Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Report on Youth, Pornography, And The Internet
Frisky070802 writes "I don't recall seeing this already, nor am I finding it when searching for it ... the National Academies commissioned a report on how youths are affected by child pornography, predators, and other threats on the net. They've issued a 400-page report
on their findings, which are very extensive, and were used to support the argument for the new kids.us domain."
this sounds like stupid logic. god, if he didn't intend for people to kill, why did he allow guns, bombs, anthrax, etc to be invented? Why did god allow people to be raped? this is a list that could go on for a very long time. Of course I am not a believer in god so the list doesn't even apply to me.
People get whacked in the head and do crazy things. The reason for them being whacked in the head is what people should try to understand, not fight against the things people do. Find the source and deal with it, not only the symptoms.
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
From the conclusion in section 14.1:
It might be useful for someone to produce a 400+ page report examining the above stated and widely-held belief that Internet access is going to magically "enhance and transform education for the nation's youth". I, for one, am not sure that filling cash-strapped schools with computer equipment is somehow going to result in brighter children than if we just stuck to the basics.
GMD
watch this
I'm not trying to troll here, but I think that .kids.us sounds like a better idea than the alternatives. For example, it sounds like a hell of a lot better solution than (poor) internet filtering. IMO, young children (10-12), shouldn't be exposed to ridiculous stuff online and a parent shouldn't have to watch what they do every second they are online. At the same time, we (everyone older than the first group, shouldn't have to suffer, because of fears the first group will see the questionable content. I realize there are a lot of /. zealots who would yell at the prospect of any potential filtering, but as long as it isn't implemented in a way that censors (even implicitly), it'll get my attention.
Youth, Pornography, And The Internet
Well, these are all things that I like. I don't need 400 pages to talk about it though.
Best Windows Freeware
The main problem raised with filters isn't that they filter too little. It's that they filter too much. Internet whitelisting does not improve that at all. It only amplifies the problem.
.us, gotta keep them foreigners from corrupting our youth.)
kids.us is a humungous, unwieldy, unworkable, whitelist. (But at least it's
I'm all for providing a safe haven (?) for kids on the internet, after all there is a lot of filty stuff out there. However, one thing I've always found interesting is that society goes to a lot of lengths to hide young people from sex and yet no where near as much effort is spent on hiding them from violence. It seems to give the message that sex isn't OK while violence is fine. Any other thoughts on this?
If, say, 75% of men find developed girls aged 14-18 attractive, is it really logical to say 75% of men are crazy? Or perhaps, being attracted to a 14-year old isn't "whacked" (though photographing them nude may be traumatic to them).
No, these aren't real statistics, but I would say that, judging by what you see on porn sites ("barely legal" is HUGELY popular) it is not too far off to say most men have an attraction in some form to young (14->18), yet developed, girls.
I'm not saying make it legal to make of course, just that you aren't a sick pedophile who is going to assault girls if you find an 18 year old attractive (sexually). There isn't even a close correlation.
Children 14 (ie before they have developed sexually) is a whole other bag of hammers.
That's just like the "if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?"-argument.. ;)
;)
Yes, I'm a vegetarian....
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
It's not just that they're made of meat, it's that they're made of tasty meat.
Look, it breaks down like this: things that want to be eaten taste good, things that don't want to be eaten taste bad. Fruit wants you to eat it, so it's nice and yummy. Some plants like juniper don't want to be eaten, so they taste bad.
Cows taste good, therefore, they must want to be eaten. If they didn't, surely they would have evolved foul tasting meat by now. As soon as cows stop tasting good, I'll stop eating them and move on to tasier animals.
Who the hell do you think you are, denying cows their wish to become delicious pastrami sandwiches?
I was vegetarian for about ten years, vegan for about eight of those. I don't think that gives me any sort of position of authority on the issue, I just don't want you thinking that I haven't thought this out.
--
pants ahoy
Gimme, gimme, gimme :)
just because it's an act of nature doesn't make it good. many other acts of nature are banned as well, such as murder. if god didn't intend for us to kill, then he would've created us in a way that didn't fill us with murderous rage when people talk about fucking 13 year olds.
I wonder what happens if a 16 year old kid has porn of a 17 year old...whether the relevant statues still apply.
May we never see th
On an unrelated note, I got a spam today featuring what appears to be a 16-year-old and an octagenarian having sex.
On an unrelated note, I got a spam today featuring what appears to be a 16-year-old and an octagenarian having sex.
Hey, pal, pass it around!
There was an episode of the old Geraldo show that had 2 teens that were both arrested for "Sex with a minor" for getting caught having sex with each other. They were both under the age of legal concent in their state. So up until 18, when they can petition to have their records sealed they will have this on their record.
I wonder if a 14 y-o kid took pictures of (him|her)self and spread to the net.
Or if (he|she) runs a webcam and starts masturbating.
No, these aren't real statistics, but I would say that, judging by what you see on porn sites ("barely legal" is HUGELY popular) it is not too far off to say most men have an attraction in some form to young (14->18), yet developed, girls.
I'm not saying make it legal to make of course, just that you aren't a sick pedophile who is going to assault girls if you find an 18 year old attractive (sexually). There isn't even a close correlation.
Children 14 (ie before they have developed sexually) is a whole other bag of hammers.
I chalk a lot of it up as backlash to the "silicon queens" that currently dominate "western societies view of what female sex objects should look like."
Hell now days if they aren't young enough to still have some baby fat on them odds are they have starved every possible inch of natural flesh off. . . .
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
...would that be a Beowulf Cluster Fuck?
The idea of a "kids-safe" domain is fundamentally sound (from a psychological perspective). The problem is that 'kids' don't like to be called "kids". Ergo, ".kids.us" is likely to be a dismal failure in the target market, even if it's a good idea (i.e., if you were 13-16, would you be caught dead surfing a domain called 'yadda-yadda.kids.com'? I didn't think so...)
"One empirical experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions." --Bill Nye, the Science Guy
God doesn't exist, so whatever you thought he said doesn't come into play here.
Sleeping with 15 year olds is perfectly legal in Sweden, for instance. Whether it is morally right to do so for a 30 year old is an entirely different dilemma (my stance is that it is morally correct if the younger takes the initative).
In thirld world nations, it is pretty common for girls to be married away at the age of 12 or so... they don't have a say in the matter.
So what is called pedophilia in the West, is common behavior elsewhere, to a certain degree (12 year olds are nearly sexually mature, but certainly not 10 year olds and younger).
Real pedophilia is somewhat more serious than having a desire for teenagers. The latter is biologically normal, but morally wrong in many parts of the world.
Teenagers are supposed to experiment with sex to get prepared for adult life. Some teenagers are more advanced than others, and also more mature. Some of them will be perfectly happy dating older people, and society should't really interfere in this without a valid reason (the bible isn't a valid reason).
And teenage girls can certainly be predators in their own right.
frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
Don't complain about the .us; be glad that a country is not, for once, trying to extend their authority to legislate over the entire Internet.
"Teenagers are supposed to experiment with sex to get prepared for adult life."
What basis do you have for that? I believe that teenage, extra-marital sex is just a sign of weakness, letting yourself be controlled by carnal urges. To say that that is a sign or a predecesor to maturity is, in my opinion, incorrect. It takes more maturity to resist desires and save yourself for marriage than to give in to whims. Anyway, I'm sure most people stopped reading at the first line, so I'll stop responding.
Derek
Real solid reasoning there.
Anyway, I'm sure most people stopped reading at the first line, so I'll stop responding.
No Mercy!!
Kids these days...can't trust them. Turn your back and their faces are glued to porn, they are attempting to light buildings on fire, or are shooting each other. Children are completely incompetent and the government should protect them from the big scary world and some how allow them only to view *.kids.us sites on the internet.
Children will love *.kids.us because it is completely hand filtered/checked by adults. Children love regurgitated garbage, they want you to feed them more garbage (school just isn't enough for them).
Children don't want to learn useful things. It's impossible that they would want to know how the world works. What they really want to know is how to light buildings on fire and shoot each other. The reason they want to know these things is because they are bad. Just like humans and adults. We cannot let them know these bad things.
Children are not to be confused with adults. They are very different. In fact they aren't even considered human, which is why the adults don't apply the United States Constitution like the adults apply it to themselves.
The internet is one big filthy pot that corrupts these sub-humans. We must protect the children.
As a matter of fact, most of the pornography I've seen was downloaded from the internet in my youth. And this was back when the internet was heralded as a great tool of communication and education. There was no spam, there were few flame wars, people still knew what archie and gopher were.. Porn wasn't yet everywhere, but it was still everywhere.
.rpm without having porn spam thrown at you.
.kids. I think, rather than this, the ideal solution is for parents to shut the hell up about how much they work and how they have to think of their careers. Spend time with yer bloody offspring, and stop using the 'net as a baby sitter.
Of course, my kids won't have the free reign over the net that I had. Yet, I don't doubt that any offspring of mine will have an overabundance of porn sprung upon them. I mean, christ, you can't search for an
Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? I mean, no sane parent is going to say, "Woohoo! My kids found some porn!" On the other hand, porn, and sex itself, is still covered in a Victorian obscurity. I can't help but wonder if a greater awareness of, "Yes, people boff. People boff a lot." wouldn't result in the slowing of the spread of various diseases and such.
Anyway, enough rambling. Some domain name won't work. As someone else pointed out, kids don't like being called kids, and you won't catch one over the age of twelve browsing anything that ends in
Having a .kids.us domain won't be the greatest thing since the www, and I think we all know it.
.kids.us will placate congress and allow everybody who votes for it to go home and tell their constituents "Yes, I voted to save out children from the internet!" While not infringing on the free speech (and access to speech) rights of adults. On top of that, it has the potential to be a great place for putting fun/educational sites geared at children--real children, like elementary schoolers, as opposed to teenagers who are generally most competent to use the internet in its full capacity. It can't hurt, and it looks like it'll help. Write your congresscritter today and tell them you support .kids.us!
As many people have pointed out in this forum already, Adolescents often _want_ to see the porn that's out there, and are smart enough to just close the window when (if?) they don't want it. While some adolescents may be traumatized by having porn made of them, looking at it certainly won't hurt them. If it broadens their horizons a bit, I would call that a Good Thing (TM).
Now, here's why I'm all for doing this:
Congress has been trying to censor the internet longer than I've been using it. Every time, the supreme court whacks them down, but they just don't seem to get the picture. Instituting
\
iirc the psychological reasoning behind this is a form of nostalgia combined with the fact that boys develop sexually also around that time, and are for all purposes the most sexual around 18. The "hottest" girl will usually be the most developed/attractive girl around at those times, usually (US) high school jr/senior or college girls.
we need to have this as a moderation selection on /.
+1 Funny sometimes just doesn't apply
+1 Insightful doesn't either
Sometime sarcasm can combine the two.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Where would one go to buy howtoburnthings.kids.us?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
The Federal Bureau of Youth, Pornography, And The Internet would complement The Federal Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, And Firearms just beautifully!
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
Sexual maturity doesn't equate to physical maturity. A girl may have passed puberty at 11 or 12, but she won't be physically mature (and capable of having healthy babies while staying healthy herself without lots of additional attention to nutrition during the pregnancy) until she's 17 or 18. Emotional maturity doesn't necessarily follow from either sexual or physical maturity. Not to mention that you can't set a single age limit on sexual maturity, as boys and girls mature differently. I do agree that desiring teenagers (when they are physically mature and look just like adults!) is a completely different thing from "real" pedophilia. However, we, as a society, have determined (or have had it determined for us) that we want even sexual relations between consenting sexually mature teenagers considered with the same gravity as pedophilia. I feel that this is simply the most conservative approach. Pedophilia towards children (who are still physically children) is terrible enough that we want to be as sure as possible that even the "late bloomers" who may not hit puberty until 17 have protection under the law. 18 is a convenient age for these thresholds because physical maturity can be presumed. That said, I think it's ridiculous to make the legal age for drinking alcohol 21. The major problem with the law as it stands is that it places consenting mature teenagers in the same category as molested children. Parents who believe, as you seem to, that their children should be given the opportunity to make choices and take responsibility BEFORE they become adults will not prosecute consenting mature teenagers. However, parents who truly believe their sweet, angelic little 17 year old baby was molested by that evil, sweaty, stubbly, drunk 18 year old in the black leather jacket will prosecute, even if she initiated the relationship. I'm sure the girl's parents are happy with that. The boy's parents probably are not, and that is where the problem lies. On a side note, to those who feel that the bible is a valid reason for society's interference, the bible may be a valid reason for Christians. However, in the States, those of other faiths should not be bound by someone else's religious precepts. Therefore the bible should not be used as the sole support for civil or criminal law.
Independent musicians and registration-free net radio at EmergentSound
Come on, looking at porn is a hell of a lot safer than actual sex. Besides, how else are you gonna learn about the clitoris? Its not like your GF is gonna show you (Oh wait, this is slashdot where the closest thing to a GF (for most) is the Virtual Jenna Jameson tape.
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
Try telling that to your GF/wife/whatever.
Also known as instant divorce (tm) by many speculators.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I've never encountered porn by accident on the Internet, only when I was actively looking for it. I think with kids it's even less likely they'll just "stumble into" some porn.
So what if they're actively looking for it? Well, let them. Does anyone really think that a 12 year old boy actively looking for porn can't deal with it and is going to be scarred for life finding it?
Then again, that *was* during the Clinton administration, so maybe whitehouse.gov would have gotten the whitehouse.xxx domain.
It can happen. Although it's not too common. I remember one time I was going to check my Hotmail account at work (in a government office no less), made a typo and wound up at a porn site with a huge number of pop-ups. I think I transposed the A and I or something.
Damn typosquatters.
I think there's a more fundamental problem in that Parents believe their children are their "their possession" and molecoddle them causing an over-individualised society. Whether or not the Government should interfere with this, I don't know.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?