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."
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.
Gimme, gimme, gimme :)
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
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.
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
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.
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
\
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!!!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
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?