huge numbers of sites. In this case, CNET (The Home Of Accurate, Unbiased Reporting TM) has taken some selective examples of blocked sites and attempted to have those indicate some kind of political agenda.
They've also tried to find some other examples of problems with AOL's system, like the browser keeping a cache of visited sites. (They do admit that it can be turned off by "sophisticated, advanced" users.) Wow! A cache! What a concept! Admittedly, clicking Back then Forward to allow access to sites in the cache is a bit stupid, but still, IE (which AOL uses) allows you to view cached sites very easily. And then they bring in the gaping hole of a history file stored in PLAIN TEXT. Obviously, this is something that every modern browser does. And by the way, CNET considers viewing the contents of a text file stuck in a program directory "child's play", but turning off or viewing a disk cache is "advanced" and "sophisticated".
Don't you love clear, objective, unbiased reporting? What's worse is that AOL's filters are inherently stupid -- a blacklist will always allow access to tons of sites it shouldn't, and a whitelist will always block access to tons of sites it shouldn't. Focus on the basic problems with the concept, not some made-up and easily-fixed surface mistakes: that's the only way to actually fight these things.
They use a whitelist scheme, and rely on parents to recommend sites for evaluation. Demographically, in America, if you have children you are considerably more likely to describe yourself as "conservative". But even further, I'd suppose than a "conservative" parent would be much more likely to use filtering software than a "leftist" parent. That equals more user submissions from conservatives. If more leftist parents were interested in filtering internet access for AOL kids, then there would be more submissions of leftist sites.
Whitelist filtering requires that the filter provider (e.g. AOL) add the site to a list of approved sites. i.e. rather than specifically 'banning' sites that kids can visit, the whitelist method approves sites. Obviously, in order for a site to make it onto this list, a site has to be reviewed. The fact that there aren't as many liberal sites on the whitelist may only go to show a much larger weakness with whitelists, namely, that you can't give the user every acceptable site on the Internet. I could probably test the filtering software and turn up some assinine conclusion like 'there is a clear bias towards Coke over Pepse b/c my favorite Pepsi sites weren't on the whitelist.' There is simply too many sites for any 'human' means of review. If there are complaints about not enough liberal sites being on the whitelist, try submitting them to AOL and see if they get reviewed and added (and maybe this article will be the impetus for that). Until AOL blantantly rejects liberal sites from being added, it's hard to accuse them of any conspiracy to 'republicanize' our youth.
All arguments about the appropriateness of filters, whitelist filtering is the only filtering option that really has any promise for establishing the goal of a safe sandbox for kids to surf the Internet in. Blacklist filtering techniques will often either (a) miss inappropriate sites or (b) ban appropriate sites because their spider turned up the word 'sex'. Whitelist filtering does not have either of these weaknesses. But if Yahoo's indexers can't keep up with the growth of the Internet, I doubt any whitelist filtering company could either.
ANDREESSEN, MARC
LOS GATOS, CA 95032 AOL 08/30/1999 $1,000 Kerrey, Bob
___
Oh, wait.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
The real solution simply is.. Moms, dads: For once, watch your damn kids once in a while and bitchslap them if they do anything on the Net that you don't want them to do!! Stop blaming the Net for everything! Who bought the damn computer in the first place? If you don't want your kids looking at porno or Bill Gates pics from newsgroups or websites, introduce their asses to some genuine leather waistbelts dammit! Stop giving your spoiled brats a free ride through life and become responsible parents!
After all, if you buy them the computer and provide them the Internet, you basically have given your kids the keys to the Real World(TM). If they aren't ready to handle the crap that's out there, well they shouldn't be looking for it, right?
-----
Linux user: if (nt == unstable) { switchTo.linux() }
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
I disagree. This article told me a new argument against censorware that I had suspected, but didn't have hard evidence of.
You seem to accept that censorship is a serious danger facing us today. If so, we need to do more than just sit around Slashdot and tell each other what we already know. We need to go out and change other people's minds, people who still think censorware is an imperfect but acceptable way to "protect children". We need to (diplomatically!) open the discussion with our family, friends, and coworkers. It helps to present outrageous examples to support our argument. Maybe then our family and friends will understand where we're coming from.
This article presents one really good example, which would offend most moderate-leaning people who still believe in a free exchange of ideas. It clearly and undeniably shows how the censorware "solution" goes way beyond "protecting children". Restricting political speech strikes much closer to the heart of the (US) first amendment than restricting porn, and is a much more serious threat. I'm glad this article was posted.
Right at the end of the article I see this:
The average child in the United States sees 200,000 killings, stabbings and beatings on television by the age of 18, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The academy cites numerous scientific studies demonstrating that many children learn violent behavior from shows they watch.
After a few years of exposure to television, it's hard to imagine that anything on the Internet would be worth filtering out--even if the filters worked.
I don't get it. This has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Is there some perl script at CNET that automatically includes this line in any story about children and censorware? Is this part of some conspiracy by CNET to get people away from the TV and onto the net? It just doesn't make sense. Looks like they were desperate for some kind of closing paragraph and just pulled one out of their asses.
Two can play at this game.
The average american consumes 15 gallons of salsa a year. Can moronic CNET articles detract from the spiciness of life after that? Of course not!
--Shoeboy
Last year (after Columbine) they deleted (without warning) every gun related web site that they had been hosting for their customers. After they deleted their user's gun related sites they sent the owners of these sites form mail saying their site had been deleted for pornographic content and that putting any more porn on AOLs server would result in the revocation of their membership.
Maybe you're right. In my estimation, parents like these are willfully foisting ignorance on their children. Which may be okay when they're toddlers, but when they're teenagers, it's child abuse.
Consider the following: random kid is brought up unexposed to undesireable political, religious and social agendas; some good, some bad, all somehow controversial for reasons that may or may not be complete bullshit. Kid goes into college, where, for the first time in his or her life, there is free and unfettered access to information. (NB, I'm not refering to technical information here, such as patents and trade secrets. I'm refering to philosophies, religions, and politics that random kid's parents find objectionable).
So, the kid runs into the Army of Satanic Order, a group which s/he has never heard of before. Furthermore: s/he discovers that there is a conspiracy (through AOL/Time-Warner and other companies) to deny him/her information about this group, because this information is threatening to the powers that be. Which is now true!
Said kid, whose real world experiences have thus far been filtered, probably hasn't had to develop bullshit detectors, either. Moreover, s/he's likely to make the mistake a lot of conspiracy theorists make -- believing that if information is being suppressed, that it must be true.
In no time flat, the Army of Satanic Order has a new, naive, paranoid recruit.
Note that you can substitute any other organization, legitimate or illegitimate, objectionable or merely controversial, good or bad, for the Army of Satanic Order. The end result is the same: recruits who have been deliberately brought up not to think for themselves.
I'm not saying that AOL shouldn't be censoring content. Far from it. If parents want to raise their kids this way, fine by me. I'll raise my kids with exposure to more of the world, so they can learn about real life at an earlier age. Let's see whose kids are working for whose 30 years later.
Finding God in a Dog
I'm VERY pro gun. The reasons why aren't important to this discussion however. Obviously I have no problem with children visiting sites for gun makers or the NRA.
But even so I have a real problem with AOL, or anyone else for that matter, hiding the other side of the story. I might not agree with the anti-gun groups, but that doesn't mean they should be silenced. Only through open discussion of all points of view can the best approximation of the truth be found. Censorship ammounts to one thing, preventing young people from thinking for themselves. If you control a person's access to information, you literally control the kinds of things they think about and therefore what they think. In most contexts this is simply called brainwashing. But when children are the subjects our society uses a cute euphemism and calls the process "raising" them. What is truly sad is that the adults of today do the same thing to their children that was done to them. When I think about these things I can get pretty depressed. Luckily there are sites like this one or peacefire.org or allaboutsex.org that help restore my faith in humanity.
(No, I'm 27 and quite educated)
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.