Yahoo Closes Chat Rooms to Anyone Under 18

Talaria writes "Yahoo has announced that they are closing all of their chat rooms to anyone under eighteen, following an agreement with New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer, who began investigating the Yahoo! chat situation earlier this year, said "We need to be vigilant to protect our children.""

Comments

Won't somebody think of the children?

[Carthag]

Where are they going to chat now?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[cyborg_zx]

Oh... any one of a million other chat systems. Who's gonna be checking up on this shit anyway?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

on Intarweb Relay Chat. until that too is closed down to protect the children.
i still remember the day that a crude 'cowsay' forevar warped my fragile little mind...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are they going to chat now?

They'll have to meet 40 year old men pretending to be 14 year old girls in person now.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

www.ssshhhh!!!.com

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[femto]

Yahoo's shopping centre?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oviously these teens will just stop chatting, ensuring their safety.

Also if you make using a condom a sinful act, teens will stop having sex.

Haven't you figured it out yet? :P

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Craptastic Weasel]

Well.. seeing as how a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn, they'll be there, just now they will all be lying about their age.

This seems like a political solution to a problem that would be better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...

But then again that problem exists in society as a whole (see also: Video Games, Television etc.) so maybe the solution is not so easy.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

I'm only being a bit snyde when I say that this seems like the only realistic solution to protecting stupid children and stupid teenagers who don't have parents who teach them properly and are aware of their children's lives.

I mean, when you hear stories like that one chick from MySpace who disapeared and turned out to have been killed by some guy she met on MySpace, you have to wonder "how fucking stupid have kids and young adults become?". If your child is really stupid and gullible and you're not willing to parent your child properly and imbue them with common sense, I guess other people have to do it for you. Plus, now Yahoo! won't suffer any lawsuits the next time some 16 year old chick goes off with some strange 32 year old from the internet and gets tortured and gutted.

Anyway, really, who uses Yahoo! or AOL chat rooms or anything? That's sort of the discussion version of using the really giant toddler-sized legos instead of a real lego kit.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[haydon4]

Where are they going to chat now?

Oh, I don't know, how about face to face with people their own age where they can learn such things as manners, etiquette, constructive dialog, the fact that "teh" is not a word. Not to mention that one kid can't say something disrespectful, disparaging, or derogatory about another without immediately being smacked in the face like we used to do in the good ol' days.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[tyllwin]

Because God knows that "younger girl running away from her parent's house with some older guy" was UTTERLY UNHEARD OF in all of human history before the Internet arrived.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[X-rated Ouroboros]

Funny, when I heard that story about that one chick from MySpace my reaction was that the only reason this story was semi-national news was because it had a "The Internet" angle. Older weirdos killing teenage girls isn't something new that requires the interent.

And as long as we're on the MySpace chick... she'd apparently met the guy several times in meatspace. It wasn't: "Hi! It's nice to meet you for the FIRST TIME! What are you going to do with those trash bags and rope? TEE HEE!" She had a chance to figure out that this guy wasn't quite right... the internet is no more at fault than any other place where people can get to know other people.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[xero314]

What? Parents actully have some clue of what their children are doing? Not here in the US (hopefully other countries are a little better than us).

I have been saying this same thing for a long time. I only hope that some day I see a Slashdot article that reads "Parent Jailed for not knowing what their child is doing"

The solution is "easy", even if it is a bit authoritarian. Mandatory sterilization.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[3nd32]

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Remember, "violence never solved anything". Smack anyone and get suspended. It matters less and less whether you're at school. Oh, and your parents'll get sued.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Considering the number of people who molest their kids or have child molestors in their family that abuse their kids and the number of people who seem to look the other way when their underage children are screwing around with adults twice their age, I have to wonder why we don't take children away from all parents. I mean, sure there are some responsible parents just like there are responsible children on the internet, but you can't take that kind of risk. Should just take children out of the home as a preventative safety measure.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Well, except that there's a bit more of a "pathetic" connotation to someone being so desperate for companionship or love or attention that they cross the country or even just the city to hook up with a complete stranger and then ending up dead or something. I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?

So in that respect, it makes for sensational material. If you're at a bar having a drink and you flirt with some guy and he slips something in your drink and drags you off and kills you, he's evil. If you get wrapped up in a total stranger over the internet who rapes and kills you - they're evil and you're sad.

And I know I'm not the only person other than the media who feels that sort of gut response when they hear about yet another person who gets killed or kidnapped by someone they met on the internet (not to mention adults who agree to be murdered or cannibalised and willingly go to engage in that sort of voluntary death like in America and Germany where we've seen more than one of each such story).

Of course... teachers and phys-ed teachers and music teachers have been known to abduct or rape or kill children plenty of times, too. But we admire and respect teachers and coaches and instructors rather than fear them, for some reason - even though there is the same sense of rationalization involved in both scenerios.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon everyone, read the (second) linked article:

"Under the agreement, one of the nation's leading internet service providers, Yahoo!, has removed and barred the posting of user-created chat rooms with names that promoted sex between minors and adults"

No, not all chatrooms... No, not all minors...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the children! They should be doing homework or somehow otherwise getting off their fucking fat, lazy asses and doing something productive. They've all moved to Slashdot anyway, where they post their fucking retarded, moronic, sophomoric dribble that consumes 99% of all posts. Keep up the good work, editors, you've attracted a terrific crowd with all your intellectually-stimulating "editing" skillz.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and your parents'll get sued.

Ah yes, the great American sport of suing everyone for all minor inconveniences or offenses. If downloading a song is worth several thousand per instance, a slap in the face must be worth millions!

Posted anonymously to avoid being sued.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[fossa]

How dare anyone be uncomfortable in social situations! The nerve!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[gregbains]

I've been an advocate of mandatory sterilization for a while now. With IQ tests and ability tests for those who wish to be unsterilized. [/off topic]

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Richmond, I met this girl.

She didn't meet him on Myspace, that's just the media looking for a story. They both simply happened to have myspace and used it to communicate.

And even if they did...I've met quite a few people off of myspace, and I haven't been raped and/or murdered yet.

I'm also 6'2 210 pound black guy though, go figure.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[grogdamighty]

Why do you think children would stay in parent-moderated chatrooms rather than going to hang out in the "cool" adult chatrooms?

Unless you meant to say that parents should take an active part in their children's day-to-day activities, which I completely agree with.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget.

Children should be seen and not heard.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Pharmboy]

Oh, I don't know, how about face to face with people their own age where they can learn such things as manners, etiquette, constructive dialog, the fact that "teh" is not a word.

So if your kid hangs out with other kids, he will start saying "Please" and "Thank You", use the small fork for his salad and put the napkin on his lamp, plus have conversations about current events AND speak proper English with improved grammar?

I agree that face to face interaction teachs them that actions have consequences, like getting popped in the mouth for talking trash, but they can also try out some stuff they saw on Jackass or Crank Yankers.

The internet doesn't screw up kids, apothetic parents do.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the children!

I think that's the exact behaviour they're trying to prevent...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Tink2000]

Sure! Instead of having them molested by families, let's just have them molested by strangers!

Wait, I have a better idea...

WHY DON'T GROWNUPS JUST FUCK GROWNUPS?

Sheesh.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the number of people who molest their kids or have child molestors in their family

Note that this actually accounts for the majority of child molestors last I heard. Meaning, of course, that the parents are two of the most dangerous people in a child's life, and that's not even counting the absolutely limitless access they have to a child to fuck it up in other ways.

Maybe if parents would actually do a good job raising kids they could trust, and who trusted them, they'd not need all these useless half-measures. It's important as parents to be vigilant, but ultimately you can't watch them 24/7, even if the law helps you think you can.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[MightyMartian]

You've pretty much hit the nail right on the head. The police agencies have created, with the media's help, an enormous amount of hysteria out of this. Yes, there's no doubt there's some real SOBs hanging out on chatrooms, some real sick guys. But, so far as I understand it, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[X-rated Ouroboros]

I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. [...] Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?

I'd say it's pathetic to hook-up with a "total roll of the dice" whether you meet them online or at club while doing stuff with your friends.

And I don't know about you, but there's a fair bit of overlap between the people I'm friends with in real life and the people I'm friends with online. So, what if one of my real-life friends wants to go to a club to meet a mutual internet-friend... and I end up hitting it off with the internet-friend? What if it was a real-life friend-of-a-friend who was only an internet-friend to me? What if it was someone I knew in real life but never had anything romantic develop until I got their contact information and talked to them online? What if it's someone I intially knew only online, but then was introduced to them by a mutual friend in real life, and then had something romantic develop online... and then met them in real life on my own for a hook-up?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, "violence never solved anything"."

That's a value assumption on your behalf. Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise. Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.

People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has served a purpose throughout history. To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence, because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of human history. Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status and ones resources. These are important things in a social species such as humans. Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[TheFlamingoKing]

Well, if MTV wouldn't keep shaking preteen ass in my face I wouldn't be so tempted...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"underage children are screwing around with adults twice their age"

This is no doubt a widespread issue. Wonder what Ashton Kushner's parents are thinking at the moment.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[RedWizzard]

Unless you meant to say that parents should take an active part in their children's day-to-day activities, which I completely agree with.

Are you suggesting that parents should sit with their kids for every minute of computer use? Because I don't see any other level of involvement that is going to be effective.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Ray Alloc]

Yeah, ban that stinking Pfiszer all all those "think of the children" hypocrits.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[robertgeller]

Sometimes we "kids" are right, despite your superiority complexes. Get over it -- sir.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[stor]

Well, if MTV wouldn't keep shaking preteen ass in my face I wouldn't be so tempted...

Hey buddy, I think you missed the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[MurphyZero]

Well we all know how well governments takes care of those kids, so I guess we just let all the kids have a "Lord of the Flies" situation. Perhaps the ones who survive will be better off anyways.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Damn homeopaths planting Ginseng in my yard to feed the addictions of their apothetic parents! Despite the evidence of the apothetic parents having a thriving pharmacy business, they still have their kids plant those weeds in my yard!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[chill]

Actually, this is a great idea. If they are sharp enough to set up their own Jabber or IRC server, then they are probably safe in chatting and aren't going to fall for a predator.

If, however, they think the Internet ends with Yahoo, AOL and MSN, then they are probably better off banned unless mommy is there to wipe their ass for them.

  -Charles

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is a roll of the dice... don't you know about quatnum mechanics

Seriously, what is the difference between being dead and being sad and dead? You are still dead. I don't see anything wrong with meeting people online as long as you are responsible and careful about it. You actually have a better chance of meeting someone you have something in common with from online because you can talk to them more before you meet them. You can discuss common intrests and of course be on the look out for tell tale signs of someone who is unbalanced. Our society is too paranoided now a days. The number of good people out there far out weighs the bad.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[NotBorg]

[...] better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...

Just the other day I gave my little Johnny a Troll (-1) for posting to a 25 year old woman from Texas. Not that I have anything against Texas, mind you, I just feel that Johnny could do better. She wasn't that hot.

Only by taking an active roll in our kids's lives can this kind of treachery be stopped.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they're opposite sex adults. This *is* the U.S., after all. Gotta have *some* standards.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

All chatrooms, all minors:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?t ype=internetNews&storyID=2005-10-12T212130Z_01_HAR 253163_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-YAHOO-SPITZER.XML&archiv ed=False

Chat rooms used by child predators will be shut down by Yahoo Inc. ...

  Yahoo agreed to develop education materials promoting the safe use of chat rooms, restrict Yahoo Chat to users 18 and older and remove the Teen category.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JesseMcDonald]

I think the GP was being sarcastic...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Brian Boitano]

Put the napkin on his what!?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

['nother poster]

"I wonder how much he can take her for when it's all over"? :)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but young girl running away with older guy, from 6 states away WAS unheard of.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[syzler]

You'll have to pry my child from my cold dead hand and you'll have to pry your throat from the other hand.

I am only partly joking, in reality both hands would be on your throat and my child would be in my wife's arms.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

oooh, nice comment number!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[nolife]

Well.. seeing as how a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn
You are right..
IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children', it is about Yahoo protecting itself. In the end, the benefits of allowing children to use the chat room did not exceed the risk or liability. Some online services may not specifically restrict by age but they do require a credit card for verification and/or payment. Just tonight, I had to use my CC to allow my son to enable advanced online fucntions like friends lists and joining of clans in Socom3. Socom 1 & 2 did not have such a restriction. It is no cost but they still wanted a card number. Xbox live is the same. Even with the prepaid cards you buy in the store for an annual Xbox online subscription requires a valid CC to complete the signup.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know, /. posters don't read what they respond to? We just talk at each other.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Hitler would agree.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > So if your kid hangs out with other kids, he will start saying "Please" and "Thank You", use the small fork for his salad and put the napkin on his lamp, plus
>
> Put the napkin on his what!?

It puts the napkin on the lamp or else it gets the homes!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[DrEldarion]

put the napkin on his lamp

That sounds like a fire hazard, we shouldn't be encouraging that.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[dogmatixpsych]

I totally agree with you. Parents need to be more directly involved with their children and not let kids have computers with the internet in their bedrooms. Many parents try to brush off responsibility for their kids onto other sources (which is one reason we have so many dumb lawsuits over children doing or not doing something).

I always know what my daughter is doing online. She never uses the internet unsupervised or goes into chatrooms she shouldn't be in. Of course, she is 9 months old and if I left her alone with the computer I'd have teeth marks in my keyboard.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[chudnall]

the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members

Let's say that the number of molestations that happen through the internet remained the same, while the number of molestations from family members dropped by 50%. Would you then say that interet molestations are suddenly much more of a problem? If the number of family molestations doubled, would internet molestations be even less of a problem? Perhaps my small town shouldn't worry so much about investigating last month's murder since the vast majority of murders occur in big cities...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Belseth]

The solution is "easy", even if it is a bit authoritarian. Mandatory sterilization.

Ro V Wade doesn't need to be overturned it needs to be expanded to include unfit parents. Impossible to pass though since most of Congress would face retro active abortion. Given some of the people successfully breeding one has to question whether Darwin was right.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

oooh, nice comment number! .xx

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[tadheckaman]

Wow. My head exploded.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Allnighterking]

One big problem. High IQ does not equate to high Intelligence. If it did then Dalmar would have been another Einstien not another Serial Murderor. However, in the spirit of the moment. Please feel free to volounteer yourself and your family to begin the process.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[sumdumass]

I generaly find thta when children enter chat rooms i'm in, they claim to be female, 14 years old and hot. In reality they are some 70 year old retired cop who wants some action on the side.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[ScottyH]

Specialize, and you breed in weakness.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Macadamizer]

I just like the fact that anyone who makes such an assertion seems to believe that THEY will surely be above the cut-off line for IQ...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[rdoger6424]

16/F/NYC: OMG!!!!!1! PARENTZ R TEH SUX!!!111one!! LOL OMG WTF BRB JK JK LOLLERSKATES ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!
40/M/NYC: UR RITE! ASL 17/M/NYC

Why should chatrooms be moderated? I don't know.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Aeiri]

IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children', it is about Yahoo protecting itself.

I don't think it's about either. I think it's about two things, first, reducing their bandwidth by 90%. Second, trying to increase the intelligence of the average teen by trying to cut out their retard spawning pool.

lol, roflmao, jk u no!!!11

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[sumdumass]

That sounds like a good idea to me.

Maybe we should stop kids form riding in cars because there was a studyt stating that alot of kids were kiled in car accidents. We probably should stop parents form riding in them too for much the same reasons. I also read a study once long ago that said the pasengers are more likley to die then the driver in automobile accidents. Maybe we should just stop all people from being passengers in cars.

I guess (without poutting words into the GP mouht) his problem isn't that child molestation form perverts in chatrooms are any better, it is that the measure to aviod it are a little drastic. From reading his post, i also get the feeling that he wishes this somewhat waisted effort should be focused more were the biger problem is. How many pervs on Yahoo chat can now say they were goign to visit lisa14 on Main because they thought she was of legal age (even when she said she was 14). Setups all the time happen that way were they bust someoen how crosses state lines to see some underage person with sexual intents. Now "they have to be 18 to go in this chat" is a good defense if they get busted.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[PunkOfLinux]

Anyone else notice how this is like a day after they announced their thing with MSN?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant, Edison. Now they know to stand away from you while they shoot you.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[wmspringer]

Suspended? Last school fight I'm aware of, the kids got taken off in handcuffs. This is middle school..

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Artifakt]

Lesser involvement should still be very effective. You don't have to catch a child every time they do someting wrong, you just have to make punishment and reward appropriate to what you do observe, and observe often enough to catch the more severe abuses the child may do. I guarentee if the parent sets a policy of no trolling, no abusive language, etc, and spot checks for an hour after giving the kid a couple of weeks to develop any bad habits they may choose, any child that isn't sticking to the policy will either slip big time while they are watching, or the remarks other people make talking to that child will make it quite clear what's been going on. Discipline doesn't have to mean never using the net again either - The worst penalty my daughter was even warned about in advance in using chat involved having the machine locked away for a week, and she never even came close to earning one of those. I spent more time helping her install extra software and such than it took to spell out the actual restrictions, but what I spent on that was apparently enough.
        Plus, it's not just about discipline. How many parents bother to sit down with the kid and discuss how some people might be trying to pry private information out over chat, or watch for a half hour when they first start and point out examples of other chatters who might be 43 year old guys just pretending to be 15 year old girls? Teach the kids how to fight back against some of the perils out there first - it lets them know you care, AND it warns them anonimity isn't perfect, and there are some ways to trace them if they abuse the system.
        Course, my only child is a girl. Boys are probably a whole nother problem.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot readers' likelihood of reproducing aside...

As an addendum to this, there are at least some of us out there that, given a global program of this sort, would volunteer to be tested irregardless of the result. Altruistic maybe, or just weird. (Or confident of our own superiority?) I'd rather the species as a whole benefit than bring yet another 'squalling bundle of joy' into the world.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Dun Malg]

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Remember, "violence never solved anything".

Such a tired cliche, and totally without basis in fact too. Just ask Tojo, or Hitler, or Napoleon, or Stalin, or the former residents of ancient Carthage whether violence ever solved anything.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[gstoddart]

Well.. seeing as how a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn, they'll be there, just now they will all be lying about their age.

Indeed. I sure as hell wouldn't provide Yahoo with the information required to legally prove I'm an adult. Imagine if every web-site not trying to run afoul of these kinds of things demanded real, verifiable proof of identity and age (credit history, biometrics ....) Screw that!

This seems like a political solution to a problem that would be better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...

Well, kids can get access to the web all over the place, and IM is pretty ubiquitous. It's probably damned near impossible for parents to actually police what their children are doing with every computer they get near. Hell, they've had "boss keys" in games for years, I'm sure my nephew could out-fox my brother on the computer.

Unfortunately, as I said, I really do worry about how such things will affect the rest of the netizens. Cause as soon as people figure out teens won't have any compunction about lying to Yahoo about their age, someone will start legislating ID requirements for everyone on line to prove age.

And then we can start to get really paranoid about what's next, because every site will already have all of your information dutifully logged and tied to your activities.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[nolife]

You completely missed the point. People get in such an uproar and want to blame the internet when they hear of a child running away with someone they meet on the internet and getting molested but yet this appears to be such a small number of total incidents compared to the other times children get molested by neighbors, relatives, parents etc where the internet was not involved at all. No one is trying to claim any molestation is okay. The internet part is a much smaller percentage of the total but yet gets a much more coverage. I assume the type of child that could easily be swayed and fooled into spending secret time with a much older adult they meet in the internet could probably be swayed just as easily into the same situation by a neighbor or family friend. Instead of blindly keeping the internet away from the children and providing a flase sense of security, discuss the concept of bad people and the hazards of some adults in general and what the child should look for weather online or offline. From what I hear and read about internet incidents, this concept is never mentioned, only the big bad internet is the cause. From my experience, children and tweens will take guidance and advice from adults/teachers/consulors but will really not completely believe it will happen to them until it does. You can provide real world examples that can can recall when the situation comes up and hopefully they will make the right decision. Giving children the impression the internet is the major cause of these encounters leaves them wide to a statistically much larger threat.

The point is, look at this BIG PICTURE.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[SComps]

I didn't see anyone say they would make the cut, only that they advocated it. I personally might not make the cut, but then again I'm single, 40 yrs old and I adopted my two children so... maybe I'm not the perfect example for your statement.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[miskatonic alumnus]

The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest--
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."
Darwinism:
That survivors survive.


--- Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I solved this problem by installing VNC software on all the computers in the house, waiting until the kids enter a chatroom and engage in... dubious... behavior, and setting the wallpaper to be embarrassing chatlogs right as I walk by to ask them a question about how school was. One child literally threw the monitor off of the desk to keep me from seeing the wallpaper I set. I should have made a video.
Another good one is to keep note of chat logs and start introducing quotes from them into normal conversation. They won't say anything just in case you don't know, but the look on their face is priceless.
Needless to say, my kids have the shit scared out of them every time they're looking at something they shouldn't be. Ah, the joys of being a parent that can code in the internet age ;)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[GreyyGuy]

Actually, this is a great idea. If they are sharp enough to set up their own Jabber or IRC server, then they are probably safe in chatting and aren't going to fall for a predator.

Yeah- 'cause technical skills and understanding are directly related to social skills and understanding.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[ShieldW0lf]

So instead of having a situation where perverts try to pick up kids, get caught and go to jail, we're going to have a situation where kids lie about their age logging on, and then when perverts get caught trying to pick them up, the perverts can say they believed the person they were chatting with was over 18 and it was all make-believe.

Brilliant.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Urchlay]

> Now "they have to be 18 to go in this chat" is a good defense if they get busted.

Not likely. "She had to be 18 to get into this club" definitely isn't a valid defense. Go ask Rob Lowe some time...

However, I agree with your overall point: banning all under 18's from chat rooms is an extreme measure.

Of course, last I checked, Yahoo had absolutely no way to verify your age, and I doubt they're going to be able to, for a free service. Requiring a credit card number doesn't really help: lots of kids have access to Daddy's credit cards (with or without Daddy's knowledge). Even if the credit card thing was 100% accurate, I doubt Yahoo would want to spend the extra money it'd take for them to verify the card numbers. Any other age-verification scheme (AdultCheck, etc) would have the same drawback: Yahoo chat isn't really a moneymaker (the "free" services have to be subsidized by the for-pay services they offer), so no real money can be spent on age verification just to let Random Joe User use it...

This unenforceable ban on under-18's sounds like purely a Cover Your Ass move on their part. Likely it won't help, in case of a real lawsuit, but I'm no lawyer.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[emptycorp]

Our Top Story today, Yahoo! has closed it's chat services to anyone under the age of 18.

In unrelated news, Yahoo! has noticed a sharp spike in adult registrations.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[dagr8tim]

Because God knows that "younger girl running away from her parent's house with some older guy" was UTTERLY UNHEARD OF in all of human history before the Internet arrived.

My personal favorite is the 15 or 16 year old girl that ran off with a like 53 year old man. The catch is they met at church, where they both sang in the choir.

We must take action and ban all churches.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[arminw]

...I have to wonder why we don't take children away from all parents....

So you subscribe to the "Brave New World" idea that all children are the property of the state and that parents (mothers mainly) are nothing more than baby factories making workers and soldiers for use of the state? Maybe sometime afterwards mothers will no longer be needed because babies are made in factories.

Both the real world and cyberspace have places children should not go. Their parents should decide which those are in both cases.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Eradicator2k3]

"Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate behaviour..."

I'm amazed! I realize that most creationists will say that that the earth has been around for only several thousand years, but I don't think that any subject matter expert has ever come close to the "millions" of years that humanity has used violence, let alone EXISTED!!!

Disclaimer: Scientologists may continue to believe that they were nobles 50 trillion years ago, instead of being Schmelig, the peasant boy who was run over by a manure cart 42 years ago.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[DariaM84]

Amen to that. Yahoo! was my first introduction into chatrooms. I wonder if anyone under 18 will still be able to start IM chats when MSN and Yahoo! join forces? That would be stupid to block. -_-

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[AstroDrabb]

This seems like a political solution...

A "political solution" is really just smoke an mirrors for a politician so that they can get re-elected to office or elected to a new office. It lets our politicians have something to point at and say "see, I did this great thing while I was in this office, that is why you need to elect me to this new office".

This Spitzer idiot will actually tell people that he "kept their children safe" and believe it or not, there will be tons of other idiots that will think it is true : (

There are a lot of funny things like this in the USA. At 17, I was able to sign up for the US Marine Corps. At 18, I was allowed to enter the US Marine Coprs. I went in in 1991, during that whole Gulf War thingy. The funny thing to me (now at the age of 32) is that I was allowed by the US federal govt. to sign my life over to them to possible fight and die for my country at _only_ 18, yet I was not old enough to buy and drink a beer! I guess uncle Sam really knows what is best for us.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing policing with parenting. That's the problem.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dalmar"?

I'm guessing your genes won't make the cut for the glorious new IQ-fascist society.

Concerning intelligence, we can either definie it as a vague useless concept or we could definie it in a way to actually make it useful. For instance as IQ.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

....swarming, passing the needle, carjacking, vandalism......since we're being simplistic.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the idiots that keep breeding and leeching off Society without regard to the damage they are doing. The rest of us are smarter than them. Since we are the one's creating the cut-off line, we'll sure as heck make sure of two things:

1) We are above it

2) The idiot masses are below it.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Mistshadow2k4]

The internet doesn't screw up kids, apothetic parents do.

That's very, very true. But most of you guys are forgetting 2 things:

1. How wilfully defiant kids can be (don't tell me you never did anything you weren't supposed to do when you were a teenager). "Oh, they're just overreacting, that'll never happen to me."

2. Not even the best parents can have all the time in the world, no matter how much they try to. Parents have jobs and lives, not to mention that even the most loving parents do need a little time to themselves once in a while to keep from going crazy.

Oh, I'm not saying I agree with this. Like the other posters said, kids will just lie about their age, so it seems pretty pointless. But it's not entirely a game of "let's blame something besides ourselves". It's fear, and not an entirely ungrounded fear. In a way, I don't blame them, I just think this won't help.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep- stupid people don't have either!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[anagama]

Actually, very smart people (such as myself), are voluntarily sterilized.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Penguinoflight]

"put the napkin on his lamp"

Adds whole new meaning to teh solar death ray article huh?

NO! slashdot as bad as chatrooms, who will the grammar nazi's execute violence against now?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[EternityInterface]

A note though is the only thing they do at these chat places, is cyber and talk in acronyms. I managed to stay chatroom/icq free years for 5 years, the "communication" that happens in this environment is so pathetic.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Fjandr]

Mod (+10, Brilliant)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[DeXtroMe]

If only you had posted non-anonymously sir, you would be on my friends list.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, "violence never solved anything".

Last night my bitch was mouthing off. I smacked her around a bit. That shut her up. Who said violence never solved anything?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[EternityInterface]

(see also: Video Games, Television etc.)

PA says it best

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[EternityInterface]

I see Darwinism in our age as being able to change people. There is no chance if I get a child that it will be like me, but if I inspire someone to think different, to think more, to question things, to enjoy life? *Add in advertising about Nietzchse here*

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[munpfazy]

>IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children',
>it is about Yahoo protecting itself.

I agree.

But, if the goal is to make life difficult for adults who troll chat rooms looking to pick up teens, then there may be real some sense to it as well.

By forcing all the kids in that chat room to lie about their age, you make things a bit more difficult for such people. Now they have to actually exchange information with a person to know whether they are (well, whether they claim to be) under 18 and can't simply pick them out of a crowd.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Damer Face]

> That's a value assumption on your behalf.

One's appraisal of history is a series of value judgments of a series of value judgements. To believe otherwise is most definitely stupid.

> Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise.
> Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as
> humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate > behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.

Well we're trying to put some of that behind us now, you know, the throwing of shit and hanging from trees by our tails. In all seriousness, apes are largely better behaved than we are. They argue, they beat their chests, they don't usually start laying into each other. And they don't kill each other. They do have orgies though. Maybe that's the secret.

In most species of animal, if any violence between competing males does occur, it is a recognised loss of status on someone's part that prevents further violence.

> People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has
> served a purpose throughout history.

The violence of self-defence is arguably justified. I believe it is, others don't.

Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of king and country, for the empire, the fatherland, the glorious republic, so some power-hungry visionary fool can have more lives to play with. I don't readily see the justification in that.

> To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence,
> because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of
> human history.

Some of us are promoting the ideas of progress, evolution, civilisation: let's push things forward. Enough with your atavistic recourse to murder.

> Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the
> resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status

I think there are laws against this sort of attitude and with good reason. And "most importantly [...] loss of status" ... ? The most breathtakingly ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Be advised that if you publicly prove me wrong, you'll have justified me smashing your face in with a brick.

> and ones resources.

That too is arguably justified, although less so than self-defence. I'm also going to advocate the slaughter of animals to serve my need for all sorts of delicious meat products, but I don't think I'd bother to try to justify it.

> These are important things in a social species such as humans.

Important to those who, like dogs, need to know their place in the order. And I'm guessing most us on slashdot would be somewhere near the bottom.

> Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think
> that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.

See top.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[MightyMartian]

The point is that this is like the "SHARK ATTACK" nonsense that went five or six years ago. A few people got attacked by sharks, and the media made it seem like putting your toes in the water was to invite some collosal set of teeth to leap out of the water and gnaw on you.

I'm not arguing that the Internet doesn't have its predators, nor am I saying that children shouldn't be protected. But this solution is rather like locking them up until they're 21. And it is based upon hysteria, just like the belief that every airplane holds a couple of hijackers with a couple of butter knives and suicidal urges.

I mean, if we're going to go down that road, perhaps we shouldn't let kids go to the mall without armed escorts.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[hairyfeet]

I agree completely,With this addition.Teach them a little common sense.Granted,If the parents are as dumb as a sackful of hammers it is the blind leading the blind

I recently had my nephews move in with me and i set up a chat room with myself as a cute chick just to show them how easy it was for people to fake it.I told them a simple formula-Hot chick in chat=45 year old guy named Stu.It works.I've checked and their conversations are just boring crap like (What's a good band to listen to) or (Whats a good game for ps2).I asked my oldest why no chick chat and he said quote-"I don't feel like playing pretend with some guy named Stu-There are real girls at school".I told him he was a genius and gave him $5.

Too many people just throw their kid in front of the machine and expect the Government to make it all Disney.All the government crap in the world doesn't help when the parents just don't bother to share their time and exp.And that is why we have so many (insert junkies,molested kids,unwed mothers,etc).A kid with parents that don't bother is a kid without a chance.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One's appraisal of history is a series of value judgments of a series of value judgements."

As opposed to the majority of your rebuttals which are value judgements troll? BTW, can you do HTML? Since the majority of argument was value judgements and the outlining of your argument was atrocious allow me to rip but one of your rebuttals apart:

And "most importantly [...] loss of status" ... ? The most breathtakingly ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Be advised that if you publicly prove me wrong, you'll have justified me smashing your face in with a brick.

Ever read any Evolutionary Psychology? Humans are a social species whose networks are built on status and reputation. A loss of status could mean more attacks on ones on physical being and reputation itself. So yes, at one stage in the past, loss of status was considered a pretty important thing in the mind of humans.

And now that I've proved you wrong how does it justify you smashing the parent or anyone else's face in with a brick? The only way it would be justified in your twisted reality is if you were perceived as having lost status. Which would mean you are an insecure little man if you take such things to heart.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Baloo Ursidae]

I had to use my CC to allow my son to enable advanced online fucntions like friends lists and joining of clans in Socom3.

Cute. They do know there's a large segment of the population that won't get a credit card on the principal that the credit card companies wouldn't issue one when it was actually needed, right? And that any kid with a jar full of change can get a Mastercard at the grocery store's Coinstar, right?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[grammar fascist]

Ro V Wade doesn't need to be overturned it needs to be expanded to include unfit parents. Impossible to pass though since most of Congress would face retro active abortion. Given some of the people successfully breeding one has to question whether Darwin was right.

Oh, I know! Let's play Eugenics! It's a wonderful game - you invent a reality in which people like you are the best, and condemn every other group to dwindle to nothing based on your invented criteria of fitness.

Freaking Nazi. Musings like yours fleshed out into action plans have caused some of the worst atrocities in history. It disturbs me to see so much of this on Slashdot. Is it just teen angst, or something more sinister?

(By the way, I didn't lose because I brought up Hitler. Godwin won because you forced his hand.)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Lucractius]

darwin was right. the evoloution has taken a bad path though... its doing its thing... but were going down the path of a twisted symbiosis.

People Unfit for existence who have money and vote + Manipulators of people who vote (politicians) + "protectors" of people with money (lawyers) = F***ED UP FUTURE

seriously ... break down the trends... youll see it there. Stupid people complain en mass, and politicians will happily make some stupid law for them. Stupid people screw up because they werent explicitly told EVERYTHING they ARENT supposed to do... they do one... then sue for money cause they werent told not to do it. Then live out the rest of their life on the settlment or damages money and breed stupid kids with no work ethic that are probably statisticaly more likely to do the same thing themselves.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Lucractius]

I dont want a "credit card" simply cause i hate getting screwed, but i know ill have to get something equivalent, fortunatly Visa have an answer with their Visa Debit card... "credit card" tied to your savings account that automaticaly deducts the money from there, and prevent s you spending money you dont have.

Its a neat soloution for people who are more than ever now, likely to NEED some kind of CC for something. even if its just proof of age. But dont want to risk their finances on the damn things.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Kuros_overkill]

WARNING: Some facts have been simplifide for the sake of quicker argument. Do Not Flame.

I don't recall anyone saying Dalmar wasn't intellegent. He was Evil. Evil != Stupid. Good != Smart. They are two seperate measurments. One is of intelegence. The other of Moral and Ethical Values (not legal, Laws have nothing to do with Morals or Ethics). Einstien == Good, Dalmar == Evil. Nothing is this math negates Dalmar == Intellegent. P.S. Yes I'm aware that Insane != Evil. My opinion is my own.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[xero314]

Musings like yours fleshed out into action plans have caused some of the worst atrocities in history.

This only holds true when those action plans were carried out by a short lived society that was eventually over thrown. Not to say the Atrocities of Hitler's Nazi Regime (Not to be confused with the National Socialist party) are in any way acceptable, but had the Nazi's succeded we would all be singing a different story today.

On another note, no one is talking about genocide, or any other version of killing. There is no suggesting that people be stopped from having children based on genetics or any things that would interfere with evolution. What we are suggesting is that people be held accountable for raising children. You can't drive a car without a license, so why should you be allowed to have/raise children with out one. I just think we would have alot less problems with guns in schools and issues over violence in video games if we only allowed attentive people to parent. I'm even all for continued retesting to make sure parents continue to do their job.

The place where this does potentially fail (though I think it's not so bad), the more capable people are most often the least likely to breed, which would mean a reduction in population, and potentially the end of a nation through attrition.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I are above IQ! I are not sertilzed. Butt many most people are silly fools are stupid are sertilzed!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Oh, I don't know, how about face to face with people their own age where they can learn such things as manners, etiquette, constructive dialog, the fact that "teh" is not a word. Not to mention that one kid can't say something disrespectful, disparaging, or derogatory about another without immediately being smacked in the face like we used to do in the good ol' days.

Only kids need this lesson?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Lucractius]

Wheres "+1 Intriugingly confusing" when you need it...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[rasqual]

Well, there's another kind of hysteria that I see a lot more of. For my part, as a parent, I just nod and take note of this kind of thing, realizing that it doesn't really give me any reason to let down my guard, etc. So no hysteria here. But then I come up to /. and see a whole passel of yahoos rending their garments, gnashing their teeth, pouring gasoline on themselves and sticking shotguns in their mouths -- all because it's such a terrible curb on liberty in the name of misguided blah blah blah.

Ya know what? I just nod and take note of this kind of thing.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Lucractius]

and ask the wiseass 14 year old whos just got slaped in the back of the head for trying to mouth off. Hell tell ya.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[jujuchef]

There are scores of ways to prove that your identity is over the age of 18. Credit card, bank account, or utility bill with your name on it. It goes without saying that any child could dig this information up from their parents belongings (I know they wouldn't be the first to do it). So, parents, keep your info tight at hand, be involved with your kids net activities. If a child is REALLY that determined to get onto an 18+ chat and start using keygens etc then they're probably aware of online pervs and have other legal issues to concern themselves with. With any luck though, these types of smarties have a bit of a vigilante streak to scare the shit out of them(online pervs) with their wits.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[rasqual]

"I was allowed by the US federal govt. to sign my life over to them to possible fight and die for my country at _only_ 18, yet I was not old enough to buy and drink a beer! I guess uncle Sam really knows what is best for us."

I've never understood this logic. It's not really logic at all, because there's no logical connection between being saddled with the duty of defending one's country and the prerogative of drinking alcoholic beverages at one age or another.

What is there about this juxtaposition of such incommensurables that people so often take it to be such a compelling argument that nods of assent may be anticipated from all hearers? Seriously, this is a mystery to me. And I, too, am a veteran who entered service under the drinking age.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[balloonhead]

Firstly - I am assuming you are american. Apologies if you are not.

Before you go off about the nazis - what about the bloody US? How are they so different?

From http://www.hnn.us/articles/1551.html

Following are the remarks Mr. Platt made to the California senate judiciary committee, June 24, 2003, regarding senate resolution no. 20 - relative to eugenics.

Since the spring 2002, state governments in Virginia, Oregon, and South Carolina, have published statements of apology to tens of thousands of patients, mostly poor women, who were sterilized against their will in state hospitals between the 1900s and 1960s. In March 2003, Governor Davis and Attorney General Lockyer added their regrets for the injustices committed in the name of "race betterment." Now, the California Senate is considering a resolution, authored by Senator Dede Alpert (D-San Diego), which "expresses profound regret over the state's past role in the eugenics movement" and "urges every citizen of the state to become familiar with the history of the eugenics movement, in the hope that a more educated and tolerant populace will reject any similar abhorrent pseudoscientific movement should it arise in the future."

In 1924, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, with eugenicists for the first time playing a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from Eastern and Southern Europe. [2] This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to fifteen percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new Act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool. Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the USA and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.

Or from wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics:

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those they thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963 when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A favorable report on the results of the sterilizations in California, by far the most sterilizing state, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II they justified the mass-sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.(emphasis mine)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[ultranova]

It's the idiots that keep breeding and leeching off Society without regard to the damage they are doing. The rest of us are smarter than them. Since we are the one's creating the cut-off line, we'll sure as heck make sure of two things:

1. We are above it
2. The idiot masses are below it.

Incorrect. It's the idiot masses that keep the wheels of society turning. They're the ones doing all the work that puts food on your table. The soeciety would collapse without them. On the other hand, people who think themselves very smart (such as yourself) and everyone else beneath them, usually contribute nothing but occasional genocide, mass-sterilization program or other form of evil and injustice with no purpose other than glorifying themselves in their own eyes.

And a smart person would know how to use the HTML ordered list (<ol> <li>list item one</li> <li>list item two</li> </ol>) instead of having to simulate one with line breaks. To the junk gene pool with you !

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know some people liked the User Chat rooms.... damn F**kers taking em away from us THEN doing this shit

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Deliveranc3]

A more concrete example is all around us. Anti-Societal behavior is curbed with "The Police" a group which will use an escelating level of violence to get you to conform to their wishes.

Really Society IS violence.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[CryptoKiller]

It's such a shame I can't mod you up!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[halleluja]

Where are they going to chat now?

#teens at undernet, obviously.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo will suffer nobody other

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Walkiry]

>And a smart person would know how to use the HTML ordered list

Not necessarily, you're making the common mistake of confusing knowledge with intelligence. It's probably not your fault, just a sad reflection of the education system nowadays, where mindless accumulation of knowledge is the yard stick for measuring progress.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Eivind]

Are you suggesting that parents should sit with their kids for every minute of computer use? Because I don't see any other level of involvement that is going to be effective.

Don't be silly. I know everyone goes gaga and turns their brain off when someone mentions children and "online-predators" but this does not change the facts that:

• Atleast 95% of the abused children are abused by someone they know well, the "don't talk to strangers" thing doesn't really make much sense.

• Even just talking openly with your children so they know they can talk to you if something bothers them or they have questions is a great help.

• Fears are not equal to risk. In actual fact your child is something like 1000 times more likely being killed by a car-accident as being in any way abused by a "stranger on the internet"
• That said, there *are* simple rules that children should follow. Bring an adult along the first time you meet someone from the Internet is one of those rules.
• Seeing a naked breast is not going to harm anyone not already terminally harmed by religios bullshit. Most children see their first naked breast at age 2 minutes, here in Europe most of them continue seeing naked breasts regularily trough their entire lives I don't know what's so damaging about it.
• How come "adult material" in US-speak seem to mean "anything remotely related to sex", while chainsaw-massacre III is seemingly a non-issue? (witness the .xxx TLD bruhaha)

By the way, I say this as the father of a small child, so don't think for even a microsecond that I don't care about the wellbeing of children. I just don't care for wrongheded paranoia, that's all. There's no reason you need to sit with your child at the computer the entire time. You should however, in my opinion have an idea what the child is doing and sometimes discuss it with the child.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Damer Face]

> As opposed to the majority of your rebuttals which are value judgements

Life is probably all value judgments, despite most of us proclaiming truths at every possible moment (that's me and you included, boy). Just don't like an attempt to pretend that accounts of history represent truth in some way. It's usually a precursor to invading a country.

> troll

So why feed it?

> BTW, can you do HTML?

Yes. Can you type "by the way"?

> Since the majority of argument was value judgements and the outlining of your > argument was atrocious allow me to rip but one of your rebuttals apart:

Yeah the outlining was awful, but I don't like italics and I don't like bold. Value judgements. And what happens when it get's batted backwards and forwards a couple of times? What's italic and what isn't?

I apologise for upsetting your eyes, and your delicate sensibilities and rules.

> Ever read any Evolutionary Psychology? Humans are a social species whose

Ever read an arguments against evolutionary psychology? Didn't get that far? We don't know what happened in the past, we're theorising. The idea of man being steeped in violence is largely lacking in evidence prior to the city states and predicated on the view that we must be violemt because other primates (and therefore occur primate ancestors) are violent. Which they largely aren't.

> networks are built on status and reputation.

Mine aren't. I tend to make value judgements on people that aren't based on how high up in the pecking order they are nor on what other people tell me. And there's alot of people on this planet who don't stoop to violence when their honour is impugned.

Also, you misunderstand the use of violence in animal status. Real physical harm for many, probably most, animals is a last resort. If you lose a contest to a superior male, you don't feel dissed and come back with a pair of nines, you walk away. You do, however fight the next male that tries to capitalise on it. Or lose out big time as you indeed state. But often it never comes to a fight. It's called posturing.

The idea that violence as a retort to loss of status has some historical basis is bilge.

> A loss of status could mean more attacks on ones on physical being and

Evidence? Like I said, apes and other simians are less prone to intra-species violence than we currently are, and the emphasis in a contest is often not on actual violence. You're following old science.

> reputation itself. So yes, at one stage in the past, loss of status was
> considered a pretty important thing in the mind of humans.

A valid point. In the past. Doesn't justify anything these days. Progress, etc.

> And now that I've proved you wrong how does it justify you smashing the parent > or anyone else's face in with a brick?

It doesn't (even if you had) which is my argument exactly. Parent said that an attack on status justifies violence, qualified with "most important". I equated being proven wrong publicly to losing status. You're welcome to argue with that, I don't know that it's particularly true. See Einstein, for example.

> The only way it would be justified in your twisted reality is if you were
> perceived as having lost status. Which would mean you are an insecure little
> man if you take such things to heart.

Erm ... not my twisted reality. I'm not advocating justifying violence based on loss of status. Parent did, and you appear to be trying to justify it. Please pay attention. And don't post anonymously you insecure little man.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[xtracto]

Oh, and your parents'll get sued.

That is exactly what we need!, that is the only way the parents will learn to educate their own children. Sue their *aces* ;)!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[mrmeval]

This is really going to piss off the blackmailers.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Jim_Callahan]

Ordered list... six tags for the current example, or (2 + 2*number of items). Line breaks with extra space on each end... five tags in this example, or (3+number of items). The individual tags are the same length... making the line breaks more efficient for any number of entries greater than one... So you're accusing the man of idiocy for using markup language more efficiently than you would? I think you might want to go see a doctor about one of them 'vasectomy' thingies about now, after all.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, there is the problem, smart people decide to not have sex, so the world is flooded by the offspring of the less smart ones....

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Jim_Callahan]

Yeah, I have issues with the argument as well... it's too long. He should have just said "violence being an effective solution to a problem is unrelated to wether you like violence or not." Maybe followed it up with an example, like "I don't have enough land. I kill some guy and take his land. Like it or not, moral or not, the problem is solved."

Since the grandparent didn't say it, I will: violence quite definitely solves things. Wether violence itself is a good thing is an arbitrary value assessment on the part of the viewer. But since 'solve' is a quite empirically verifiable term in most cases, and there are cases where violence has resolved problems, the cliche "violence never solves anything" is, by the rules of logic, patently false.

I would also argue that violence is good in many cases, but as this of course comes down to a set of arbitrary value assessments on my part, and is a completely separate issue, I won't bore you with the details.

Ok, made the post the requisite 3 times in [indirect], [direct], and [flippant] modes, signing off now.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[jez9999]

Not even the best parents can have all the time in the world, no matter how much they try to. Parents have jobs and lives, not to mention that even the most loving parents do need a little time to themselves once in a while to keep from going crazy.

That may be true nowadays, but I'm gonna be a little un-PC here. Women used to readily accept their roles as the main bringer-uppers of children, and looker-afters of the home (them being generally more skilled than men at these tasks). Both parents do not need a paying job! Perhaps if they started to see that that was a pretty damn good solution, and that the suffragettes went a little too far in their campaigning, we might see kids have mroe quality time with A parent, helping to instill some graces back into them? Just a thought.

Then again, looking at the graces of the average mother in the US nowadays.... :-)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[ultranova]

The individual tags are the same length... making the line breaks more efficient for any number of entries greater than one... So you're accusing the man of idiocy for using markup language more efficiently than you would?

You are talking about space-efficiency. However, the purpose of markup is not to be as compact as possible. The purpose of markup is to convey the structure of the document, so it can be correctly parsed by machines. The grandparent's list, made with line breaks, is recognized as list by humans but cannot be realiably recognized as such by, say, screen readers or search engines. On the other hand, my list, made with markup, can be recognized as such without any heuristical analyzes.

Therefore, I conclude that neither you nor the grandparent know how to use HTML properly.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of this quote from the book Affluenza by Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss.

The Olsen sisters, who visited Australia in 2003, became famous as cute 5-year old twins in a US sitcom before growing into pouting teenage entrepreneurs promoting sexy lingerie, including matching padded bras and panties to their 6- to 12-year old fans. If adults who are sexually attracted to children are called paedophiles, what do we call adults who set out to make chidren sexually attractive? Advertising executives.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[poulbailey]

Wow, you're a great and awesome parent!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Chuq]

What an ironic sig.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

And most importantly an underage girl having relations with an adult is totally immoral and bad.

I don't know why, but it's ok if two 15year-olds or two 18-year-olds do dirty stuff, but when a 17year-old and a 19year-old start an affair, the world is going to end!

My ex-girlfriend was 19 (that was five years difference) and we were fine. The example above are two years difference, but unfortunately cross the magical 18-year frontier.

I don't get this. Everything (including sex) between consenting people should be ok, everything between nonconsenting ones clearly not. What's so hard to get about that?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[TheRaven64]

Having a credit card does not `risk your finances,' being an idiot does. If you spend more money than you have, then you will go into debt. A credit card is useful for the buyer protection it offers - something you don't get with a debit card. If you have your credit card set up to pay the entire balance at the end of every month, then you get:

1. 14-44 days worth of interest from the money being in your current account.
2. Buyer protection, including the ability to reverse charges made at a later date.
3. Cash back, depending on the card (1% is fairly easy to get - it's not a lot, but it adds up - especially if you use your credit card for expenses).

And the card company makes no money out of you. The only people they make money from are the idiots who fail to realise that a credit card is about the most expensive way of borrowing money possible.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a smart person would know how to use the HTML ordered list (<ol> <li>list item one</li> <li>list item two</li> </ol>) instead of having to simulate one with line breaks. To the junk gene pool with you !

Wow, you're a friggin' dork!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anomylous Howard]

What about the idiots who believe hook-line-and-sinker the false urban myth zeitgeist about other idiots cashing in big for their stupidity, and thereby destroying society, while the first idiots are working so hard just to.... Ah, forget it. Your canned, mass marketed BS isn't worth the price of a single run on sentence.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Dogtanian]

I'm gonna be a little un-PC here.

Political correctness is the ultimate strawman representation of liberal (*) left-wing politics used by its opponents.

Whenever someone says something aong the lines of "I'm going to be un-PC", or "it might not be politically correct but", they're not just trying to sugar the pill of what they say, they're positively trying to gain favour with those who agree that "political correctness" is stupid.

And since PC is a strawman designed to make those on the left look bad, of course it's stupid.

Not saying I agree with all those that the 'anti-political correctness' argument is used against, but it's a convenient and easy bogey-man for those on the opposing side.

(*) In the literal sense, not the 'synonymous with left-wing' meaning that it has in the US.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Dogtanian]

Anti-Societal behavior is curbed with "The Police" a group which will use an escelating level of violence to get you to conform to their wishes.

They split up years ago, but Sting still regularly employs punishment beatings against those who don't buy his albums.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Silverstrike]

If a child is REALLY that determined to get onto an 18+ chat and start using keygens etc then they're probably aware of online pervs and have other legal issues to concern themselves with.

I seriously doubt that. Not everyone that sneaks into an R rated movie is a delinquint, bound to be in and out of "the system" their entire lives. And even if they were, it certainly does warrant leaving them to the wolves, so to speak.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also of note, individuals in a civilization still are beneficiaries of violence whether or they actually perform the actions face-to-face. The law enforcement arm of our governments use violence almost continuously to preserve your "peace", as does the military. Violence perpetrated by these arms of society (in your name no less) does solve many problems in your own personal life, they are just solved before they ever reach and affect you.

Many people love hamburger but few can stomach the slaughterhouse.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[SparafucileMan]

Perverts don't pick up 18 year olds. They chat with kids, then say, "so how old are you really?", and if the answer is under 15, they go in for the kill, so to speak.

So there is always going to be plenty of evidence that the pervert knew the kid was under 18 whether the age barrier is 18 or not.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumptions about the origins of violence are quite child-like and naive. To beleieve that apes harbor some "pure" nature that allows the only violence to occur in domination rituals is absurd. They will gladly fight to the death over limited resourses, just the way we do. "For King and for country" simply means that our group will get control of the resources and the ability to determine it's distribution.

You would kill to feed your starving child, just like an ape, a lion, or nearly every animal of the skin of this fair planet. That has on a basic level been the struggle of humanity since the beginning.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[saintp]

So.... are you saying that, because the U.S. once pursued a campaign of forced sterilization, Americans aren't allowed to criticize the idea? Or was that just a big fucking red herring that had absolutely nothing to do with the parent's post?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[gullevek]

Yeah, funny ...

Back in real world kids use mobile phone dating services to sell themselves for a Luis Vutton bag ... ah, VNC for mobile phones, don't we miss that?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[mrogers]

So your benchmark of social maturity is... IRCops?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Mistshadow2k4]

And what is the father is supposed to do while the mother raises the children? Hardly a damn thing. Don't tell me it wasn't like that, buddy, I was raised in a family like that. Why the hell should one parent be saddled with most of the responsibility of raising the children while the other isn't? Just because he's a man? If you think one parent should be more responsible for raising the children than the other, why not the man? That's just a sexist excuse for exploiting your wife. You have an orgasm, she's pregnant for nine months, goes through labor, and you do... what? Work. How does that compare with raising kids? It doesn't. It never did. It was utter crap back in those days and it still is.

A liitle too far in campaigning? By whose judgment - yours? You're obviously sexist and therefore biased. How many women are out in the streets raping men everyday? I don't see men being given lesser wages just for being a man, but I see the opposite at the factory where my husband works. (For those who think that doesn't happen anymore, I'm afraid it still does.) I don't see men spending twice as much time in prison for the same offenses that women commit. Considering how women are still discriminated against in every field, I'd say we haven't gone far enough. Nowhere near far enough.

I'll tell you what would help the absolute most. Getting rid of the attitude that certain types of people - whether it's a matter of sex, race, religion, or whatever - aren't entitled to do or have the same things that everyone else is entitled to. People wouldn't have excuses for exploiting or oppressing others then; people like would just have to admit outright that that's what they want to do.

And exactly what does it mean, "looking at the graces of the average mother in the US nowadays"? I think I know. It means you think American mothers are shit. Since when are fathers everywhere not? Here's a clue - people are bad. It's not just women, it's not just politicians, not just lawyers, not just whites or blacks. All people. The very fact that the anonymity of the internet makes you feel free to spout sexist and insulting remarks like yours proves what people are really like inside. That is the source of almost all problems; people like you, who want to oppress/abuse/insult others to feel superior. Or maybe it's just pure, classic malice; I don't know, I don't go around doing that sort of thing, online or in RL.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[F_Scentura]

"It's the idiot masses that keep the wheels of society turning. They're the ones doing all the work that puts food on your table. The soeciety would collapse without them. On the other hand, people who think themselves very smart (such as yourself) and everyone else beneath them, usually contribute nothing but occasional genocide, mass-sterilization program or other form of evil and injustice with no purpose other than glorifying themselves in their own eyes."

The masses are certainly important, however claiming that the self-ascribed elite "usually" contribute nothing or nothing but evil is a specious assumption. These broad and baseless claims don't help your cause.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[FoxDude0486]

Yeah :( My boyfriend was molested by his dad in ways I still don't understand how he came to terms with his dad as he grew up. I've had my fair share of friends that were raped by family members when younger along with friends that were just plain raped at young ages. Horrible stories, but it happens more often then we think. Some just get over it better then others and no one knows any better of it.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[mdwh2]

No one is claiming that a crime shouldn't be investigated; the issue is in policing and trying to prevent crime. Do you think it would make sense to have most of the police based in and always focused on your small town, and not in the big city which is full of crime?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[rebelx2]

"Remember, violence never solved anything"

Then what are our troups doing in Iraq? And perhaps we should make 18 the min age for all news sites reporting anything violent?

The should solve even more issues with the children.

Since gov't is responsible for raising our kids now... what is the function of the "parent"?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds! Nerds! Nerds!

Ogre
Alpha Beta Fraternity Inc.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JohnFluxx]

You have good points, and I agree with you, but I feel sorry for your husband if you're like this all the time. "You've _only_ been working all day have you?! That's nothing!"

Also from a guy's point of view: you make one mistake by not pulling out in time and end up supporting a woman and brat for the next 18 years with her yelling at you for not doing enough because you've 'only' been working all day and then kept up all night by some brat screaming.

I do hope, for your husband's sake, that you're not bitchy all the time and you're just in a bad mood at the moment.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[ShieldW0lf]

You don't make things that are inevitable safe by driving them underground into illegality and obscurity, and kids are inevitably going to be chatting online.

I do think the censoring of chat room names is a good idea though.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[notbob]

They do make money off of you, in what they charge the merchants silly.

Nothing is for free in life, I own my own business trust me I know who lines the pockets of the cc companies and it's not the end user.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Phisbut]

If, however, they think the Internet ends with Yahoo, AOL and MSN, then they are probably better off banned unless mommy is there to wipe their ass for them.

... right... because, obviously, mommy knows the Internet doesn't end with Yahoo, AOL and MSN...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Murasaki Skies]

Just don't smack your female weiner around too hard, okay?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Justin205]

We must educate the children about using IRC!

Sure, no fancy smilies, but who needs miniature pixmaps when you have text? And we should beat proper grammar and spelling into their heads while we're at it, so we don't get 15000 people on IRC saying "OMG WTFLOL!!11!"...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[CoderBob]

Or, perhaps, because he's just posting a message to /., he doesn't give a rat's ass about whether or not a search engine can recognize it, because it's just a quick little blurb and he's not designing a fucking website? Or perhaps this is one of the few places he posts to that actually supports direct HTML coding in the message, and he does it the other way out of habit so he doesn't try posting HTML somewhere else?

Oh, and on the subject of "elitism": Pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

technical skills and understanding are directly related to social skills and understanding.

They're inversely proportional, right?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[BigRedPimp]

Too late, think ICQNet.

Hang around there and you'll get enough of those that it'll be absorbed into your lexicon in a matter of seconds.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Mistshadow2k4]

"I wan't born a bitch, men like you made me one". That's a reason that saying came around. If you're [insert something here], let someone direclty insult what you are and see how good a mood that puts you in.

And, no, I don't scream at my husband all day and I don't even have kids, I'm just more aware of how much responsibility it is to raise kids than many people who haven't had any. Exactly what gave you that impression? Why is it that when a woman gets mad everyone assumes she's a bitch all the time? Men can get mad without people making such assumptions. See what I mean? That attitude is so pervasive, people do it without even realizing it. People get mad, male or female.

And I'm bitchy because I got mad when standing up for women? What was I supposed to say to someone who instulted women in general and every mother in the US in particular? So that makes me bitchy in a man's opinion. That says it all right there. A woman who stands up for women is a bitch, right?

Also from a guy's point of view: you make one mistake by not pulling out in time and end up supporting a woman and brat How many men have beaten the shit out of their wife and kids saying that exact same thing? Think about what you just said.

And if that's how you feel about supporting a woman and "brat" (thanks for all the love, Daddy), please do pull out or use a condom. Mary was, as far we know, a one-time case; women usually don't get pregnant on their own. If you feel that way about supporting your wife and children, please don't have any. It's that attitude that encourages abusive fathers and husbands. Are you one of those? If not, please read the paragraph below.

I knew a guy who was racist. I asked him if he's like to go kill black people. He said "no, 'course not, I just don't like 'em. I asked him how he'd feel if someone he talked to totally agreed with him and then went out and killed a black family that night. He didn't answer me for a while, but then he said "but that wouldn't be my fault". True enough, I answered, but you did encourage him. That's what spouting racial/sexual/whatever hatred does - even if you'd never do a terrible thing to someone beause of it, you're encouraging others who would. How about not encouraging people to do such things? It would help. And so far as I see, the attitude that a woman is a bitch for standing up for women or supporting a woman and her brat after you've fathered the child is definitely not helping; it's enouraging men who hate women and will oppress/abuse or even kill them.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[3nd32]

Okay, since I don't feel like responding to each individual dense poster, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC when I said "violence never solved anything". The next person who doesn't pick up on the sarcasm is getting hit in the head with a chair!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[StopSayingYouSir]

But, so far as I understand it, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members.

And the vast majority of traffic accidents happen five minutes from home. But that's because most driving happens five minutes from home. Likewise, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members because those are the people who have the most opportunities for unsupervised access to the child. In short, duh.

This does not mean that internet predators are not a problem. The difference lies in what can be done about it. In the offline world, you can't just flip a switch and instantly eliminate a bunch of opportunities for sexual predators to have unsupervised access to children. But you can do this online, to some extent.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any child dumb enough to do that should be weeded out of the gene pool. Darwin was right.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[SparafucileMan]

oh i agree. i'm just saying, limiting the age officially to 18+ isn't going to provide the perverts with official cover.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[TractorBarry]

And they don't kill each other

Oh but they do. The main difference between them and us is that an old ape can't get thousands of young apes to go and kill thousands of other young apes because the old ape doesn't like some other old ape from a neighbouring territory.

If an old ape has a problem with another old ape they have to fight it out between themselves like humans. It's a real shame we're not clever enough as a species to make our leaders do the same.

So I'd agree that apeas are better behaved but they're not perfect either :)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when they blow you away after their 16th birthday with the sawed off shotgun, I hope you know why.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Pope]

1) Get a credit card.
2) Be responsible with it.
3) Get great credit rating (something which WILL greatly affect you in your adult life, from getting better interest on mortgages and loans to many other things)
4) Profit.

I love the way so many people _a priori_ thing that getting a credit card somehow automatically forces them into some sort of bizarre indentured servitude. Seriously, get a CC with a small limit, and if it ever increases, ask to have it reduced back down again. They'll do anything to keep a customer. Hell, I've asked and gotten my interest rate lowered, just for being a good risk and longtime customer.

You will not get into a serious financial situation that you don't enter into through your own action. Don't be stupid, and you'll be fine.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[lisaparratt]

"I'm not an evolutionary dead end, I'm just perfect!"

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[aug24]

I don't like your use of the phrase 'cut-off line' in this context.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[jandrese]

On the other hand, a high limit is actually helpful with your credit report. One of the factors in the number is your debt load, which is basically a measure of how close to the limit you are with your various revolving credit options (credit cards). With large limits on your cards, this number stays low and you get a slightly better score. With a small limit on a card you use frequently (for expenses) can hurt your score, since credit scores are one-time snapshots when they are taken and do not take into account that you pay off the card at the end of each month.

Seriously folks, a Credit Card is not a mind control device. It is not a license to spend money you can't pay back either. Exercise a little restraint and you can have a near perfect credit rating later in life, which will make things like buying a home a lot less complicated.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Insightfill]

The US national drinking age of 21 isn't necessarily coded into national law, but actually every individual state has it's own "21" law. It was a slow process over many decades, but the federal government essentially forced the states into it by withholding a bunch of highway funds from each state with an "18" law. Eventually, they all fell into line. I agree that the net effect is the same, however, as was intended.

See "National Minimum Drinking Age Act"

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[WaterBreath]

a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn

Please note that my comments are given in the context of the U.S. I can't speak for other nations.

Granted you have a point with the porn part, now that the internet is here. Controlling that access is the parents' responsibility, first and foremost. But you can't compare the restrictions on physical goods to the restrictions on website or webservice access.

There are plenty of underage kids who would drink or smoke a lot more than they do, if it wasn't for the fact that in order to get their hands on cigs and booze they need to have special access to it. Either through an older friend or sibling, "loose" parents, or a clerk willing to turn a blind eye. And if they don't have one of those, they're out of luck unless they're willing to resort to theft. And most kids are not willing to do that.

I drank in high school, a total of about 5 times. I guarantee you that if I could have walked into a store and purchased alcohol for myself, I would have drank much much more.

But with all that said, I agree with you that on-line restrictions are ridiculous, at this point. They are too difficult or troublesome to enforce, both for the company and the user. The only marginally reliable type of enforcement I can think of is to require a valid credit card number. But it's not like kids never see their parents' credit cards.

I think the worst thing about this scenario is something that another poster brought up: plausible denyability for the pedophile. Now they can say that, given the restrictions on the service, they fully believed that the person they were chatting with was an adult, just role-playing or something.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[blowg0ats]

The solution is "easy", even if it is a bit authoritarian. Mandatory sterilization.

This should've been modded 'insightful.'

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Damer Face]

> And they don't kill each other

Yeah, despite all my careful qualifications of "usually" and "largely" and "less prone" that managed to slip out. D'Oh. I think my mind was already rushing ahead thinking about orgies.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Kuvter]

I love lamp

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[freeweed]

Before you go off about the nazis - what about the bloody US? How are they so different?

Well, the US didn't stuff over 5 million people into ovens, for one.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JhohannaVH]

That's frickin' AWESOME!!!!!!! I gotta save this for when my kids are old enough to do stuff like that. *sigh* How things have changed, huh?

Jho

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How come "adult material" in US-speak seem to mean "anything remotely related to sex", while chainsaw-massacre III is seemingly a non-issue? (witness the .xxx TLD bruhaha)"

Gee, because we have different values and history with one versus the other?

Some of the US's sexual morals have passed on through history, mainly by religious groups sent over from European nations due to religious prosecution or forced religious beliefs by the state at the time of the migration. The mere fact that you don't know this of your own history is rather telling about your ignorance or bias.

The Europeans probably have more fear from people watching slasher films because of their regular past violence they started as well as cultural ineptitude, paricular during the 1970s punk culture in Europe. Folks fear violence or descript screwed up behavior because you're more likely to fear some ass replicating what's on the screen.

The US is the opposite. Violence is "more acceptable" than in Europe because most people realize a slasher film does not motivate people in our society to go and run amuck with knives, swords, or chainsaws. That said, many people don't like violence in general in media and there has been a lot of regulation making sure an adult audience is watching such entertainment, mainly through rating systems.

However, we do have a belief and some evidence that screen sex acts, whether from TV, movies, or internet sites, do motivate folks to try to replicate them. In particular, young folk. To Europeans, a 14 yo girl getting skull-fucked is not that big of a deal. Hell, you can't even keep actual open pedophilia off your streets. In the US, many societal norm adults have a negative image at the thought of a 16 yo female giving head, despite she being of the age of consent in many states. (Note that I'm not saying that people wouldn't see it rather sexual, but not considered the norm.) In the past, such activity was looked down on as slutty, but more recently, it's more of an indicator to us of bad upbringing, low self-esteem, a bad position in society, etc. (That doesn't mean it is, just saying the impresson we have, as opposed to someone thinking that's normal or hot.)

"By the way, I say this as the father of a small child, so don't think for even a microsecond that I don't care about the wellbeing of children."

Having a child is not an indication that you care. Some of the worse cases of verbal abuse I have ever seen in public are with fathers who have their kids along, sometimes directed at their children, sometimes at another male adult. Having a child along frequently does not make parents think twice about their actions. I've even seen people defend "parent with a kid" not knowing anything about the conflict, just assuming the adult with the child was in the right.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[PunkOfLinux]

Thank you. THis is actually a very good idea --parental censorship. Instead of the government saying "You can't do this, b/c we think it's immoral" the parents sit down with Johnny or Susie and have a nice little chat.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[EternityInterface]

Well, I happen to sound boring / braindead here. I could link that, but it probably sounds pretentious, so I lose.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Gambit20011]

After reading some of those most ignorant speech in my life, a typical Bush speech, i feel obligated to say something wtihout an 1800s biased attitude towards women. Where do i begin to attack something as ill-spoken as "Also from a guy's point of view: you make one mistake by not pulling out in time and end up supporting a woman and brat for the next 18 years with her yelling at you for not doing enough because you've 'only' been working all day and then kept up all night by some brat screaming." Where you born an orphan? Did your father dump you in a mcdonalds trashcan leading to some sextist bigot picking you up to continue his wrath of misogynism? Is this brat reminiscent of yourself or do you just pull this idea from some Japanese subordination film. Don't say a guy's point of view because you represent stupidity and ignorance. Mike and Ike here need to go out in the real world and see that it's not all Amish anymore. "I do hope, for your husband's sake, that you're not bitchy all the time and you're just in a bad mood at the moment." I hope for your sake you speak to girls that arnt on cartoons or suicide hotlines. I'm not a parent and im not a female....im not even that old but you make it sound like im an extremist for women when really i just believe in common ideals that most people in this society comprehend. I cant oppose your arguemnt, as much as i'd like to, because you have none. "That may be true nowadays, but I'm gonna be a little un-PC here. Women used to readily accept their roles as the main bringer-uppers of children, and looker-afters of the home (them being generally more skilled than men at these tasks)." Single-dumb male-bigot....i think i got those stats right. Your basically implying that your an idiot if you dont know how to take care of a child(by the way i love that word bringer-uppers, it really shows the intelligence behind your speech. Women accepted roles that were available to them, as they do now. Which is why Hilary Clinton was intimating running for presidenc. They accepted the only roles given to them as caretakers but if you think a woman can easily raise a child alone, your missing some knowledge that children learn from watching the discovery channel. Fathers are mutually significant as a parent and maybe considered even more so becasue they conventionally teach them discipline and a persons limits. Caretaking is an acquired ability as isnt instinctive in either gender, which is why social services visit women and men. I wont argue further here because i prefer real-time chats instead of this email type of correspondency. You can find me in IRC irc://irc.freenode.net/methlabs and i can teach you history on how all people have unalienable rights, and people arent born stupid theyre just docile, etc...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Niiiice.

Yeah, well, um, good luck with that.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[buck_wild]

" Both parents do not need a paying job!"

That's the only thing in your post that I agree with. It sounds like you expect all families to be like "Leave It To Beaver", and that era is gone. Long gone, and justifiably so.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

So basically you're pissed because people value THEIR liberty more than they value the chunk of flesh you squirted out into the world? Tough.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Let me put it this way.

If you rape a coworker, girlfriend or a stranger - it's a violent crime. If you rape a child, it's a violent crime. If you rape YOUR child, you're a troubled person who needs therapy (assuming anyone even turns you in).

If you beat-up a coworker, girlfriend or a stranger, it's a violent crime and you'll do time. If you beat-up a child, you're a horrid criminal and a monster. If you beat-up your child by the fist or belt or two-by-fours or a hose or any random objects routinely, you're someone with "anger problems" and you need to get therapy.

So yeah, I would say that the least safe place a lot of children could be is with their parents. Especially since the way we treat parents who mistreat their own children is to such a lesser degree than how we treat parents who mistreat anyone else in the world.

You should also look into the stats on biological mothers. The most likely group of people to murder their children (by something like ten to one).

So the same busy body trying to NERF-ify the entire world out there to protect their children is probably putting their children at risk just by letting them be around family members - if not themselves.

But it's interesting how all the scaremongering goes towards games and the internet rather than parents. Or hell, even priests. The internet and videogames get an even worse wrap than god's own henchmen.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Plus, who would have kids to never see them again?

Hi, you must be new to this country . . . ;)

Well, let's see.. plenty of "fathers". Drug users. Mental cases. I'm sure we all know people who put drugs, sex, stripping or any other number of selfish things above their own children...

I'm just tired of seeing people praise jesus and talk about the sins and risks of the internet or any other "evil" and then dress up their 4 year old to look like a 30 year old bar-slut and enter her into pageants or put their teenage daughter into cheer-leading so she can tramp around half naked toentice all the old men who come to football games to watch their sons play ball.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[arminw]

....So yeah, I would say that the least safe place a lot of children could be is with their parents......

Yes of course it COULD be unsafe and often IS unsafe for children of unfit parents. In your original post though it sounded like you were advocating the removal of ALL (and you do use the word all) children from all parents as a matter of state policy. That's what I was referring to in my comment about "Brave New World".

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Under the same premise that because SOME children are too stupid to use the internet without giving their information out to total strangers, flying out to meet them and getting raped so we should just ban all children -- why not ban all parents from being around their children to prevent the few stupid parents that abuse their children?

If we're going to use the "avoid athlete's feet by cutting off your foot" solution to things involving children, why stop at the internet or videogames?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[arminw]

.....why not ban all parents from being around their children ....

It seems you are putting children and adults into the same bag. Presumeably, adults know things (or at least are supposed to) that children do not. I don't think that the government should ban children from the net either, but should educate parents to properly instruct and supervise their children in how to use the Internet safely as well as looking both ways before crossing a busy street. Why single out the Internet among the many dangers children as well as adults face in today's modern technological society?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Seumas]

Doesn't it seem a little pathetic though? Should you really have to educate a parent that letting your kid chat with strangers, run off to meet them and even buy plane tickets to go visit them is a pretty bad idea? For that matter, should children really need to be educated on that?

Maybe parents are a lot different than two decades ago, but when I was a little kid, it was pretty obvious that you don't just talk to strangers, much less wander off with them... even less fly across the country to be with them. If you were too dumb for that kind of common sense, your parents drilled it into your head and so did your school and every children's program on television.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean you don't have to apply the same common sense. "Oh, I met them over the internet, so it's okay to wander off with them even though they're 30 years older than me and I just learned to tie my shoes". What the hell?!

I really hate blaming the victims, but jesus christ it takes an incredible amount of stupidity to do something like that and nobody should have to be "educated" that it's a bad idea. And if they do, then parents should do the educating and the limiting.. and the parents most certainly should not need to be educated themselves that it's a bad idea to let their kids do those things.

Why is it that whenever you bring in the word "internet" or "computer", everyone just gets really stupid suddenly? If your car was on fire, you'd get an extinguisher and spray it on there. If your house was on fire, you'd run the hell out and call 911. If your computer was on fire, people would just stare at it, completely baffled, and wonder what they should do until it exploded and set everything else ablaze.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[rasqual]

Whose liberty are you talking about? What "people?" If they're the kids at issue, they are themselves a "chunk of flesh" their own parents "squirted out into the world" -- which suggests that your ostensible advocacy on their behalf is qualified a wee bit by a witless insult unwittingly directed their way as much as mine. As for the "basically" bit, can you trace the inference that I'm pissed? Bemused by morons, yes.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess uncle Sam really knows what is best for us.

I think you mean uncle Sam knows what's best for him. Just like Sam Walton knows what's best for Wal-Mart.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful my ass.

Violence is moral if and only if it is employed in self defense. The initiation of violence is always immoral -- not by the law of some government, but by the law of human nature! This is something that any normal human being learns at an early age. If that wasn't the case, then how is it possible that the vast majority of human beings today employ cooperation and mutual respect to improve their lives?

Quote: Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status and ones resources.

If you can't comprehend the moral difference between offensive violence and defensive violence, then perhaps you should be in a mental institution? For christ's sake, even my 2-year-old understands the difference.

Let's make a deal. Why don't you come over to my house with offensive violence on your agenda, and I'll be ready with my shotgun and defensive violence on my agenda. Can anyone guess who's in the moral right?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

The violence of self-defence is arguably justified. I believe it is, others don't.

ARGUABLY? Just what in the hell do you expect me to do when a rapist breaks into my home and attacks my wife or kids? Let me tell you something: I have every moral right to break both his knees and put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, and I DAMN WELL should have no remorse about doing so.

Violence employed in self-defense is ALWAYS moral, becuase human nature made it so. Obviously, excessive use of force can be immoral (for example killing a person for stealing a candy bar). I sure hope you had that on your mind when you used the term "arguably".

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, there's a huge difference between choosing to eat a hamburger and being ruled by a violent force (government). The first is voluntary, and therefore the person making the decision is morally liable. The second is coerced, and therefore the subjects of the ruled are NOT morally liable (unless they actually support and agree with the state's use of violence).

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for agreeing not to reproduce. You are the most self-centered, arrogant asshole to grace Slashdot.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Damer Face]

I stated that I believe violence in self-defence is justified, so what's your beef? Others believe that it isn't, so take it up with them.

> I sure hope you had that on your mind when you used the term "arguably".

No. What I had on my mind was all the people who aruge about it.

> Violence employed in self-defense is ALWAYS moral, becuase human nature made
> it so.

Violence is never moral, it is amoral. To call it moral or immoral is to invite the mass violence that humans seem so capable of.

> I have every moral right to break both his knees and put him in a wheelchair
> for the rest of his life and I DAMN WELL should have no remorse about doing
> so.

And when it transpires your wife was having a bit on the side whilst you slept, and only cried rape when you woke up?

Nice example of SELF-defence by the way.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[stewwy]

As I said to my children shortly after they where able to walk and talk.... "the purpose of parents is to behave embarrassingly in front of them and their friends, to have an excuse to buy and play with toys, and to have someone able to look after them when old and incontinent" So far its worked out OK ( not the last part yet thank god )

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[orev]

So instead of doing it at home they'll do it at a friends house. And when they get older they will resent you and not talk to you about hard topics like sex. Then they will get pregnant or get someone pregnant, or worse, and it will be because you scared the crap out of them and destroyed their trust in you.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Robocoastie]

While adult deviants are a concern. A bigger concern is kid to kid. That shouldn't be encouraged either. If the statistics I've read are correct in that 1 in 4 girls are sexually approached online then that's an aweful lot of predators which means the vast majority are actually other kids. But no one wants to say our own children are little deviants that somehow that behavior magically only flips on at age 18 so the powers that be have created the boogy man of the adult predator. And they even describe him in my state by tv warning commercials of them being late 40's, white, and having Charles Manson like beards. A very misleading stereotype.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JohnFluxx]

Ah Monday morning. I have a coffee in one hand and keyboard in the other.

I do sorta agree with the women getting mad thing, but on the other hand women can hit a guy and scream and yell at him, yet the guy, obviously, can't hit back or anything. And if the women gets mad it's the _guy_ that has to sleep on the sofa. Hardly seems fair ;)

And what's worse is that you can't have these conversations without the whole man-beating-their-wife thing comming up, as if all guys are bad and I'm supposed to be all apologetic because of some arseholes. In experience it's the women that cause the most damage by breaking hearts.

My brother is a funny case. He's a big stocky guy, strong and from the streets. He married this small chinese girl last year (he's only 21). He's complaining to me that when his wife gets angry she'll get really angry and a few weeks ago she threw boiling water over him. But of course nobody will believe him because everyone will assume he's a wife beater and so on.

Hmm, 'brats'. Heh. I was being cynical in response to your equally cold version ('the guy has an orgasm and the wife has to support the result' or something from memory) as if the women has to put up with sex just to please the guy, rather than sex being a mutally pleasurable experience for both.

I don't agree with your reasoning about black people (and the analogous husband-beating). It's faulty reasoning.
I think that people should use oil less, and I think oil rigs are too dirty, cause too much damage, and so on. Greenpeace agreed with this, but that doesn't mean I condond them blowing up the oil rig.
In the same way lots of people in Ireland agree with what the IRA wants (break away from england etc), but that doesn't mean they condone their menthods of killing people.

(btw, my girlfriend is black - I'm not racist at all)

I do agree with not sprouting any hatred, although I find it funny that it's you sprouting the sexual hatred, justified or not, not me. You see it as a "us vs. them" war. You stand up for your side, fight men, and try to win justice by beating men down while looking at the small minority of men who are assholes. You think that men see it as: "a woman is a bitch for standing up for women or supporting a woman and her brat after you've fathered the child". I think you're hatred blinds you. I love women all all races and all kinds.
I've never beaten a woman (unless spanking (with consent) counts *grins*) and I've never even gotten angry. If I ever did have kids, then I'd stick with the woman and support them. Yet I have to somehow answer to you for the crimes of other men.

I think you'd come across as less of a 'bitch' and have a better view of like if you took the stance that most men are pretty good and most women are pretty good, but sometimes women end up with bad men, and sometimes men end up with bad women. (And while women don't generally beat men, it's not exactly _that_ uncommon and besides women can dish out pain other than physical). You mentioned that you had a bad experience growing up. Please put that behind you, realise that it's not always like that, and stop attacking guys.

Peace.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JohnFluxx]

You're mixing up my post and the parent-parent post (or something).
My view is that it's probably a good idea for one person to stay at home and look after the kid while the other person goes to work. I don't care which sex does which. Another idea is for both to work part time. I personally quite like this idea, and would consider it seriously (particulary as I'd quite like to help raise the kids). I guess another is for both to work full time and hire a nanny/servants. One of my ex-gf's was raised like this, but then she was a princess.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[JohnFluxx]

Hmm, I just reread the post that started this off, and now I feel guilty. I back down from my position. I just got defensive for you thinking all guys were like that, and now I've ended up sounding like the grand parent post.

Oh well

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[jujuchef]

I will clarify. What I said was misunderstood from the context it was meant. The argument is subjective in that the kids are "probably" aware/wise in my opinion that:

1) There are people just as full of malice in the public internet as in public life in general.
2) Legal issues to concern themselves with - in that they know both that adult content they access is not for them being under 18, and any means to forge that fact is breaking the law to some degree in most places.

I'm not saying anyone doing those kinds of things as a young person is by any means a societal failure.

There goes

[DustyShadow]

90% of their traffic...

Re:There goes

[bombadillo]

Parent poster is right. There goes a lot of there business. If parents are truly worried they should put their childs computer in the living room. Our society seems eager to blame businesses and schools instead of the lack of parenting.

Re:There goes

[Cave_Monster]

And the other 10% are those dirty old buggers trying to pick up the younger generation. So with no under 18s, there won't be any of the other 10% and hence nobody using yahoo chat at all :P

Re:There goes

[Spy der Mann]

90% of their traffic...

[Homer]Yahoo!!![/Homer]

But trafic = Revenues...

[Homer]D'OH![/Homer]

However, it's not like children BUY things when chatting... so this is actually a gain.

[Homer]Yahoo!!![/Homer]

[Mr.Burns]Excellent...[/Mr.Burns]

Re:There goes

[Belisarivs]

Only if they ban all the people *pretending* to be 16-year old girls . . .

Re:There goes

[Seumas]

Actually, it's amazing how far a little common sense will go. Even with children. Your children are going to be curious and get into some weird crap. Hell, I was seeing chicks having sex with eels on tarps on BBSes in 1989 when I was 12 years old. It's no big deal. And if the only thing preventing your child from hopping on a plane and flying across the country to meet some stranger two or three times their age and getting raped and murdered or kidnapped is that you're putting the computer in the living room, you should just burn off your genitals and not ever reproduce again.

Of course, businesses shouldn't have to be responsible for what stupid people do over the internet. However, I wouldn't risk my multi-billion dollar business on using that defense in court when computer illiterate parents and Jack Thompson style lawyers present - to a computer illiterate jury - that it's all big bad Yahoo!'s fault that little Lisa or Timmy got butt-jacked by some phys-ed teacher in their city that sweet-talked them over the internet late at night while mommy and daddy where busy watching Amazing Race.

Re:There goes

[TheSpoom]

Actually, 90% of their traffic will just have several consecutive birthdays and then update their Yahoo profile. Methinks Yahoo! will be getting a lot of 18 year olds very soon ;^)

Re:There goes

[hal9000(jr)]

Spoken like a true non-parent. As a step parent I can tell you it is very, very difficult to balance giving kids the trust they need to grow up to be healthy adults and micro-managing thier every move. Yes,parents should be responsible and put the computer where they can see what the kids are doing. But let's face it, some of these scum bags talk a pretty convicing game and it's easy to see how kids who are generally non to savvy, would fall for sweet talk. And let's face, kids do stupid, rotten things sometimes even with the best or parents. Now, closing chat rooms to minors is not THE answer, but it does help. Just like play dates don't help kids stay safe, but it helps.

Re:There goes

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

But atleast now when you're watching underaged girls strip on webcam you have plausable deniability. Yahoo said you had to be 18 to join the chats, how were you supposed to know?

Re:There goes

[dnoyeb]

Who has time to parent when you need two jobs and both parents working to make ends meet. Or at least to make ends meet and have some of the fine things all families on TV seem to have.

Re:There goes

[Seumas]

Ah, the parent poster is applying the "raising children is not as easy as squirting them out and this is so hard so I blame everyone else for the crap my child does and gets into rather than accepting that I'm ultimately the one liable for how they behave, the choices they make and the punishments they are given" justification.

If you don't think your child has enough common sense to avoid meeting random internet strangers (come on, you get the "don't talk to strangers" lecture when you're old enough to walk) and you don't feel you can properly parent your children to the point that you aren't worried about them making such ridiculous choices, then simply don't allow your child to have internet access.

Seriously, what the hell is up with parents these days? "It's so hard to keep my child from watching bad stuff on television" -- don't let them watch television. "My child runs up a huge cell phone bill that I have to pay" -- don't buy your kid a cellphone. "My child can't be trusted not to get drunk and drive their car wrecklessly" -- don't allow your kids to drive.

I mean... come ON... People have been raising children for eons with every-changing technology and societal structures. There's nothing special that makes the current generation of parents' job so fucking impossible above and beyond every other generation in the history of humanity. This just illustrates the biological problem of nature making people want to marry and reproduce based on the symmetrical qualities of the face, size of tits and width of child-bearing hips rather than common sense and intellect.

Re:There goes

[Fulcrum of Evil]

But atleast now when you're watching underaged girls strip on webcam you have plausable deniability. Yahoo said you had to be 18 to join the chats, how were you supposed to

It's probably one of statutory deals - sure you checked her ID and all that, but she was 17, so you're a rapist, or guilty of watching kiddy porn in this case.

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

when you need two jobs and both parents working to make ends meet, you probably shouldn`t have kids

Re:There goes

[bhtooefr]

You know... Yahoo! verified her age, and said she was 18...

Sue Yahoo!...</bastard>

That said... I thought that if you could prove that you checked her ID, and it said 18, you were fine.

Besides, if she's 16 or up, in Ohio, she's legal. Granted, if she's 13, she's only legal for 13 year olds - it's just as bad for a 14 yo to have sex with her as it is for a 41 yo.

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hate the "Do not talk to strangers" business. I think I was 21 before I realized that strangers didn't all want to kidnap and kill me.

Re:There goes

[cowscows]

Look, just because someone will admit that raising a kid isn't the easiest thing in the world, and that they don't mind a little help doesn't make them a huge whiner hell bent on making themselves look like some special victim of circumstance.

Your answer, don't let them have internet access, is not much of a solution either. I think that parent can make a pretty good argument that technology/computers/internet are all going to be substantial factors in their children's lives, and exposing them to the technology has a lot of potential benefits. Of course there are also potential downsides, but here's a parent that's trying to navigate through these, and is grateful for any help they can get.

And I don't know where the rest of your argument came from. The parent poster said nothing about cellphone bills or drunk driving, you're just ranting to try and make your points seem more valid I guess. You're right that people have been raising children for eons. So what? Through those eons, I have no doubt that there were plenty of dumb or naive kids that made lots of stupid choices and had to face unpleasant consequences. I don't think the past offers us any easy solutions that we're just conveniently ignoring. People lived for eons without electricity too, I don't see what make the current generation so special that they deserve to have electric lights and refridgeration.

Locking children into boxes and not giving them any privileges or responsibilities is not a good way to prepare them for the real world. So your solution doesn't work. Letting a kid run free throughout the world usually isn't very successful either. You've obviously observed that. Maybe the correct solution is somewhere in the middle, where a parent tries to balance freedom and limits to allow their children to grow in a safer manner. That seems like a pretty tough task, and I don't think it's a bad thing for parents to appreciate support and help from the community.

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

um honestly why isnt cutting off the internet a possibility.

think about what people use the internet for (and school research isnt one of those so dont bother)

if i had a stupid child that couldnt behave himself or not talk to random people online you bet i would cut it off cause hoenstly they dont REQUIRE it to function

or i would lock them out of the system, and when/if they try to break it, guess what, punishments abound.

i have met people off the internet as i got older, its not a big deal. if someone cant figure out how to do that safely, (cause whats the diff between picking up someone at the bar) they deserve what they get because they are functionally retarded

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

"I swear, officer, I didn't know she was 9!"

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

"she's only legal for 13 year olds "

Hmm.... in NJ the law is under 16 *AND* 5 or more years older is a crime. So all the crud about boinking your 16 yr old GF when you were 18 was just BS.

Re:There goes

[rasqual]

The Internet renders null and void many social forces that once shaped the development of young people. A young person wishing to view pornography once had to risk being seen at the newsstand by his Aunt Esther. No more. No constraints. No bounds. No risk of shame, no guiding deterents.

That's just an example of a huge phenomenon merely betokened in part by on-line access to materials parents might not appreciate. The burden on parents has increased as communical cohesiveness has waned and a greater proportion of homes have busier parents -- both during the day and in the evenings. Other agents frequently compete with, rather than reinforce, parental influence. This is even championed in many quarters, enervating a classical Lockean framework not of parental rights to raise their children, but parental responsibilities to do so and society's obligation to reinforce and protect the excercise of that obligation.

Blah, blah, blah. But it taxes my patience to see anyone impatient with parents, before admitting that the world is a very different place for raising children -- a lonelier place for parents, for sure.

My God, would someone please shoot the morons who constantly bray about the need to "stop protecting kids and give them more information and help them make good decisions?" What damnable idiots see these as mutually exclusive options, rather than complementary ones?

Re:There goes

[Lucractius]

ahh the days when you could actualy find interesting/odd/weird porn without having to resort to forking out for some fetish site for a month just to swipe a few good files and send them to people you dont like.

Re:There goes

[Xarius]

I have no doubt that there were plenty of dumb or naive kids that made lots of stupid choices and had to face unpleasant consequences.

That's the crux of the issue, most rarely face the consequences, or are even aware of potential ones.

Re:There goes

[NotBorg]

[...] come on, you get the "don't talk to strangers" lecture when you're old enough to walk

That's just the problem though. Parents aren't giving any lectures. If kids hear "don't talk to strangers" more than likely they heard it from an obese purple dinosaur rather than the parent(s).

Perhaps you've seen the ads on TV? "Talk to your kids about not smoking." The ads always end in "for help talking to your child about..." Parents have a genuine communication problem with their kids.

Sure, kids are gonna hear all the right advice at school and at the end of every episode of GI Joe. But it all lacks a certain vitality in a child's mind until they hear it from their parents.

Re:There goes

[Eivind]

Yes,parents should be responsible and put the computer where they can see what the kids are doing. But let's face it, some of these scum bags talk a pretty convicing game and it's easy to see how kids who are generally non to savvy, would fall for sweet talk.

Talk can only do a limited amount of harm. If your kids know and follow the simple rule of always bringing along an adult to a first meeting with someone they know from the net, it'll help a lot.

No, nothing is foolproof, get over it, your child will be exposed to risk even if you let him/her live in a padded cell.

Closing Yahoo chat for "minors" do *not* in any way make children safer, because:

• There's about 10*7 other chatrooms the children can use instead.
• It's not all that difficult to lie about age on a signup-form.
• Chat is just one of literally dozens of ways of communicating online.

Aditionally, you gotta ask if the gain stay in proportion to the loss. Sure, outlawing cars would save thousands of traffic-dead children (and adults!) every year, doesn't mean it's nessecarily a smart thing to do.

This is simply done so that Yahoo can say they're not responsible. They want to avoid bad PR associated with "child meets pedo after chatting on yahoo" kind of news. They're covering their own back, not actually changing the risks of children in any significant way.

Not that it matters, but I'm the father of a young child, so don't try that "spoken like a non-parent" stuff on me.

Re:There goes

[bhtooefr]

Exactly.

13 - 13 only.
14 - 14-16 only.
15 - 14-17 only.
16 - 14+ only.
17 - 15+ only.
18+ - 16+ only.

Re:There goes

[StormReaver]

"Locking children into boxes and not giving them any privileges or responsibilities is not a good way to prepare them for the real world."

It will prepare about 10% of Americans for the real world. Or at least the real world as they are going to know it.

Re:There goes

[MrNemesis]

If that's how they're working it out, then they're boned. I and pretty much everyone I know always give false DoB's when t'internet "requires" it - I usually sign myself as 1900-01-01, making me 105.

Although if Yahoo insitute another rule of "no coffin-dodgers in chatrooms full of nubile ladies", then I'm boned!

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I invite you to look up the legal meaning of "strict liability."

Laws that don't require "mens rea" -- that is, laws that punish people who may be morally innocent -- are called "strict liability laws." The usual justification for a strict liability law is that the social benefits of stringent enforcement outweigh the harm of punishing a person who may be morally blameless. Examples of strict liability laws include:

        * "Statutory rape" laws, which in some states make it illegal to have sexual intercourse with a minor, even if the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that the sexual partner was old enough to consent legally to sexual intercourse.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/9371DEAF- 4C01-4A10-9546ED9CE0148A16/104/143/216/ART/

Re:There goes

[HappyDrgn]

I signed up a Yahoo account a very long time ago, before they asked for a birthdate. I recall a few years ago there was something that changed with internet regulation and I got a message from Yahoo stating that I needed to be over 13 and to enter my birthday into my profile. One of the steps was I had to give them a credit card number for verification. There was a $1 charge that was instantly reversed on my credit card. I can't remember the reasoning they gave for this, but I know it's not required on new accounts. I wonder if they will start doing something like this to verify age?

Re:There goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing all axcess to a to a chatroom or webpage does not help a parent form a moral/socially acceptable child. It is the parents responsibility to make an issue of chat room problems, confront it, explain it, and then as it persists, restrict axcess to it.

Re:There goes

[Doctor O]

As a parent of two, I agree with the essence of your post. Many parents today just fuck it up and blame society, the "times", the Internet, whatever for their fuckup. People act as if it was immoral or something to act authorative towards you children. It's the opposite, authority is essential. But authority doesn't mean dictatorship, it means being the person your children will listen to.

The point is, however, that you have to acknowlegde that children are unique individuals which must not be denied their right to develop themselves to the persons they are. This doesn't and shouldn't stop me or anyone from teaching them behaviour and manners 101, hovever.

People should stop listening to "experts" and learn to trust their parenting instincts instead. After all, you are the one who knows your child best, and if *you* don't know how to raise your kid, how can you expect a total stranger, possibly not even a parent herself, how to do it? It's ridiculous, and it's the cause for *many* problems we are seeing today.

Yeah right

[scenestar]

And how are they going to verify age?

Re:Yeah right

[rob_squared]

They'll tell little Timmy to go into his dad's wallet to get a credit card they can verify.

Re:Yeah right

[Cave_Monster]

I had the very same question :)

I know when I sign up for things, I enter a random birthdate when required. The only thing I can think of, and something which I have seen used before, is for the person registering to enter their credit card number. But then again, it isn't hard to circumvent this either.

Re:Yeah right

[ErisCalmsme]

yeah... no kid is smart enough to lie about their birthday when they sign up for a yahoo account...

Re:Yeah right

[askegg]

The same way any porn site verifies your age - it asks you for your birthday and trusts the answer. Kid don't lie. Right?

Re:Yeah right

[alan_dershowitz]

Presumably the same way that Oracle and Sun ensure that you aren't developing any database backed j2ee sites OF TERROR if you are a terrorist:

Are you a member of a known terrorist organization or a citizen or agent of any nation that is currently considered an enemy of the United States? Yes[] No[]

Re:Yeah right

[Da_Biz]

You know, I wonder what they do when someone actually answers "yes" to this? Log an IP?

Does this mean that Homeland SeKKKurity will be at my door in a matter of minutes, or what? Just curious.

"Gee, boss, some guy named Osama B. Laden wants the J2EE Development Environment."

Re:Yeah right

[77Punker]

They'll ask for a credit card number. They promise they won't charge anything to it!

Re:Yeah right

[Doppler00]

I'm still upset that Activision does this for their "M" rated games on their website. Are they out of their mind? Do they really believe that your credit card number is something you'll freely give to any website for age verification? Or could the problem be that parents are letting their kids use computers completely unsupervised?

Re:Yeah right

[flamingiceclone]

hey dont look down on we honest youth....if they just ask us well say..... i just turned 9.....see that was easy........the truth shall set us free...

Re:Yeah right

[lamber45]

When you sign up for a Yahoo account, there's a form where you fill out your birthdate, real age, full name, home address, etc. Of course you could lie there, but then the service wouldn't work as well (it would give you weather for the wrong place, hook you up with people way older than you, ...). However, the real thing they've done, it seems, is to delete all "teen" chat rooms; see their site.

Furthermore, if someone whose profile says they're under 18 tries to go to Yahoo! Chat, a page comes up with a message saying they can't do that. As a related feature, Yahoo! personals allows searching for the range "13--19", but only shows 18-year-olds and older.

Re:Yeah right

[Jambon]

And how are they going to verify age?

No idea. Bash.org had an interesting suggestion, but unfortunately it only works in meatspace.

Re:Yeah right

[Jambon]

Oh, and I almost for the trusty spellchecker approach.

Re:Yeah right

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

And how are they going to verify age?
 
In the ancient days of BBS's, I remember one of the "adult" nets having a series of questions to verify age on registration. Things like 60s/70s pop culture and political references that I eventually managed my way through to download @ 1200bps goodness.
 
... and let me tell you kids today that you are spoiled! In my day we had daily upload & download quotas with no convienent thumbnails to preview. So clicking on something like "FoFDILD.GIF" was a 45 minute committment and if you were disappointed TOO BAD, you lived with it for that night.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

most places that use credit card numbers for "Verification" and dont charge you anything, will assume the number is real if it "could be" valid

This site details the verification procedure for most credit cards http://www.beachnet.com/~hstiles/cardtype.html You can download programs that make valid looking credit card numbers, of course, you cant buy things using them but they will pass verification...

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeland SeKKKurity

Oh, you made a funny! You put "KKK" instead of "c" in the word. That's hilarious! You are so smart and original! I have a funny, too. You can use it. I put "$" in place of the "s" in Micro$oft. See? Isn't that funny? I'm laughing so hard I peed my pants!

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

My school actually told us to do this when we were signing up for yahoo accounts to talk to our penpals in 5th grade.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

GIF? You were *lucky*. Back in my day, we had to download multipart plain text files and piece the ASCII art back together.

Re:Yeah right

[hanshotfirst]

And how are they going to verify age?

Grep for any form of l33t-speak.

The Internet... where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old-girls are FBI agents. (-1, overused... but needed something for the lameness filter)

In other words...

[Tuxedo Jack]

"We're gonna cave to the AG's request so he doesn't start poking around and seeing what our users are doing that we could get sued or blamed for if people felt like it."

Re:In other words...

[Lawrence_Bird]

Good thing Elliot's on the job.. was there money involved too?
Afterall we dont want his office to run out of money.. all those
other settlements only went so far you know.  No no.. I know what
you are thinking.  No. The settlement money doesn't go to those
who were wronged - it goes to the attorney generals office so he
can hire more staff to sue all those other terrible people.

Whew! The perfect solution!

[rbanzai]

Good thing there's no way around this system. It's not like anyone could lie about their age on the internet.

Way to go Yahoo/Spitzer!

Re:Whew! The perfect solution!

[booyabazooka]

Unfortunately, there are some dishonest people out there who might be untruthful about such a thing. That's why I recommend Yahoo! use the foolproof security technique found on Busch's website.

The only way to crack that one is to copy your birthdate off of a fake ID.

Re:Whew! The perfect solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not trying to solve a problem, they're trying to protect themselves legally.

Re:Whew! The perfect solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is its not working. I went into a chat today and saw "14/f with pics" Fucking bullshit!

Think of the Children!

[geomon]

Who would want to protect children anyhow?

And so that stops us how?

[yamamushi]

I seriously doubt they are going to effectively stop anyone under 18 from using their chatrooms. It's just a minor change to your DOB and wha-la, your in.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's voilà. You sound like a fucking moron when you say "wha-la".

Re:And so that stops us how?

[clem]

Can we at least omit the accented 'a'? Or do we have to learn Unicode to meet Slashdot's strict level of posting standards?

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Agarax]

We can make a special exception for the technically challanged.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[raoul666]

Jeez, give him a break, he's really only 12.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did you become the transliteration police?

Words have been co-opted from and into foreign languages since the dawn of human linguistics. Get over it.

For your information "moron" comes from the Latin "morus," which the Romans stole from the Greek "moros," meaning "stupid."

Take that, you flaming moros.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when motherfuckers like you stop posting

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

plus the using of "your in" when it should of been "you're in"

good to see that American school system in action, leading the world in morons since 1776

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Words have been co-opted from and into foreign languages since the dawn of human linguistics. Get over it.

That might mean something if there wasn't an English word "voila" and there was an English word "wha-la". But there is, and there isn't, so kindly go fuck yourself with your irrelevant insults.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Agarax]

I'm too busy entertaining your mother. Apparently she wasn't too happy with the goat she fucked before you were born.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a transliteration, moros, given that there's no change in alphabet. Further, the Greek word in question (which we've transliterated, by the way) means "foolish", not "stupid", which any stupid fool can tell you mean quite different things.

Finally, it's reasonably acceptable to modify the language if one has command of the rules of the language; the original poster does not, as clearly indicated by his absurd spelling of the word which, indeed, has been co-opted but has not had its spelling changed, and also by his failure to properly punctuate, as another poster pointed out.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you should of written "should have"....

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

plus the using of "your in" when it should of been "you're in"

plus the using of "should of" when it should of been "should have"

plus the using of "using of" when it should of been "use of"

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you are saying that if you were not busy, you would lick your mom's clitoris? eechhh? How gross. How can you even think about licking your mom's clitoris when you know it is dripping with the cum of homeless niggers. Which brings me to my next question. Why does your mom suck the cock of homeless guys for free? Is it because she is a whore? or is it because your pimp father I caught her licking the shit off of the asshole of a leper for free? because she liked the taste of his liquid flowing shit? Now please go wake her up and ask her cuck the balls of the family dog.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[ATAMAH]

what about using "should of" instead of "should have" ?
Just as stupid as "your" instead of "you're/you are", methinks.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[cjHopman]

plus the using of "should of" when it should of been "should have"

irony.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody sounds like a fucking moron when they say "wha-la".

But they do look like a fucking moron when they write "wha-la".

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or find that information "Informative".

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I earnestly feel that your pseudo sense of superiority is nothing but a sophisticated mask to disguise the fact your mother likes to be sprayed on the face with man-piss.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[ph43drus]

This is slashdot, so you're running linux. All you have to do is remap those useless windows keys to be compose keys, and it works, voilà. See? Now go RTFM, you n00b.

Jeff

(PS, I am, of course, kidding.)

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Agarex_]

Oops. I meesed with someone who knows my mom intimately. You must be one of those customers she has who like to take a shit in her mouth.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[alexhs]

Can we at least omit the accented 'a'? Or do we have to learn Unicode to meet Slashdot's strict level of posting standards?

Ahem. Accented a is part of ISO-8859-1, which I suppose you're using. Only your keyboard lacks accents.

man iso-8859-1 : "à" is \340 (octal), or decimal 224, so with MS-Windows alt-224 should work.

Re:And so that stops us how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so fucking mad at all of you!

Why can't he say some stupid shit like 'wall-ah' (which is a pretty doltish thing to do) and embrace the stupid misspellings and the mis-spoken phrases. It's our future; get used to it.

We are all VERY spechul.

How about...

[lenmaster]

...we all start using IRC again.

Re:How about...

[Trillan]

What was stopping you?

ICQ chats are accessible via irc.icq.com.

Re:How about...

[tmasky]

No! These other chat rooms have been acting as a great filter...

Re:How about...

[RLiegh]

Have you been on IRC lately? There's two types of rooms; ones made up of perpetual lurkers and ones made up of idiots flaming, powertripping and spouting (oftentimes literal) gibberish.

These days IRC is like slashdot at a threshold of -1; except only half as intelligent.

Ban Phones

[codepunk]

Well hell people could talk to each other on there, they had better ban phones also.

Re:Ban Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure they'll do that.

Oh No!

[phaetonic]

Now everyone will go to AOL Chat Rooms .. and for the uber leet, IRC.

Re:Oh No!

[Scootesti]

that's ub3r l337

This will help a lot

[CaptainCarrot]

Because, you know, there are no other chat rooms anywhere else on the Internet.

Re:This will help a lot

[Illserve]

This is the argument people always bring when a community site is shut down, whether it's a chat room, or a P2P network.

But any shutdown is damage to the social infrastructure. Most people who had chatted before will find new places to hang out, but some won't (not that this is necessarily a bad thing but beside the point).

If this process continued ad-infinitum, the community is whittled down gradually and ends up smaller, even if not wiped out. This has certainly happened with internet piracy, and the same would happened to internet chat services if more followed Yahoo's example.

Re:This will help a lot

[Kelson]

Yeah, but no one can sue Yahoo for what happens on the rest of them.

Well, unless someone goes by the logic that "If she had been able to chat on Yahoo, she never would have gone over to Site X where she met this guy who killed her and buried her in his baement."

Hey, there've been crazier lawsuits. Of course most of them don't make it past the first hearing.

Re:This will help a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

This has certainly happened with internet piracy

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH.

So what?

[bljohnson0]

How do they plan on verifying age? A little checkbox saying "I am at least 18 years old"? Like that's going to make any difference.

Re:So what?

[schon]

How do they plan on verifying age? A little checkbox saying "I am at least 18 years old"?

Of course not. They're going to require the user to enter their date of birth. Everyone knows that American schoolchildren won't be able to figure out the math. :o)

Re:So what?

[Mal-2]

So they'll do what I always do when confronted with age checks on places like ogrish.com -- pick January 1, 1900 because it's the first thing on each list. (Or use whatever is the first thing on the list.) Or pick randomly beyond the year, since it really doesn't matter. I don't NEED to lie to them, but I also don't have much incentive to waste time telling the truth.

Mal-2

Re:So what?

[Sax Maniac]

This is true. I used to work at a movie theater back in college. Some dirty* movie came out, it was Sliver or something, and there was this whole big problem about was nasty it was. Anyway, it was R as expected, and for some reason, this movie brought out the high-schoolers in droves.

Rather than ask them for ID, I would ask the, uh, obvious 13-14 year olds "are you 18 or older?" The answer was invariably yes. Then I'd ask them people their birth year. A surprising number of them got it wrong. I told them: if you can't be bothered to do the math, I'm not going to let you in.

Damn kids. When I lied to get into bars, I made damn well sure I knew the birthday (and everything else) on the license. Thank you James Justus Woell from Ann Arbor, Michigan! Even though you were 30 and I was 17, it was good enough!

*not dirty.

Re:So what?

[schon]

So they'll do what I always do when confronted with age checks on places like ogrish.com -- pick January 1, 1900 because it's the first thing on each list.

Yeah, because we all know that there are so many online predators waiting online to molest 105-year-olds.

Adult chat rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that I can never find these chat rooms with people opening talking about sex?

that will really work

[Awol411]

how do they think they will enforce that? is it just like the websites where you have to be 18 to look at the porn but you have every teenage boy going there. yahoo is just covering their asses from potential law suits from saying if youre under 18, you shouldnt be here. unless they make everyone get like a cyberage id or some other sort of age verification system, it will never work in practice

Re:that will really work

[Pichu0102]

Just like how it worked with violent video games marked with age warnings and no one got sued for that.

Under 18/Using a Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

They shut those down to anyone using a Mac a long time ago.

Aww, now some people are never going to lose their virginity to a 48 year old divorced man pretending to be a nubile 16 year old girl.

crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there goes my nightlife when I'm on furlough.

In other news. . .

[Talondel]

New York officials also annouced plans to close public parks to anyone under 18. They made this decision after realizing that child predators know that children like to play unsupervised in parks. When asked about this decision, officals replied "We need to be vigilant to protect our children."

Re:In other news. . .

[SB5]

And by the end of the year, plans are in place to outfit every child with an ankle bracelet and barcode on their forehead. And children will only be allowed to not leave their residence except for school. All other activities are banned in an effort to be vigilant to protect the children. Children will also not be allowed to play in their yard. Any child violating these laws will be confiscated and sold to the highest bidder. If there are no bids, they will be fed to Cthulhu.

Re:In other news. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

But what they have done is outlawed those over 18 from being in a park unless accompanied by a minor

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id =3480711

Re:In other news. . .

[republican gourd]

New York officials also annouced plans to close public schools to anyone under 18. They made this decision after realizing that child predators know that children like to play unsupervised in schools. When asked about this decision, officals replied "We need to be vigilant to protect our children."

Re:In other news. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

New York officials also annouced plans to close public parks to anyone under 18. They made this decision after realizing that child predators know that children like to play unsupervised in parks. When asked about this decision, officals replied "We need to be vigilant to protect our children."

New York officials also annouced plans to close churches to anyone under 18. They made this decision after realizing that priests and religious parents know that children are easily pressured into secretive, guilt-ridden sex by authoritarian adults with Bibles. When asked about this decision, officals replied "We need to be vigilant to protect our children."

Re:In other news. . .

[JimBobJoe]

New York officials also annouced plans to close public parks to anyone under 18.

Clearly you didn't catch fark a few days ago, as something similar occurred.

Woman Ticketed For Sitting On Park Bench With No Kids

"New York, NY -- It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child....The city parks department said the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule"

Re:In other news. . .

[canadian_right]

Too bad that isn't a joke.

In NewYork you are not allowed to sit on a park bench unless you are in the park with a child that you are the legal guardian of.

Woman ticket for sitting on bench sans child

Re:In other news. . .

[Kjella]

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child....The city parks department said the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule"

Is it just me, or does their sense of "common sense" pretty much equate to DWB (driving while black)? Granted, I'm male and so are most pedos, but if you want to make that a rule, enforce it. I'm sure there's some female child-snatchers out there (desperately want a child or some other mental hang-up) who'd be inclined to do the same. Anything else is just ad-hoc discrimination.

Re:In other news. . .

[Pragmatix]

The law was probably created to keep homeless people out of the playground. Unless of course they have homeless children!

Re:In other news. . .

[Peldor]

That's really a screwed up law. At this point, she's probably got to consider herself lucky they don't automatically put her name on a sex-offender list. For predatory sitting.

Re:In other news. . .

[RPoet]

I guess it's hard to make good sarcastic remarks when the world has gone bonkers.

Fragging children.

[SB5]

Seriously. Why is it the government's job to protect the children? Thats a parental responsibility. What next, ban AOL IM under the age of 18? It is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce such an age limit. If you protect them from every single thing that can hurt them, when they grow up they will have no defenses to deal with any situation.

Sadly. I also agree with Yahoo's decision here. Although now the defense of... "Yahoo doesn't allow underage people from chatting, so I thought he/she was at least 18!

Re:Fragging children.

[stfvon007]

Lets just put each child in a room with padded walls, no windows and a TV tuned to Seseme Street 24 hours a day. They will be provided with KidChow(TM) and Water. When they reach 18 they will be released into the wild safely having grown up without anything evil affecting them.

Re:Fragging children.

[superpulpsicle]

The government is not protecting children. They just sent thousands of 18 year olds to Iraq. They don't give a flying fuck.

Yahoo and other organizations are blocking out the group with the most potential to make damaging comments bad enough that the forums can get sued. And if you have seen some of the other public forums, teenagers are absolutely out of control.

And no, politicans are not blocking video game violence for kids. They are doing it for their own political agenda.

Re:Fragging children.

[Seumas]

Lets just put each child in a room with padded walls, no windows and a TV tuned to Seseme Street 24 hours a day. They will be provided with KidChow(TM) and Water.

Dad, is that you?

Re:Fragging children.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the government's job to protect everyone. Since kids are less powerful than adults and targeted by them, they try to protect kids more. It goes awry sometimes (like this time), but there's a good reason that kids get more overbearing laws in most cases.

Re:Fragging children.

[Kelson]

Sesame Street? I suspect that would be too intellectually stimulating for some peoples' tastes. They don't want the children to *learn* anything -- that would make them lose their innocence!

Re:Fragging children.

[Surt]

You have to consider what happens when parents abdicate their responsibilities. It's not the child's fault, and from a certain point of view it is society's duty to assure that children are properly raised. So if the parents are not able or willing to effectively police this, the government has a responsibility to step in and protect children. Much as it does if parents are committing other forms of child abuse, like beating their children. Would you argue that we as a society should do nothing about that?

Re:Fragging children.

[A beautiful mind]

The goal of a parent is not to navigate their kids through life, but to give them a map about life.

Re:Fragging children.

[alan_dershowitz]

Seriously. Why is it the government's job to protect the children?

What? Since when has it not been the government's job to do something about child molesters? The issue here is that this does nothing to prevent child molestation, and abridges the freedom of innocent people.

If you protect them from every single thing that can hurt them, when they grow up they will have no defenses to deal with any situation.

They're talking about protecting children from being sexually molested. I hope that's not what _you_ are talking about.

Re:Fragging children.

[Infonaut]

Why is it the government's job to protect the children?

If there were still any kids kids in America who worked in grimy factories on 12 hour shifts, six days a week, you could ask them if they were in favor of child labor laws.

After all, back when kids worked in factories here in the U.S., the parents could have simply decided not to have their kids work, right?

Not everything can be reduced down to the hallowed libertarian bottom line of "personal responsibility".

Re:Fragging children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi son. How did you escape?

Re:Fragging children.

[Brian Boitano]

18 year olds aren't children, they're constituents.

Re:Fragging children.

[Frogbert]

Judging by your UID it would seem you at least had access to the internet.

Re:Fragging children.

[dodobh]

They are protecting children from the truth. Reality is dangerous.

Re:Fragging children.

[Raven_Stark]

I don't know man. I'm pretty sure Bert and Ernie have something going on under the sheets. That's what I always thought as a kid. And Big Bird, he's such a queen and take another look at his name. Better ban it too since some people object to such behavior.

Clearly, the only way to protect kids from society is destroy society. It could be done by simply having no more kids.

Seriously, I'm so sick of people and politicians thinking government is the solution to every little societal hangnail, I could puke. Is this really even a majority view in this country? It is the parents' job to raise kids who know better and the kid's responsibility to act on it. I feel so sorry for kids these days, they already live in your padded cells.

Re:Fragging children.

[StopSayingYouSir]

Why is it the government's job to protect the children? Thats a parental responsibility.

Who protects you from crime? Why should they protect you, and not children?

Re:Fragging children.

[angelo]

Who protects you from crime? Why should they protect you, and not children?

Nobody. Who protects me from murder? A drive-by shooting? Nobody, near as I can tell. Laws don't protect me from lawless action.

Re:Fragging children.

[anvilmark]

You seem to be a bit conflicted on how children are to be protected. "It isn't the government's job, it's the parents. Oh, and parents shouldn't protect them from every little thing either." What is a little thing? This discussion concerns child molestors, but I'm sure you don't consider them a "little thing".

I've seen this "you can't protect them or they will be defenseless when they are out on their own" argument before (and elsewhere in this thread). I'm not picking on you, simply using your post to make my point.

Let's play with this argument, shall we?

1) Food? Clothes!?? If I give them those they'll be unprepared if they have to live on the street!
2) "See Georgie, this is why you have to get on *top* of the rottweiler before it pins you to the ground and mauls you. Then you can strangle it from safety. Whoa! But that's ok, people live normal lives with one eye all the time!"
3) If I lock up the chemicals beneath the sink, how will the kid will never learn they are dangerous?
4) If I stop her from hitch-hiking to New York, how will she ever learn how to defend herself?
5) If he doesn't have his girlfriend come over for sleepovers, how will he ever learn self control?
6) If I hide the "Slut Weekly" magazines from her, she won't know how things are done in the real world.

Picture all these scenarios with a 26 year old, then 24,22,20,18,16 and so on down to 2. Analyze the scenario's opposing gender. You will probably come to an age where each scenario becomes unreasonable (#2 is probably unreasonable at any age) and that prior to that age you agree that a child should be prevented (i.e. protected) from the activity. If you start getting turned on by this exercise, you prove my point - shut up and go away.

Which brings me back to "you can't protect children from every little thing".
1) At various ages it *is* appropriate to protect children from "every little thing". Where this age-appropriate line is drawn is completely subjective.
2) In my experience there is a disconnect between physical protection and emotional/moral protection. Everyone will agree that children should be defended from hunger and the elements, but protecting those same children from situations where their inexperience can lead them to make life-altering decisions is labeled as "overprotective".

My standard is simple - children should be protected from any activity that can have results beyond the child's responsibility level. My job as a parent is to teach the child how to take complete responsibility for their life and decisions prior to "adulthood" (21 in the US). The vast majority of societies problems are rooted in people engaging in activities when they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the consequences of those activities.

Re:Fragging children.

[StopSayingYouSir]

Nobody. Who protects me from murder? A drive-by shooting? Nobody, near as I can tell. Laws don't protect me from lawless action.

Oh, you've made it all clear for me. Fire the police, repeal all legislation. Apparently they don't actually protect anyone.

Surprised

[thesupermikey]

Not really

I wonder why Yahoo didn't do this years ago. At least from a liability standpoint this seems like Yahoo would not want to put itself in the place were it was the medium for a pedophile getting some kid into his van. Or two 13 year olds hooking up and running away together.

I know it wasn't Yahoo's fault if something like this were to happen. But having it happen in their backyard might piss a lot of people off

Genders next...

[TexTex]

Pretty soon they'll close their chat rooms to men who pretend to be women online... That should cut back on traffic as well.

Re:Genders next...

[lilmouse]

Well, if they closed their chat rooms to women, that would eliminate most everything else!

--LWM

Re:Genders next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially if they get rid of the male cops posing as 14 year old girls.

Re:Genders next...

[value_added]

Only on the weekends.

Re:Genders next...

[British]

Forget the age restriction, how about a weight restriction? "As long as they ain't over 250" - The Ladies Man(Leon Phelps)

Re:Genders next...

[bohemian72]

Wait, does this mean that all those hairy 40 year old guys who pretend to be 14 year old girls will now pretend to be 18 year old young women?

Yahoooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't someone think of the children? I am glad that this system of age discrimination will insure that people under 18 years old just cannot, cannot get onto Yahoo chat. Now we can breathe a sigh of relief and sit back and not monitor the chats. See, it's safe now.

Not surprising at all...

[lbbros]

I've been in those chat rooms three or four times, and I was surprised at the amount of nuts I found there.

Re:Not surprising at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

And quite a few men talking, playing with them too....

Parenting

[qw0ntum]

I guess they don't really have a choice (since it is a court order), but it's kind of pathetic that they would have to do this.

Last time I checked, it was the parents' job to ensure their kids were safe. Sure, the state/society has a certain role to play in that as well, but the largest responsibility is on the parent: he/she should make sure his/her kids know right from wrong, not to talk to strangers, etc.

Re:Parenting

[geekoid]

Last time I checked, kids had to raised in a world full of people there parents didn't raise.

All they are doing is shutting down chat sites that have under age sexual themes.

Re:Parenting

[Rodness]

> Last time I checked, it was the parents' job to ensure their kids were safe.

And in the rose-colored world that would be the case. The simple fact is that parents DO NOT parent.

Rather than disciplining their own children and teaching them right from wrong, parents expect the teachers to teach children about life, but do not allow them any disciplinary power (in fact, the parents will raise a shitstorm when teachers so much as yell at their little snotgobblers).

When teachers fail to instill values in children, the parents then turn to the police. I used to do juvenile night intake for several Maryland counties, and the general reaction of the parents was that they wanted their kids left overnight in jail "to teach them a lesson." The juvenile judicial system is more concerned with rehabilitation than punishment, which is probably as it should be, but it almost always fails miserably, because the kids learn that the system isn't going to punish them, so at age 18 they're adults with no fear of the DOJ/DOC, which is what keeps most people in line. The motto of the Maryland Juvenile Justice Department was "Spend time with your kids now, so we won't have to later."

Parents are simply more concerned with being their kids' friends than their parents. They look to teachers, police, and apparently now Yahoo! to teach, discipline, and safeguard (respectively) their kids instead of taking any responsibility for themselves.

Which, ultimately, is why we get stupid policies like this from Yahoo! which won't make any difference in the real world. They're just trying to cover their asses against the inevitable lawsuit from an irritable parent who couldn't bother to teach their kid themselves about the dangers of the internet.

I wonder

[nEoN nOoDlE]

It seems like every censorship law these days is being made "for the children." I wonder where this idea comes from, since we've started lapping it up like ice cream. Is there any historical precedence in the US or other countries where the government is so obsessed with "the children" being exposed to anything that might be considered harmful or innapropriate? I'm just wondering. I was a child of the late 80s and early 90s and wasn't so politically involved then, but don't really remember it being such a craze to shelter all the kids.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except they didn't have the Internet or the proliferation of cell phones when you were growing up, chief! The advances in communication have sadly made it easier and easier for predators to engage in criminal activity. On the one hand, I dislike that "it's the government's responsibility" but after shows like "My Super Sweet 16" or whatever it's called on MTV and the amount of kids playing M-rated video games, you have to ask how the hell did it get so bad? Look at the average parents these days--kids can get away with anything, even in strict households. Virtually no one raises their kids strictly anymore and the "me first" generation is upon us. May God have mercy on our souls...

RTH

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you awake for Tipper Gore? Didn't you notice that one day you could buy an album and see the whole cover and the next day the cover was partially obscured by a "Warning:Explicit Lyrics" label that was a short-term marketing boon and was also promptly ignored by sales clerks?

And even before our time there's the Comics Code. Many other examples exist; this is a familiar theme in American History.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Spitzer really think this would work? I used to think he was out to clean up corruption, but now it looks like he's pursuing window dressing. Window dressing is bad, like airport and subway security, it doesn't accomplish anything but it makes it look like government is doing something. It's really a bad allocation of resources, why isn't there a general outcry against this sort of thing the way people rail against corruption and crony capitalism?

If we really cared about children, we'd structure our society to be more oriented around raising children, by letting women have long maternity leave without damage to their professional lives, by educating children instead of placating teachers' unions and using schools as babysitters so parents can work, and protecting their physical health and safety both from pollution and from violence created by economic stratification and organized crime.

Re:I wonder

[Seumas]

Children't aren't born with internet access, videogames and cellphones. Parent's make those things available to their children and allow those things in their home. So how about a little parent's being responsible and the government staying the fuck out of it.

Of course, the government doesn't want to stay out of it because "the children" offers a great excuse for proliferating their puritan ideals. Hell, most of the people that run our government probably are afraid to have their children in the proximity of anyone who is homosexual because it might rub off on them.

Re:I wonder

[qbwiz]

Yep, even in the 1910's reformers were concerned with the effects of the movies on children. This concern has been going back at least as far as that, and probably much farther.

Re:I wonder

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The advances in communication have sadly made it easier and easier for predators to engage in criminal activity.

Please provide evidence that this is so. I don't mean nattering about MTV and video games; I mean actual hard evidence that children are more likely now to be molested, abducted, abused, etc. than in the pre-cell-phone, pre-internet era.

I doubt you can. And I doubt anyone else can either.

Re:I wonder

[spx]

My parents were strict to a point (mother being the most)....I grew up abit before your time, but not much I remember being in a neighborhood that we didnt have to lock our doors, now looking back over 20 years, part of my hometime is now crime city. I think parents still worried about their kids back then, but now instead of 'just meeting a stranger in the park or on the way home from school', its the above + online + on a phone (IM via cell if your a teen with a phone), etc/etc/etc People worry more, and sometimes (not so much this case particular) but the media feeds the worry, and that worry carries over to things like this, even to the most extreme (which is seems alot of people are freaking out over Y! putting age restricts. on a chat room, when there are many more dangers besides this). Its the chat room and the parents that make the kids aware and safe, both parties need to own up to it.

Re:I wonder

[rasqual]

Good grief. Another childless wonder who's also obviously under 30. Damn.

Whether or not you agree with all this, the notion that the burden of protecting children from this or that is some kind of new construct is almost insanely naive. I mean, if you're going to wax indignant, do so less ignorantly.

Re:I wonder

[tantz]

I would not be so quick to say that it is happening more often, obviously the media loves to blow things out of proportion -- however it IS easier for someone to build a fake and 'inconspicuous' identity on the internet, than it is in real life. Consider a 30 year old pedophile (paedophile, sp?) dressing up like a 14 year old and walking around down town trying to pick little children up? Not going to work as well as, a 30 year old pervert just changing his age from 30 to 15 in his personal info.

Re:I wonder

[periol]

Is there any historical precedence in the US or other countries where the government is so obsessed with "the children" being exposed to anything that might be considered harmful or innapropriate?

The short answer is yes. Ever 80-100 years or so.

I'll spare you the long answer, but if you're really interested, you should go read the book Generations.

Re:I wonder

[kingj02]

I wonder where this idea comes from, since we've started lapping it up like ice cream. Is there any historical precedence in the US or other countries where the government is so obsessed with "the children" being exposed to anything that might be considered harmful or innapropriate?

It's as old as the first society.

Socrates argued that new technology corrupted youth: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

and then he was executed under the rallying cry of "think of the children!"

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to post this anonymously: part of my job involves dealing with sex offenders. The vast majority that I have seen recently have been charged with with posession or distrobution of child pornography. How did they acquire that pornography? The Internet.

Since I'm not at work right now, I can't give you too many references. However, you could start with Google Scholar and check out the 4th link: "Child Pornography: An Internet Crime" by Maxwell Taylor, Ethel Quayle. Or this pdf link that discusses the role that child pornography can have in leading towards real-world abuses.

I might add that because the pace of scientific research on any topic is glacial, and the Internet changes so rapidly (and researchers are slow to adapt) that a lot of data that is just now being published is just from the "beginning of the Peer-to-peer boom and inexpensive digital camera" age. So take it with a grain of salt. I might be completely off my rocker (I don't think so), but do you want to wait 15, 20 years down the line to find that out, or do you want to try and do something about it now?

This is retarded.

[w1z7ard]

Talking online is not like drinking alcohol, having sex, looking at porn, driving, etc. It's just a textual form of communication- a freedom of speech that utilizes technology. This seems to me like yahoo is just trying to cover their ass and avoid further obnoxious law suits that they shoudn't be responsible for. Frankly children still have a variety of other online chat choices so this act of "vigilance" would hardly put a dent in the "minors talking online" industry (not to mention VOIP and webcams- christ!).

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

For once, a potential threat to children is solved by kicking the kids out of the room, instead of limiting adult speech.

Verification issues aside, I think it's high time we adopted the "but your kids don't belong here" approach to more shit, and not just the fucking internet.

Re:Finally...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Oh.my.God
An insightful comment from an AC.
I only wish more people would get to read it.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I adopted yo momma don't belong here policy, it works!

Re:Finally...

[Mostly a lurker]

Yahoo had chat rooms specifically for minors. I fail to see why you should consider these somewhere minors do not belong. If anything, you can expect more kids in adult chat rooms because they no longer have the option of monitored chat rooms created for them specifically.

Re:Finally...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I tend to agree with this. This brings up an issue though...

If 18 years and older are only allowed... Does that mean someone chatting with a girl saying she's 16 is punishable in court? If she is on Yahoo chat, she must be atleast 18 right? Or assumed to be atleast 18 because that is the rules.

After all yahoo is no 18 and older, so should one assume that anyone lieing about their age is role playing?

Re:Finally...

[A beautiful mind]

"For once, a potential threat to children"...

It is a parental responsibility to have the talk about the bad men, etc.

..."is solved"...

They can't verify someone's age.

..."by kicking the kids out of the room instead of limiting adult speech."

Neither is desirable, imo. The best is always to educate, so that children learn about these dangers, not to ban them from those places totally or to fall into the other extreme, to ban adults from saying things which might be deemed inappropriate for children.

Re:Finally...

[Mister Skippy]

Yahoo had chat rooms specifically for minors. Yahoo had chat rooms that make it easy for predators to find their victims.

Re:Finally...

[ZachPruckowski]

If she is on Yahoo chat, she must be atleast 18 right? That doesn't work. I could theoretically get in trouble if I hooked up with a girl I saw at a frat party if she was from the high school. Apparently, someone got nailed on this, despite the whole having consent thing. His logic was that she had to have been 21 or said she was 21 in order to get into the party. He didn't get thrown in jail or anything, but he couldn't get away with it. Granted, I heard that from a friend (female) who lived in my college town as a High Schooler, who heard it at her school.

Re:Finally...

[spx]

How about repharsing to state: If a person is chatting (via YIM) are they punishable? What happens to the childrean caught lying about their age? What happens to Yahoo when they first child is found by a perv and molested and possibly killed? Lots of questions to ask here..

Re:Finally...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly. There are a lot of questions.

What happens to that horny guy who knows all YIM users are supposed to be 18, and yet he's chatting with someone saying they're 16? Is that person infact guilty of a crime? Or are they simply playing out a fantasy with someone prentending to be 16?

And as you say, what happens to a horny guy talking to a YIM user who is 16 in reality, lieing that she's 18...

Is Yahoo guilty? Is the guy chatting guilty? Is the girl at guilty for violating the policy? Is the guy innocent because she violated the policy? Afterall the guy could say "everyone on YIM is supposed to be 18, i thought it was someone older playing into a fantasy role"

There's lots of interesting things that this policy change will create in legal situations.

Re:Finally...

[joelsanda]

Verification issues aside, I think it's high time we adopted the "but your kids don't belong here" approach to more ...

As a parent I cannot agree more. Nothing burns me more than being told "Oh sure, bring your kid, that's fine" and getting to someone's house for a party only to find ... no other kids and a house that is not geared towards the dexterity of a seven year old boy (who can sail through Mario Brothers like a friggin' bird but can't carry a plate into the kitchen without dumping dinner on the floor. Twice).

There needs to be age appropriate signage and alerts. If I go to Vegas with my wife it's to see Vegas as intendend - not a "kid safe" or "family safe" Vegas. I think most parents want to know beforehand if children are appropriate. Those who don't wonder that should probably put some serious thinking towards towards family planning.

Re:Finally...

[spx]

The lying party is to blame and will be proscuted under the soon-to-be 'You are a lying jerk' law, coming to a state near you soon! Y! will back up with 'We changed our rules so that they shouldnt lie when we ask their name' The courts will wonder why (if their not thinking of it now) Y! did not go p0rn site route with "Please type in your cc# here so we can verify your age" (you guys relize that a debit card works the same way, underage or not, right?) Lots and Lots of things this will create, and Im sure /. will follow it (so we all know how it turns out).

Re:Finally...

[QCompson]

Nice thought, but they limited adult speech when they closed down the user rooms. Most user rooms had nothing to do with minors, but because of the "think of the children" crusade, they were shut down.

Re:Finally...

[danila]

What is interesting is that the other side already convinced you that chatting with a 16 year old girl is a crime...

Next is persuading you that looking at 16 year old girls is a crime. Wanna bet on how long will it take them?

Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING

[Rude Turnip]

The first link to aunty-spam.com is very misleading. The link to the AG's site is the proverbial "horse's mouth." Here is what really happened: Mr. Spitzer & Yahoo have reached an agreement where Yahoo will close down all chatrooms that promote sexual relations between minors and adults. So in other words, if there was a chat room called "pre-teen hook-ups with older men 50+" or whatever, Yahoo will shut it down.

Again, minors are still allowed on Yahoo. However, Yahoo is clamping down on certain chatrooms that do not have honorable intentions.

Re:Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING

[Blakey Rat]

I'm more amazed when I see a Slashdot story that doesn't have a misleading, or plain wrong, title and summary. Almost every topic has a high-moderated correction in the comments.

Re:Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING

[merreborn]

Betanews has a story from June:

Yahoo has completely shut down its unmonitored user-created chat rooms, which reportedly were being used to promote sex with minors. The company did not say how long the chats would be closed, but will leave open company-created rooms.

Re:Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING

[alan_dershowitz]

According to this Reuters link:

"Because of this agreement, Yahoo chat rooms are a safer place today," said Jon Bruning, Nebraska's attorney general, in a statement.

Yahoo agreed to develop education materials promoting the safe use of chat rooms, restrict Yahoo Chat to users 18 and older and remove the Teen category.

If they got it wrong, then Reuters got it wrong too.

Re:Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING

[JeffTL]

Jon Bruning, eh? He's been sending out all sorts of letters on the matter and running TV ads in Nebraska. I smell aspirations to be something besides AG of Nebraska -- perhaps he is contemplating running against Ben Nelson or something.

WOOHOO!!

[macaulay805]

September is comming to an end!!!!!!!!!one!11!

Re:WOOHOO!!

[oberondarksoul]

Me too!

When will parents be parents again?

[Anonymous Coward]

So everybody else will not be expected to be a parent that child obviously does not have.

Security System

[Psychor]

I predict Yahoo's unbreakable security system will feature a webpage with some text along the lines of "You must be over 18 to use this chat system. Please only click the button below if you are over 18." It will also feature two buttons saying "I am over 18" and "I am not over 18, please show me the Disney store instead". It may take up to two attempts, but I think that unscrupulous Internet hackers might find a way around their near flawless protection.

Re:Security System

[Anonymous Coward]

The protection is not for kids. The protection is for yahoo from stupid parents not being parents.

So basically..

[dirtsurfer]

..what this means is, all the fat hairy naked men will have to go from spamming
"14/f ne1 wanna cyber?"
to
"18/f (looks 14) ne1 wanna cyber?"

Re:So basically..

[pymike]

"I swear the EULA said she was 18 officer."

Re:So basically..

[gellenburg]

You raise an interesting point. Now thanks to Yahoo I have a reasonable expectation that whomever I might be chatting with in their chat-rooms is at least over eighteen. Therefore, I forsee problems in certain law enforcement sting operations whereby adult officers portray themselves to be children online to lure suspected pedophiles into meeting these "officers" so they can be arrested.

"But your honor, Yahoo said everyone there was over eighteen. Forget the fact that I was chatting with Lolita134U, I knew she was over eighteen 'cause Yahoo said only adults were allowed in the chat rooms."

[gavel bang on bench]

"Case dismissed!"

Re:So basically..

[NeoBeans]

Well, that may work unless you're caught by Shaquille O'Neal.

Let's face it -- THAT is scary.

On the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least now you'll know that "lolipop_13" is really a 45 year old guy.

Re:On the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... fuck

Age Verification?

[MMHere]

So two hundred people are going to say this, I'll try to be first:

There is no real way to verify a Yahoo account-holders age when s/he registers. If the kidz want in, they'll simply lie when they type in their age.

Once inside, they can tell the pedophile that they are "12 and cute..."

Is Spitzer really unaware of this? If he is aware, then this is simply another headline to aid in his eventual goal of running for governor, then president...

Some questions

[kebes]

1. How are they going to verify age? If the age-verification is simple, kids will defeat it. If it is complicated, adults will find it inconvenient... in which case people will stop using Yahoo's chat services. There are many other chat networks.

2. Why does New York law affect users all over the world?

3. Who cares? As I said, there are many other chat networks. Kids will simply use another chat program or another network. What does this change, really? (Unless Yahoo believes their chat network is much more vile and filled with adult things than any other network?)

4. Why? I mean, how does preventing kids from going to chat rooms protect them? Sure, they won't be fooled by some pervert in a chat room who tricks them... but they can still be fooled/affected by emails, web pages, and lots of things online. (Besides which, web-based chat-rooms exist...) It's been said on slashdot many times before, but it should be more about parents monitoring their children, and teaching them proper surfing habits, rather than trying to lock down and sanitize the net (which is an impossible task anyway).

5. Why 18? It's great that Yahoo is taking measures to protect children... removing a "bad" chatrooms promptly seems fair enough. However I don't understand why they are cutting off at 18... Protecting very young children (who again should be monitored by their parents to a certain extent) is great, but I think a 15 year old can handle him/herself in a chat-room. There is no reason to prevent them from having an online place to discuss. I don't think you need the same level of adult responsibility to chat online as you need for voting, drinking alcohol, driving a car, etc... yet they are placing the threshold at the same level!

Re:Some questions

[zakezuke]

3. Who cares? As I said, there are many other chat networks. Kids will simply use another chat program or another network. What does this change, really? (Unless Yahoo believes their chat network is much more vile and filled with adult things than any other network?)

Perhaps that's what they want. It's like when MSN chat closed their doors to anyone who wasn't a subscriber. Use dropped over 90% and those few who were left on the system msn had their billing information on file. So no only easier to police the system, but you can always trackdown bozos who are doing something trully criminal and vile. The rest that leave, well that's someone else's problem.

Gee, seems he's up for re-election next year...

[ThePuceGuardian]

www.spitzer2006.com Of course he's just a slimebag opportunist trying to pull voters around by the 'protect the children' leash - but given that 99% of 'people' in Yahoo's chat rooms are ad-spamming robots it's hard to work up that much outrage..

How?

[jmorris42]

And just how to they intend to enforce this decree? Open up local offices around the nation where they will check a photo ID before issuing a userID and password? Nah, this is just a PR stunt.

On the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

There goes 90% of their traffic.

Yea, but the intelligence just went up %300.

Maybe Better Tasking for People in Blue?

[LifesABeach]

I'm just thinking of all that free time law enforcement is going to have when the children stop talking; If children can stop talking. Who knows? Maybe the people in blue will start looking for bin Ladin; their number one bad guy.

Under 18, sure

[1199200]

If they are going to use an scheme to avoid the kids enter the chats, I hereby propose rescuing the questions that the engine of the first Larry Laffer game made with the same intention.

They worked, right? Right???

--
Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Kunowalls!!! Sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Various Responses

[efuseekay]

(a) Eliot Spitze : Heh Heh Heh. Man, I look like a hero, even though I don't give a damn to those kids who parents should know better.

(b) New York State Parents : Rah rah rah! Our children are safe from sexual predators!

(c) Yahoo! : Heh Heh Heh. As though as we can even try to stop childen from U18 from getting in.

(d) Under 18 Kids: Doh, everyone know you have to pretend to be over 18 to hit on anybody anyway.

(e) Over 18 Perverts : Doh, now I have to *really* try to believe those U18 kids online are simply pretending to be Over 18.

(f) Everyone else : Groan.

CS

[kd5ujz]

Now if that Attorney General could just talk to Valve. There are kids under 18 witnessing violence, pornography, and mature language. That should clean up a few servers.......

Re:CS

[Obsi]

It'd probably clean off some of the prepubescent "OMG I got a hs with a P228 from 25m I'm so CAL-I lolollolol11~eleventyone" scum from the servers. Then again, it could be wishful thinking too.

Re:CS

[kd5ujz]

That was exactly my idea.

Who is this protecting?

[AK Marc]

I've been in the Yahoo chat rooms. I needed protection from those that were claiming to be under 18, not the other way around.

Re:Who is this protecting?

[Kelson]

It's protecting Yahoo from getting sued.

Re:Who is this protecting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering bots havent been around for 18 years, no one will be in any of the chat rooms!!

Re:Who is this protecting?

[Wilson_6500]

I find that in chat rooms I usually need protected from people who very much _want_ to be over 18, but instead seem to have BR0EKN KEYB04RDZ.

Re:Who is this protecting?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, what I was wondering was: if a male FBI agent (say, 35) impersonates a young female (14), and initiates a sexual chat with a young male (14), who is impersonating an older male (23),.....

Who gets to shove that case under the rug?? I mean, it's bound to happen a significant number of times, and the only culpable party in such a situation would be the supposed law "enforcement".

If only there weren't minors involved, the FOIA discoveries could be gold!--especially the part where the narc finds out he's been taking cyber-advantage of a youngin.

Foolproof adult test?

[dtfinch]

Are you 18 or over?
[x] Yes
[ ] No

                            [ Ok ]

I don't think this is going to work. I doubt adults will be willing to share their credit card numbers with Yahoo either.

Re:Foolproof adult test?

[Kelson]

How about:

Which income tax form did you file last year?

(a) 1040
(b) 1040EZ
(c) 1040A
(d) Cowboy Neal

Re:Foolproof adult test?

[JNighthawk]

None, you insensitive clod! I'm a jobless college student!

Re:Foolproof adult test?

[Dogtanian]

How about:

Which income tax form did you file last year?

(d) Cowboy Neal

Even better poll combining the best (or worst) aspects of the two above:-

How do you plead to the charge of having intercourse with a minor?

(a) Guilty
(b) Not Guilty
(c) I swear that Cowboy Neal told me he was over 18

So who's left?

[Kelson]

If I were to guess, most people in chat rooms are probably 14-18 years old anyway...

Won't somebody....

[UNOStudent]

PLEASE think of the children?!

Darned tootin'

[vsprintf]

Get off my lawn you Yahoos, er kids or chats or whatever you are. BTW, I'm turning the sprinklers on again this Halloween, so you've been warned!

Re:Darned tootin'

[geekoid]

BTW, I am bringing eggs again this Holloween, so you have been warned!

FREE SPEECH (except if your under 18)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, there goes another constitutional right of the people - even if they are under 18

It seems to me that if we wanted to protect the innocent, we'd stick the villain's head on a pike in the local city square to ward of future villains that wish to harm those we wish not to be harmed.

Taking away the constitutional right of ALL those under 18, or over 18, to stop a few bad people will just increase the powers of the police state we are. Soon, very soon, we will be asked any time we walk outside our homes,"PAPERS! PLEASE!". We will wonder how we ever got to this point.

I Love our goverment. Hello Carnivore, I Love you too.

Is that the right way around?

[nihilogos]

Surely it would be a better idea to close them to anyone *over* 18. How many over 18s are there in a Yahoo chat room anyway? And let's face it, if you are over 18 and in a Yahoo chatroom you could do with some legislated life coaching.

Yeah!

[Njovich]

Let's forbid people to have children too! Iff you get children some might actually get hurt! Think of the children!

the end

[Roadkills-R-Us]

The NY AG's office has announced that they will now prosecute anyone found in a bedroom, because children are molested in bedrooms. The NYC DA, not wishing to be outdone, has promised to prosecute people found indoors without a permit, which his office won't be prepared to provide for at least another year. NY Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton later announced that if elected president, she will just generally outlaw people.

Re:the end

[Fulcrum of Evil]

NY Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton later announced that if elected president, she will just generally outlaw people.

I'd point out that Hillary is guilty of being a person, but I'm not sure if it's illegal to make vaguely threatening statements towards someone who might get elected president.

Re:the end

[KrisW]

Hillary Clinton, a person? Sorry, milk just squirted out of my nose there.

As a resident of New York State I can tell you: nothing is further from the truth.

I don't see how

[alan_dershowitz]

I don't see how this protects our children, insofar as that any child can still use ANY OTHER CHAT ROOM ON THE ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET. Maybe we should start making parks or other arbitrary public places 18-only to prevent child molesters. Do kids not have rights? Yahoo can run their chat rooms however they want, but by what rationale does a lawmaker determine where and where not a child can go in a completely open public place (online or real)? How does a lawmaker determine that kids can't use chat rooms? They didn't go that far, because as they said, they "reached an agreement." Which is roughly analogous to a policeman telling you they won't arrest you for loitering if you walk away now.

Re:I don't see how

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should start making parks or other arbitrary public places 18-only to prevent child molesters.

Not exactly

Re:I don't see how

[linuxrocks123]

By what rationale does a lawmaker determine where and where not a child can go in a completely open public place (online or real)?

By the same rationale that they pass curfew laws. IMHO, the ban will be even less effective than curfew laws.

Re:I don't see how

[autarkeia]

Maybe we should start making parks or other arbitrary public places 18-only to prevent child molesters.

We already have. This woman was fined $1000 and faces up to 90 days in jail for sitting on a park bench where there was a small sign that said she must be accompanied by a child.

Absurd.

Right now in California if you are caught streaking you are marked as a sex offender for life. This Puritanical hysteria over kids and sex is absolutely ridiculous. Kids do not need to be protected from every goddamned thing in the world, they need to be informed about everything and taught to make sensible decisions. As in all things, the truth will set you free.

Re:I don't see how

[rasqual]

"Kids do not need to be protected from every goddamned thing in the world" -- well, right. But apparently, in a free society people differ on what children should be protected from. In this case, the active cooperation of a services vendor was sought, and gained.

A free society means this kind of thing as well as that others may continue to provide similar services to minors. Freedom means the freedom of some to restrict access, as well as the freedom of others to give it.

The poor children.

[blanks]

"Will somebody PLEASE think of the children"

Because their parents wont,  so everyone else has too.

Seriously there are far worse things in the world then chat rooms, yes they might talk to some peterass on a chat, but I think having streets full of drug addicts/ crooks is far worse then chating nasty with a 18+ year old on the internet.

In other news....

[GeneralEmergency]

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has announced that following an agreement with New York City's Central Park Conservancy and city Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York's Central Park "will be closed to all persons under the age of eighteen."

Mr. Spitzer elaborated, "We absolutely must think of and protect the children at all times and at all costs. We all know that Central Park is crawling with 'Adults' and some of those adults do nasty things and think nasty thoughts."

When asked about the remaining available outdoor recreational options for children in Metropolitan Manhattan, Mr. Spitzer replied, "Outdoor recreation? Kids don't need to go outdoors. That's what video games were invented for!"

The park closures will commence October 24th.

great

[Anonymous Coward]

it is not yahoos responsibility to babysit kids like that.

i always thought that if more companies just banned minors it would force parents to do their jobs and stop them from bitching.

Ok, so..

[ebob9]

So, lets say that they are actually able to find *some* way of enforcing this age policy that works.

Whats going to happen? All the under-18 crowd will go chat somewhere else that dosen't yet have these restrictions (IRC, AOL-ICQ, Gtalk, etc).

The predators will go where the kids go. Predators of that type will not just give up because Yahoo closes its doors. What they've done is move the Kids (and Predators) to other places that will most likely be harder to monitor and/or track.

I am whole-heartedly for keeping Sexual Preditors away from children, but I think this child-ban on Yahoo chat is just stupid.

--ebob9

Yep here we go again

[Allnighterking]

I'm sorry but this is like using the new "Internet Explorer Enhanced Security Feature" If it's broken disable it! What's next, do we box up our kids, feed them through a slot and not let them out until they are 18? IMHO The Neo-Con(artist) mentality of "You have nothing but fear" (VS You have nothing to fear but fear itself) has reached a new low with this one.

I apologize for being a bit too political here but I'm growing increasingly tired of this Liberal psuedo Religious Republican fear mongering that has gripped America. These preditors exist because they know the following.

1. Mommy and Daddy are too busy going to Politcal Fund Raisors, Drinking beer on the back porch or attending bible thump sessions to attend to their children.

2. The state has told the parents over and over. Shut up we are better at children than you are. Screw, give birth and turn them over to us, and the state hasn't a clue how to protect them.

3. If parents do get involved in monitoring their children and caring for them and the state finds out. BIG trouble. (You slapped your childs hand and made it cry!..... Child abuse charges will follow.)

4. The more laws and "protections" the state envokes the easier it becomes to get around the sytem.

5. If you have enough money and donate wisely, you can do as you will.

Now this carp. Wow. Now we are fully admitting to our children that we as adults aren't capable of doing anything to protect them or guide them. No wonder so few of them trust us. On this thought I'll remind so many of you what happened in Romania. The goverment forced it's people to give up child care to the state. Now, most of those children are HIV positive and or dead. Get on the Clue train America, We won't protect our children by hiding the world from them, The only way to protect them is to show them the full extent of the danger then give them the tools and the knowledge on how to deal with it.

My 3 year old a while back was approached by a gentlemen as I watched. The gentlemen (an arthritic grandfather type, I sensed no danger but watched) started to speak to him and he said "Do I know you?" The gentlemen replied "No" and my son said. "Then I can't talk to you till you talk to my daddy first." (btw he got a big hug and a small candy for his actions) The words where his, but the idea of not talking to strangers unless mommy or daddy ok it was a tool I gave him to deal with the world.

People, Tell the government to go abuse itself. You are not dumb and incompitent like they keep telling you, that you are. You are capable of making decisions and dealing with your children. Despite the fact that you voted for these parisites on the teats of the political whore.

Re:Yep here we go again

[ScaryMonkey]

Hey, now that you mention it, that box idea doesn't sound so bad! I could get some peace and quiet for a change ;)

Re:Yep here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscibe to your newsletter.

Re:Yep here we go again

[DrEasy]

(btw he got a big hug and a small candy for his actions)

Oh no! I hope you stopped the old bastard before it went any further!!!

Re:Yep here we go again

[hritcu]

On this thought I'll remind so many of you what happened in Romania. The goverment forced it's people to give up child care to the state. Now, most of those children are HIV positive and or dead.

Sorry, but you have your fact very very wrong. First, most of the "institutionalized" children are 18+ years now, and there is little anybody can do to help them without their consent. Faith was very unfair with them and very few of them managed to get a normal life. However seems that the leaders have learned from their previous mistakes, and abandoned children are now either addopted or given to families for care, together with a monthly sum of money.

However this has nothing to do with yet another problem: that of children with AIDS or HIV positive. They usually have families that are caring for them (until their situation becomes very bad, at least). Their problem is usualy caused by the prejudice of the other people. It is hard for them to study in public schools because the parents of the other children will react.

There is almost no relation between the two problems, and I don't see how this could be given as an example of a goverment that forced it's people to give up child care to the state. Maybe you could explain more. (Yes, I was born in Romania)

Re:Yep here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You're a regular Jerry Jump to Conclusions. Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat, and all of these hijinks are part of his (un)official run for New York State governor. Pretty much as simple as that.

Re:Yep here we go again

[Equinox]

"Now this carp. Wow."

Wow's right. You hit your kid with a fish? No wonder the state's comin' down hard. :)

Re:Yep here we go again

[OakDragon]

My post will be off topic, and I expect to be modded down and perhaps have my karma negatively affected, but that's OK.

BUT how could people modify this, this... whatever it is Insightful, and/or Informative? I think there are some things in there I could agree with, but I'm just not sure.

I'm glad you're teaching your kid not to talk to strangers, but maybe you need a few more beers on that back porch, or maybe a lot less.

Re:Yep here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this carp

For god's sake man, think of the fishes !!!!!

Yes, communism.

[DaedalusHKX]

I spent my childhood on the eastern block, in a country to remain nameless (near the black sea , that should narrow it down) and every child's parent was responsible for their own... and you know what? VERY FEW if ANY of the kids I knew, and I grew up in the equivalent of "the hood" and ran the equivalent of a "gang" (small one at that, about 8 or 10 members) and played in soccer clubs and came home late at night...

Difference being, my father taught me to fight, my mother to avoid problems such as getting in cars with strangers... thus, when I left my home, dad knew other kids would come to complain that I beat the fuck out of them (yep, and I was the little guy) and mom knew that he wouldn't "rightfully punish me" (he'd ask, "why, so he can learn that defending himself is wrong?")

Sadly in the fine USA, justice is a forgotten term, and "consequences" are only monetary... many a time a good punch in the face would teach far more than a lawsuit. Many people who are OH so biblical forgot the old adage about sparing the rod.... Parents are sparing EVERYTHING from their kids, starting with the proverbial rod and ending with the very real absence of involvement of any kind.

Fuck the system, when I decide to have kids, they will be raised right... it worked for me, worked for my brother, worked for my father who weathered several wars in the military and only ended up getting hurt being run over by a drunk driver (yeah, go fucking figure, eh?) It also worked for several dozen of my former friends from childhood, all of whom grew up, grew up well, and are extremely self reliant... not something very common in the USA where everyone expects to get approval from the system before moving on. Fuck it all. Live life like its yours, because it is. Too many want to have it lived for them... and Bush, Cheney, Gates, the supreme court and company will be glad to do it for you, since you pay them every time they make a decision for you.

I say, fuckem all... I'll live my life the way I want to, I will abide by the honor code **I** impose upon myself, and when someone trespasses against me, without it being a mistake... well, I defend myself and I don't need a gun to break their arm in three different places if that is what it comes down to :)

~D

Re:Yes, communism.

[theCSapprentice]

Despite what others say, I'm forced to agree with you. Call me an individualist, but I believe the only one responcible for one's actions is them.

As a parent, you are an influence in the child's life, not the child itself. They must be responcible for their actions. Everything in this world is an influence, and all must be weighed in the child's mind.

Now I'm sure this will get ar rile out of many, but I feel I need to say it. The purpose of the parent, the first large influence, is to teach the child how to SURVIVE. Its been this way since evolution itself. The purpose of having children is to pass on your genetic material, and to do so they must live to do the same. To accomplish this a individual must be able to think and act autonomously in any situtation. Doing things for a child, or sheltering them will not teach them these skills.

And to cover by backside against those who talk about small children seeing hardcore sex on the internet, why would they be looking at these things? Google dosen't bring up such sites first, unless you use words like porn. So the source is else where. And overall the fact that they see such things is not important. A child seeing something for the first time will be as clueless as the day they were born. As a parent, and influence, it is our jobs to explain what they are seeing. Whether or not this entails spouting the diatribe we've all heard before, or rationally talking it over with them is up to our own beliefs. But I would hope whatever we say will help them deal with society on their terms, not someone else's.

Re:Yes, communism.

[kg4czo]

I whole heartedly agree! I remember getting into fights at school, getting swats at school, then getting the belt when I got home, even if I didn't start it. I'm with you. My children (when I have some) will learn that defending ones self is not bad. Also, I will give them the tools so they can decide for themselves what would be harmful for them. Shielding them away from the world is not the answer. Teaching them and giving them the tools and knowledge they need to survive in this world should be what matters.

For everyone who thinks that keeping their children under lock and key, in a box, in a closet is going to jack crap for your kids, think again. Many children who grow up in oppressive homes tend to have no street smarts, and tend to generally go wild. This is a common backfire effect, which is just as dangerous, if not more since they are usually adult status when this all happens. Teaching common sense these days seems like a lost art....

You forgot something

[game kid]

You forgot to place the statement in quotes and attribute it to Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Information Technology Minister, Republic of Intarweb.

protect Yahoo or the kids

[icepick72]

If they close their chat rooms to kids, the kids will find chat rooms elsewhere that are not closed. I believe a year or two ago Microsoft made a similar move (although not the same) by putting restrictions on chat rooms. The unclosed chatrooms that kids will end up migrating to may be a worse option than staying at Yahoo. I don't know the answers to these things because it's not black and white, however I would assume Yahoo is more concerned about the legalities (and protecting themselves) than the children. I could be wrong, but given the way business acts I don't think I am. I would do the same if I were a large business too.

Slashdot Title != Actual Story

[daboman]

Once again, the title is completely off the mark from the actual story.
If you actually read the release the New York Attorney General, all they are checking is the names of the chat rooms. There is nothing about age verification listed anywhere.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/oct/oct12a_0 5.html
--

"Under the agreement, one of the nation's leading internet service providers, Yahoo!, has removed and barred the posting of user-created chat rooms with names that promoted sex between minors and adults."

"Among the illicit chat rooms removed were those with labels such as "girls13 & up for much older men," "8-12 yo girls for older men," and "teen girls for older fat men." Many of these were located within the "Schools and Education" and "Teen" chat categories."

Re:Slashdot Title != Actual Story

[Talaria]

Whoa..hey! What part of ""Yahoo is taking further steps to enhance user safety by restricting Yahoo Chat to users 18 and older and removing the Teen category," said (Yahoo spokesperson) Ms. Osako" is unclear??

Boost hacker busts

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect the number of h4x0r busts to massively increase.

"Your honor, the defendant's m4d sk177z enabled him to penetrate the Yahoo security model."

Yeah.

In other news...

[dismiss]

Children under age eighteen are no longer allowed to cross the street without parental accompaniment. How are we supposed to teach kids to act like adults if they are treated like kids until they ARE actually adults? I think it's easy to be overprotective and overbearing, and it does no one any good, really.

i want to ask it again

[circletimessquare]

because every time i ask this question, i get booed by someone, but it still makes sense to me nonetheless: why not an *.xxx tld that is the mandatory place for sexual content?

yes, 1% of the content we are talking about is in a grey area, but why must that 1% grey area dictate the fate of 99% of the stuff- "ass divers" or "bang bus" that is obviously something to keep away from kids? and then we can debate the fate of the high school sex ed site seperately, the 1% of the stuff

i don't see a slippery slope, what i see is obvious adult content, and obvious child content, and a tiny grey area that no one can define the exact border of. but, and here's my point: because we can't decide exactly where the border is, does not negate the fact that the border still exists: there is no slippery slope here guys, don't be hysterical. there is content that even you can agree on that kids should not have access to.

we're all so technosavvy here, but your average parent isn't, and a clear rule about how to allow their children access to the net for all the good things- wikipedia, nytimes, etc., is a LOT better than just switching off the home computer, period. again, we're all so technosavvy here, but if we don't make it easy for parents, parents will just prevent their children from getting on the web, period. is that better for kids than an easy to navigate border between regular net content and adult net content?

then, it's easy: if you're an adult site, you have to have a *.xxx domain. if you open an adult site that doesn't have an *.xxx domain, you're liable for criminal charges. simple, simple. again, why doesn't this make sense?

or is everyone here so gloriously sex-positive (yeah right) that they couldn't even conceive of the incredible mindboggling possibilty that parents want their kids to have access to the web without access to the red light district? who suffers in the mandatory *.xxx scheme? please, someone, define to me in concrete, nonhysterical chicken little slippery slope terms, who suffers?

i don't think anyone does. and, in the current patchwork, you-have-to-buy-filtering-software-that-must-be-re gularly-updated-and-doesn't-completely-work world, parents are just denying their kids access to the net rather than be bothered. and this is a superior world to you?

you're not going to change a parent's desire to keep their kids away from explicit sex, and you're not going to define to me, it seems, a simpler system than an adult content tld. what am i missing?

we have red light districts in the real world, for a good reason: cities and governments don't want sexual content splashed all over their city. the web should be the same. there is nothing prudish or sexual negative about this position at all. it just makes sense for kids sake. i would love to hear someone tell me that it is important to be sex positive with children- that prudish norms create psychological problems... as an argument to allow elementary school kids access to hardcore fetish sights. doesn't pass the laugh test.

i would really love to here someone tell me why a red light district for the net doesn't make sense. and be mindful that you don't live in some loopy fantasy world where parents are perfectly happy to allow their children to have free access to sex sites on the web. or in your mind is it superior that children are to be denied access to one of the greatest educational tools ever invented simply because you don't like any limitations on sexual content, even some mildly prudent ones that hurt no one unless you are a hysterical paranoid schizophrenic who thinks all of your rights are being denied?

this is no pope benedict talking here who wants to deny everyone their sexuality. this is just a parent who wants their kids to get on the web with easy safeguards, safeguards that do not in any way impinge on adult rights whatsoever... it's harder for you to type .xxx than .com? please!

Re:i want to ask it again

[Itanshi]

because we can't sweep everyone to it so in effect we only create more porn

Re:i want to ask it again

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

First and most important: Who mandates it? Nobody has authority over the interwebbernet.
That said, what defines adult content?
    What about a national geographic-style site that would include topless women from some tribe in africa?
    What about a site selling underwear? For example, you can see bush on this amazon ad: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 7XLONC/ref=pd_sbs_a_4/102-1256598-6028138?_encodin g=UTF8&v=glance
    What about webcam sites where people are free to be as nude or not-nude as they like?
    What about informative sites teaching kids about their own body? (clitical, jackinworld, etc)
    What about non comercial personal pages that include nudes (Be they self nudes, or "my wild vacation pictures", or whatever).

The gray area is huge. But again, more importantly, who can mandate such a requirement? Why would someone want to host their site in a banned by many .xxx tld when they can get more profit from a .com? Because of potential us law you propose? Only people that care about silly US laws are silly US citizens.

The better proposal is a .kids tld (or better yet, an entire arin assignment or VPN you could limit your kids inside), which anybody could set up and be responsible for. If you could get a few big isps behind it, you'd have a large enough base that the big names (Disney, Nick, etc) would want access to host their sites inside your system, and the only stuff inside would be safe.

Even if you could block a .xxx, you'll never block the millions of nude pictures already out there lurking in peoples personal sites, forgotten dir indexes, and whatever else.

Re:i want to ask it again

[Jesus IS the Devil]

First of all, who dictates what is "adult content" and what isn't? Second, what harm is there in sexual content exactly? Half the world views it as something wonderful. Only in the U.S. is it so tightly regarded as "immoral".

Your strategy is also going the wrong direction. As anybody who's in the tech section might tell you, when security is of utmost importance, black lists don't work too well. White lists work much better.

Instead of forcing censorship and freedom on law-abiding citizens, why don't you propose we CENSOR kids instead? Force it upon kids so that they can ONLY surf *.kid websites. Force it so kids can't do ANYTHING unless they are expressly permitted under the law to do so? Hold parents accountable if you want to go that far.

You want to "protect" the kids? Then force the censorship on them, not the rest of us who want to enjoy our lives and not have to be restricted by what imaginative crime some unknown kid in some unknown corner of an unknown street might do in an unknown future.

Re:i want to ask it again

[nonlnear]

First and most important: Who mandates it? Nobody has authority over the interwebbernet.

Actually, lots of people have authority over the internet. Let's see: the FCC, each and every state government, and oh yeah - the federal government. Each of these bodies has some authority over some aspect(s) of the internet - within their jurisdiction, of course. The fact that these bodies choose (I think wisely) not to exercise much of this authority does not mean that it couldn't happen.

You could have asked the same question about roads. They lead all over the world. (Except for that peskyBering Strait.) Surely nobody has the authority to keep children from driving cars on them...

Re:i want to ask it again

[bprime]

For example, you can see bush on this amazon ad...

Dear Sir,

Your opinions interest me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sincerely,

/. UIDs 1 through 800000

Re:i want to ask it again

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, you can see Bush on this amazon ad......

But the lips don't move when Cheney's drinking water, check that shit out.

Re:i want to ask it again

[DeXtroMe]

I predict now, record-breaking hits on that Amazon link. Seriously honey, it's books , I swear. And before anyone else says it, holy fuckin' commas.

Sorry dude, summary is essentially correct.

[xigxag]

See here: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/chat/chat-15.html

"Why did Yahoo! remove the ability for users under 18 to access Yahoo! Chat and remove the "Teen" category in Yahoo! Chat? We are removing the Teen category and making Yahoo! Chat available to users 18 or older in order to improve the user experience and compliance with our Terms of Service."

My reading of this is that Yahoo! accounts set up by minors will not (at this time) be able to access Yahoo! Chat at all. Keep in mind that Yahoo! has a great many more properties than their Chat so minors will still have access to other areas. However, a minor can still use their parent's account (which seems to be allowed according to the rules) or conceivably lie about their age (which would certainly constitute a breach of contract). Either might absolve Yahoo! of liability, which is certainly all they're concerned about.

Re:Sorry dude, summary is essentially correct.

[alan_dershowitz]

We are removing the Teen category and making Yahoo! Chat available to users 18 or older in order to improve the user experience and compliance with our Terms of Service."

Gotta love that tautology: "Why is yahoo chat 18-only now?" "Yahoo Chat is only available to users 18 or older because we have changed our terms of service to require that only users 18 or older will be allowed. This is why minors are not allowed: because they are not allowed."

Ban it all

[Barkley44]

We should ban everything from kids under 18 to protect them. Keep them in a protected shell until we release them to the world when they reach 18. Come on... there are so many ways around this in particular. Why can't parents take responsibility for where their kids go and what they say. If you don't trust them, then keep the computer in the same room as the TV for example.

Yahoo chat isn't very good at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, Yahoo Chat has major issues. The issue is not that children chat there and it's not online predators. The issue is that Yahoo does nothing with their chat service. They put it up and let it run.

Go into a yahoo chat room. If you go into the romance rooms (hey, I'm single, and I've met women from there before), they are about 90% ad-bots. Yahoo doesn't care enough about their chat service to keep people from exploiting it (in the exploitation sense, not the buggy software sense) to vend their products. They don't even care that most of the traffic is this garbage, to the degree that the chatrooms are useless. Do you honestly think that they'll notice one pedophile? Do you honestly think that putting a EULA on the front that says "click here if you're over 18" fixes the real problem?

Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[N8F8]

Just so you aren't confused about what party is abridging your rights.

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[SydShamino]

I'm over 18. He isn't abridging my rights.

Children under 18 don't have the same rights as adults. That's how it should be. Thanks Eliot Spitzer, a democrat, for working to make things as they should be.

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[/dev/trash]

NO! It cant be. The DailyKos told me that Freepers and Rethugs were the bad ones!

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[Anonymous Coward]

The dude is trying so hard to get his name into the media... I guarantee he will be running for governor in a few years.

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[Creepy Crawler]

Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution? Other than the requirements of being 30 for a congresscritter and 35 for a VP/President, where do you read age limits?

I sure dont see them in the Bill of Rights...

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[SydShamino]

US law is based on common law and precedences derived from it, not just on the Constitution. For example, common law (actually, I'd call it common sense) says that two year olds do not have the right to look at pornography; indeed, parents of two year olds have the legal responsibility to keep their children from it.

The same laws allow smoking, drinking, and voting to be limited to those over a certain age.

This isn't just an embodiment of the tenth amendment, since some things guaranteed by the Constitution (such as the right to peaceable assemble) can be taken away from children, in that the government can pass laws (such as truancy laws) that control where a child can go and what they can and cannot do.

Large limitations on drivers under age 18 are also from a similar vein of law, though as driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right, for everyone, it is a little different.

Re: Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT

[Creepy Crawler]

Ok, then. What do you say to those MINORS that break the law... Do you find it ethically (in the eyes of what you said about age discrimination) reprehensible to try minors as Adults in a court of law?

You already admit that we discriminate against age, even if they are more than mentally progressed to match adults of a higher age. I would find it logical that we regress every law towards emancipation towards the minimum age that can be tried as an adult.

Yahoo Chat?

[ModernGeek]

Try SharkChat! The best way to get IRC on your website free of charge without Java. Now in Public BETA!

Microsoft's MSN IM day

[stuttering stan]

Here's an earlier report about Yahoo and MSN merges IMs
And here's a story about a nobody talking smack about Linux IM clients.

Both topics are chock full of MSN IM astro-turfing goodness. Check it out. Looks like the start of a marketing campaign for MSN Messenger 7.

"We need to be vigilant to protect our children."

[SageMadHatter]

Isn't that what good parenting is for?

in your mind

[circletimessquare]

is it ok for a 9 year old to go to bang bus or ass diver?

you could tell me it's important that we be sex positive for children, that prudish attitudes about sex creates psychological problems

i hear you, loud and clear

but then tell me with a straight face it's perfectly reasonable that there be no safeguards preventing 8 year old missy from going on over to that scat site

am i talking about stealing peoples rights under a false guise? am i?

are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

or, just possibly, no way! gosh! gasp! there are actually level-headed reasonable parents who want to let their kids on the web without getting them caught up on double penetration action...

no way! inconceivable! could that REALLY be the impulse behind these safeguards! unpossible! it HAS to be a plot by rick santorum and gw bush to take away ALL of our rights! yes! that's the more reasonable explanation ;-P

you have to make sure your concerns in this world don't fail the laugh test, dig?

hyperhysterical dreams of orwellian big brother locking you in a prison cell so agent smith and lord palpatine can laugh heartily is not a more reasonable understanding of the situation than just a bunch of concerned overworked parents who want their kids to use one of the greatest educational tools ever invented without exposing them to hardcore porn

duh!

Re:in your mind

[Daniel Dvorkin]

9 != 18.

Re:in your mind

[Mr2001]

is it ok for a 9 year old to go to bang bus or ass diver?

How many 9 year olds do you know who'd even want to go to such a site?

Anyone who's old enough to be interested is old enough to see it. If they're not interested, they know where the Back button is, and they aren't going to be scarred for life because they accidentally found a porn site.

or, just possibly, no way! gosh! gasp! there are actually level-headed reasonable parents who want to let their kids on the web without getting them caught up on double penetration action...

Exactly what do you think would happen if their kids were to get "caught up on" such action? Would their heads explode? Would they start foaming at the mouth, or would they be doomed to a life of criminal insanity?

Please, do tell. I've heard a lot of talk about how kids need to be "protected" from "inappropriate" content, but no one has ever explained just what would happen if they weren't.

Re:in your mind

[dafoomie]

If you're letting a 9 year old use the internet unsupervised, then you're not doing your job as a parent. The internet is not a babysitter. There are plenty of safeguards that you can install on your computer, to prevent your child from accessing inappropriate material. It is not the job of the government to prevent your child from watching pornography on the computer, or violence on TV, or reading dirty magazines, its yours, and yours alone.

Use filtering software on your computer, use the V-chip on your TV, and put your parenting skills to work, and actually monitor what your children are doing, don't ask the government to do your job for you.

Re:in your mind

[nEoN nOoDlE]

What are you babbling about? I had absolutely no safeguards on my computer when I was a kid because my parents knew less about the computer than I did. Sure, there wasn't any internet, but I shared 16 color EGA pornography among my computer literate friends as well... same as my father and father's father did when they were kids with magazines. Guess what? I came out fine. Your argument has to pass the laugh test as well, and trying to keep anyone from seeing pornography, when pornography in this country is a multi billion dollar industry, is laughable. You could walk down the streets in Las Vegas and parts of ANY large city and pick up strip club advertisements bearing fully nude women. I think the internet is hardly the main cause for concern. When was the last time you went to assdriver or bang bus? Last time I checked it didn't allow you past the entrance without handing over a credit card number for authentification. That's a safeguard ain't it? Bang Bus is out for one purpose - money... not to ruin your children. If a kid is specifically looking for it, sure, he'll be able to find something, but I'm really not worried about an 8 year old accidentally stumbling onto something while searching for Big Bird on google images.

Re:in your mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. I'm perfectly normal. Maybe people were already messed up. No! It has to be the evil internet. Seriously. The talking on my bus is more perverted than most chatrooms.

Re:in your mind

[spx]

Finally, I get to the end of the page and I see one person agrees with me on the parent control issue. I thought I was all alone, and its true the internet is not a babysitter. I highly doubt that dafoomie was implying he/she would allow a 9 yr old on a p0rn site. Its more so that once most kids reach 'that age' they will be curious and they will at some point see something weather online or not. I was a lucky one, I stated to mess with computers at an early age, but then I tired for awhile and stopped. By the time I was a teen I was online, in chat rooms and everything else (lots of geeky things). Being a female, I had my share of pervs online (What chick hasnt?), but I also had the smarts to trace who they were and report the abuse myself. Alot of kids are not (so geeky) to be able to do the same. Many are naive at this age (I will just for giggles and shits sake, range 10-15) and do not really think 'this person is bad' when they are all 'la la o im chatting with this person and they are nice.....'. Parents do need to take a KEY ROLE in the avalible content for their child, if not its just the same as giving a 5x over felon for childabuse the keys to your house and go 'I will be home at 9'. WTF Why do I see SO MANY LAZY PARENTS, if anything besides trying to avoid being liable for possible future issues with an online perv harassing a online person, they are trying a step in the right direction. Maybe someone like Shaq should show his big ole foot up your lazy parent asses before you relize its your issue too.

We need to be what now?

[Mirkon]

Blocking under-18s from chat rooms across the board? Uh, sir, I don't think that's what vigilant means...

(g)

[interactive_civilian]

(g) in the courtroom: But I met her in a Yahoo chat room, so she must have been 18 or over, your Honor.

Re:(g)

[Anonymous Coward]

h) Profit??

what's wrong with more porn?

[circletimessquare]

i'm all for more porn!

but why does it have to be unlabelled as such?

why in some people's minds does making simple tld changes that do not in any way impinge upon adult rights translate into pope benedict and gw bush taking away all your rights and telling you sex is bad?

silly me, it just seems like a reasonable attempt to make porn harder for kids to get at and easier for overworked parents who don't have time to mess with firewall settings

i'm kind of funny that way, but to me i don't see the downside here: kids get more net time, which is a great educaitonal thing, and parents rest easy

i guess i should get more hyperhysterical about all of the dark forces in the world coming to take away my rights, huh?

i'm so naive ;-P

Doesn't this help preditors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, can't someone (who KNOWS another is underage) claim this as a defense?

"Your honour, according to the agreement between Yahoo! and government officials, it's the fourteen-year-old that broke the law, not my forty-year-old client. They are the ones responsible."

This does not solve the problem...

[phauxfinnish]

This does not solve the problem of pedophiles on the Internet. The kids will go somewhere else and the sickos will follow. Wouldn't it be better for Yahoo! to provide a safe environment for vulnerable youth?

Re:This does not solve the problem...

[spx]

Do you really think a perv is going to answer a registeration agreement with 'yes I am a sicko bastard who preys upon the underage'? Seriously, the steps should have been taken sooner, and yes its still a parents job to pay attention to what the child is doing on the computer, and no not all kids will tell the truth. Yes they will still find ways to get around age restricts, but its better than nothing, right? Its more than a one person battle (parent), the company (chat company) needs to take precautions as well as the parents of the child, and a well educated child is better than one that has no idea what bad things can infact happen to someone online, regardless of age. I am a parent, and between myself/fiance and his father, my son will know the dangers of the net as well as precautions to take to avoid anything as I have unfortunatly read about in the papers. There is no reason why a child should not be made aware of the dangers. Maybe we need to stop bullshitting about what is done to try and help now, and maybe put some effort in ourselves. If there were actual mod's in these channels (and yes I know alot of people are strict to talk only in pm's) we could weed out some of the sickos. And the kids will go, but smart parents will still try and protect their child, online or off. I seriously do not think Yahoo (or any chat for that matter) suggested 'lets have a site where kids can be prey upon' when they started the chat, its something that occured b/c there are sick people in the world, but the educated ones (like ourselves) need to take some measures to even it out, so our children are smart enough to not give out personal information, to not just trust someone (even if known for months), just as simple: Be cautious.

Yeah, that'll help . . .

[zero-point-infinity]

Yahoo! will develop education materials and feature them on the Yahoo! network, promoting the safe use of chat rooms

And these materials will, of course, only be read by 'concerned' adults. Who will then lecture the children under their care about internet safety to the sound of rolling eyeballs.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

We may need to start calling Big Brother, Momma and Poppa instead...

Just one question....

[NidStyles]

Since we all have to watch out for everyone else's kid's, can I get my babysitter's check on a thursday?

Multiple Topics

[Secret Agent Man]

From Yahoo's side, I don't see why they didn't enact this policy sooner. An age restriction on chat rooms places the blame of anything that happens to minors squarely on the provider(s) of the chat room: The kid's parents. Now Yahoo can say "We don't allow minors into our chatrooms, so we can't have any responsibility about what happens to them there." Although that's a pretty weak argument, it's still something they could use.

On the other hand, this will do little to deter children under the age of 18 from entering chatrooms. They will either base it on the age recorded on their Yahoo accounts (which one can easily lie about), or a little button before entering the chatroom saying "I am at least 18 years of age." Both of these methods are far from foolproof.

The only way I see this working is if the parents intervene. Responsible parents would take steps like to register their child's account for them, so that no lying could take place, or to set guidelines regarding the Internet. Unfortunately, however, too many parents are relying on the government these days to do their work for them.

aw crap....

[Lehk228]

aw crap, now they are all going to flood in to IRC asking "ASL? ASL? ASL?"

Re:aw crap....

[Obsi]

Well at least in IRC ops can ban people. Hell, on my channel on FurNet, I've got "ASL?" and derivatives thereof set as a bannable offense. You ask ASL, you get banned. Simple as that. :)

Vigilance!

[GhaleonStrife]

We must be vigilant! So let's be lazy and let the law do our jobs for us!

I'm not sure of that.

[twitter]

The rude turnip lives up to his name, saying:

Yahoo will close down all chatrooms that promote sexual relations between minors and adults. So in other words, if there was a chat room called "pre-teen hook-ups with older men 50+" or whatever, Yahoo will shut it down. Again, minors are still allowed on Yahoo.

Well, well, that sounds nice, but how can you manage to practically enforce this and still allow people under 18? The name thing is stupid on it's own. How will Yahoo know the difference between "my 13th birthday party" and 70,000 perv room names? 70,000 NAMES! That kind of blackout is going to nail legitimate teen and adult rooms too much the same way public library email filters nailed the phrase "panty hose" in my wife's email to her sister. What difference will it make? The pervs will seek children regardless. What this means for Yahoo is more control and less competition.

"Yahoo is stupid, no skin off my nose" you might say and you would be dead wrong. No, Yahoo is huge. If they can be leaned on, anyone can. That means your IRC server too. This is bad news for everyone unless you think you can afford to filter everything.

If you really want to nail pervs, you need to wreck the bot net they hide in. All traffic not hopped through multiple encrypted anonymizers in multiple jurisdictions can be traced. That means get rid of windoze because that's what people use it for.

Re:I'm not sure of that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical sycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or Mepis or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. This is an article about email disclaimers. The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx, because "is teh free".

Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

Here's that drive-by advocacy and FUD in motion: twitter goes on about some topic and then drops the usual "oh and M$ is teh evil" because "WMP phones home" or some such. Called on his FUD, he then claims that WMP stores every song and movie you've ever played in a file, somewhere. Pressed further, he just sort of slithers out of sight, his FUD-spreading complete. This is not about some Microsoft technology that nobody likes anyway; it's about lying for the sake of lying. Way too many of his posts are exactly like this one.

More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one. Or this one.

Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

M

A Parent's Perspective

[acvh]

Recently the head of the local police force's "cybercrime" task force spoke to parents at my son's high school. He shared with us some transcripts of older guys hitting on young girls, and it was very illuminating. The first thing to be aware of is that these "perverts" out there are very good at seduction - not necessarily sexual - and are very convincing at sounding like teenage boys. In addition, he went through a demonstration of how, armed with nothing but the girl's first name and a hobby, he was able to get her full name (google name and cheerleading squad), her address, her father's profession, a picture of her house, and a picture of her. So, a girl chatting with a guy, who can say he's in her hometown, knows her father's dentist office and goes to the same football games, decides to meet this boy down the street at the strip mall. Scary stuff.

Chatting is a way of life for kids these days. That may not be good, personally we restrict our son's activities in this regard, but many parents just see it as an alternative to hanging out at the mall. Surely a kid is safer at home, right?

Blaming parents, especially when you aren't one, for not being aware of all this, is an easy out, but not a productive one. The providers of chat rooms DO share a responsibility for safety. Yes, age restrictions can be bypassed, but it will help. Not all kids are liars. And, for good or ill, Spitzer is very good at increasing awareness of wrongdoing, in many areas. That increased awareness will also help.

It's sad to see those who profess to be freedom loving libertarians here get upset over chat room restrictions, and in the same paragraph advocate sterilization or "parent ability tests".

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[Jesus IS the Devil]

It IS the parents' fault. They live in your house. You buy the computers and the internet connection. If you can't be bothered to watch your own children why should anyone else?

The government is already big enough. Let the parents do the parenting. Can't hack it? Don't bear children.

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[zorak1103]

ever heard of internet cafes?

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[pavon]

Blaming parents, especially when you aren't one, for not being aware of all this, is an easy out, but not a productive one. The providers of chat rooms DO share a responsibility for safety. Yes, age restrictions can be bypassed, but it will help. Not all kids are liars. And, for good or ill, Spitzer is very good at increasing awareness of wrongdoing, in many areas. That increased awareness will also help.

Age restrictions won't help, and it doesn't matter that the kids aren't liers. As you said, chatting is a way of life for these kids. If Yahoo bans them then some of them will lie and keep using it anyway, and the rest will just go somewhere else. If the providers only lets kids talk to kids, then the predators will lie about their age. You are talking about being productive - name one productive way that Yahoo can prevent this from happening. If local kids have a hard time telling the difference between another local kid and a predator, then you can't expect Yahoo to - especially since it will have to be done using scripts and spot checks.

These service providers have the responsibility to report any illegal/dangerous activity that they know about, to keep an eye out for obvious offences, and to cooperate with the authorities in dealing with those cases. And they are already doing this. But they are simply incapable of doing anything to police or prevent the vast majority of problems.

Focusing on blaming people is rarely productive, so it is no surprise that it isn't productive in this case either. But the truth is that while it isn't easy to keep track of what your kids are doing, parents still have far more ability to do so than Yahoo. The productive thing to do is to educate the parents, not rely on the false hope that Yahoo can do anything to help.

cheers

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[Drmgiver]

Ok buddy and *fellow parent*, look, its real simple. Actually no one has a responsibility towards your child but you. Not me, not Yahoo, not the government, and not the tooth fairy, which judging by your entry I am sure you believe in as well. YOU have a responsibility towards your child, I fail to see how anyone else is responsible for your child then you. If you can point out how anyone else is responsible for your child please allow me to ask you, do you live in a blue state? Did you vote for John Kerry? Can the government raise your child better then you can? Because uhhh, its starting to sound like you believe they can. Hey Democrat, GET A CLUE!

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

No guys lets not look at this from a parents perspective I am fifteen years of age and I am about to be sixteen I think that this new chat rule is stupid and that adults are going about this all wrong.

One: Parents should stop living in the stone age and come to see that they cannot prevent their kids from learning how the adult world works.

Two: Yahoo should not allow kids of ages 11 and under to even use messenger but come on I am nearly sixteen years old my mom put enough sense into my head when I was young and I learned from the adult world that when someone IM's me saying I am a 14 year old girl and she wants to get together and have some fun to press the ignore button if teens parents dont have that kinda control over their kids. Than one their kids are out of control and have become adults way to early. Or two you need help from your own mom and dad and you should go to them to go back to Basics on how to raise good children.

Three: We are not a bunch of mindless retards who need to be watched after every trip help us yes we need it but not to the point where you are completely controlling our every move because thats when teenagers really snap.

Re:A Parent's Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope you were kidding about the "fellow parent" thing.....

I guess that I didn't get the memo....

[8127972]

.....That Spitzer was the new Internet Overlord. I thought the US government was fighting for that role?

Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, I don't know, how about face to face with people their own age where they can learn such things as manners, etiquette, constructive dialog,"

And where, pray tell, does this happen?

I mean, aside from some fiction you've read somewhere? I am considerably older than you and I can say for certain such a situation has never existed.

whew!

[clackerd]

boy am i glad that somebody is out there looking out for our kids. that leaves me more time to go about other things, like watching tv. thanks yahoo and eliot spitzer! one day you will both be able to rest easy knowing you saved the children.

Good move

[saskboy]

eBay has had 18+ chat boards since at least 2001, and I think since forever. Since kids can't hold an account until they are the age of majority anyway, it only makes sense.

As a 16 year old kid I tried chat boards for a couple days back when IChat was the new thing. I found the conversation to be vapid and entirely sex related whenever I tried to initiate a conversation. I simply avoided it for the next 6 years, and I'm glad I did, since now I'm stuck posting on Slashdot and eBay for entertainment, when I could be doing more productive things like watching TV or reading the paper. Kids don't need to chat, and shouldn't chat in most cases.

Read the fine print - Yahoo! confirmed it.

[Talaria]

"Yahoo is taking further steps to enhance user safety by restricting Yahoo Chat to users 18 and older and removing the Teen category," said a Yahoo spokesperson.

Before we all attack this idea

[Gekitsuu]

Keep in mind that the people making these decisions are experts and they think long and hard.....they deeply investigate.....they probe into the meat of the subject.....they do studies and research and find insight where as we (the uninformed) can't possibly understand the undeniable logic of this action. I think we should launch many more 'preemptive strikes' in the defense of 'our children' and simply not allow them to leave the home anymore. I mean with west nile virus, mad cow, mad korean, mad Madmartigan, and mad Republican on the loose who knows where danger could come from next.

translation

[42Penguins]

Translation: Yahoo closes chat rooms to anyone CLAIMING TO BE under 18. But then, everyone on the Internet is honest, especially the children.

OK, I'll bite

[Infonaut]

The government is not protecting children. They just sent thousands of 18 year olds to Iraq. They don't give a flying fuck.

Umm... you realize 18 year olds are adults according to the law, right? Also, if they didn't care about American deaths in Iraq, our military would have a much different structure. Essentially, we use technology as a force-multiplier because we are obsessed with preventing American casualties, sometimes to operational detriment.

Yahoo and other organizations are blocking out the group with the most potential to make damaging comments bad enough that the forums can get sued. And if you have seen some of the other public forums, teenagers are absolutely out of control.

I don't see the logic here. Damaging comments? Like what? "Yahoo sux!" ? This sort of teenage chat room behavior has been going on for years. I doubt Yahoo cares, really. They're acquiescing to political pressure.

And no, politicans are not blocking video game violence for kids. They are doing it for their own political agenda.

Oh no! Political agendas! Ahhh, run away! Politicians are pandering to parents, who are also voters. If voters didn't care about this issue, politicians wouldn't be using it as a lever to get votes.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[stor]

Umm... you realize 18 year olds are adults according to the law, right?

According to The-Obviously-Holier-Than-Us-Law maybe. IMNSHO, 18 year olds are KIDS. I wouldn't feel quite right about having a relationship with an 18 year old for instance: she'd be too naive and have little grip on reality.

Do you really think "Right, now this person has turned 18, it's OK for them to die"? Really? If it's OK by The Law, it's OK by you? Hmm.

Essentially, we use technology as a force-multiplier because we are obsessed with preventing American casualties, sometimes to operational detriment.

Not invading other countries would be a whole lot more effective in reducing casualties methinks.

Cheers
Stor

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Infonaut]

The-Obviously-Holier-Than-Us-La

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How is defining an age of majority an adoption of a "holier-than-thou" attitude? Society needs to define the legal age of adulthood. Is there something inherently wrong with this, or do you think the age should be 20, or 21, or some other number?

Do you really think "Right, now this person has turned 18, it's OK for them to die"? Really? If it's OK by The Law, it's OK by you? Hmm.

Actually, I do. I think it's ok for an 18 year old to decide whether they want to join an all-volunteer military and take that risk. You're conflating two issues:

1) When is someone an adult? In my opinion, you need to draw a line somewhere, and the age of 18 seems appropriate to me. Everyone is different. Some 16 year olds are very mature, while some 30-somethings I know still don't run their lives like adults. When do you think people should be allowed to make the decision on their own to join the military? If think the law is inappropriate, when should we legally consider someone an adult?

2) Is there a difference between foreign policy decisions and how the military is structured? Again, in my opinion, there is a difference. The fact that the American public is very concerned about the risks its soldiers face means that the military has relied extensively on technology to minimize American casualties. That is wholly separate from the Bush Administration's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The government is not monolithic. In particular, while the civilian leadership changes radically every four years, most of the rest of the federal government is run by career civil servants. This includes the military.

As for reducing casualties by not invading other countries, a lot of people in government, and in particular in the military, were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Seeing as how we managed to elect Bush II on two separate occasions, I'd say we ought to be blaming him and those who voted for him rather than the government as a whole. He's the mad captain. The rest of the ship isn't all bad.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Eivind]

When is someone an adult? In my opinion, you need to draw a line somewhere, and the age of 18 seems appropriate to me.

It's not "one" line, but a lot of lines. A person isn't either "fully adult" or "100% child", in the real world people develop gradually over years and are given more and more responsibility both by law and by their parents (assuming the parents aren't idiots)

For example, in Norway (other countries have different age-limits, but the general principle is the same) there's quite a few different age-limits, some of which are:

• A person over 12s wish should be (by the court) given significant weigth when it comes to deciding where to live after a divorce.
• A person over 15 can hold own jobs, and are free to themselves spend cash they earn.
• A person over 15 can by themselves join or leave any legal club, organisation or religion.
• A person over 15 can also select which school they'll attend.
• A person over 16 can consent to sex.
• The doctor can no longer inform your parents when you'er over 16. You're free to, on your own, refuse medical treatment, or ask for it.
• A person over 18 can buy tobacco, beer and wine.
• A person over 18 can enter any legal contract, and vote at elections.
• A person over 20 can buy hard liquor, and be prime-minister.

OK, so 18 may be the most significant of these dates, but it's not an "on/off" switch, nor should it be.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[the endless]

The doctor can no longer inform your parents when you'er over 16.

I would hope your parents wouldn't need informing when you're over 16. Forgetting your kid's birthday isn't going to win you any Parent Of The Year awards.

Re:OK, I'll bite

[Eivind]

Very funny :-))

Actually, as I'm sure you understood, I meant the doctor can no longer inform your parents about things you tell the doctor, or things the doctor discovers on his/her own. In other words, you've got the rigth to privacy in medical matters, which isn't true for a younger child: the parents *will* be told whether the child wants that to happen or not if the doctor finds it prudent. (in some situations they're even required by law, for example if a girl under 15 is pregnant. If she is 15-16 it's up to the doctor after evaluating the situation, if she's over 16 he *can't* tell the parents unless the girl consents.)

what I really want to know..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of bang bus, but what is, where can I find, more about this 'ass diver' can't seem to find it?

Just stick to what works...

[SlashyX5]

This is yet another impractical and foolish way to try and keep kids out of adult chat rooms. The internet is not age-proof. If you can log on, you can log in. All you have to do is lie, and if you're kid doesn't have to lie-- congrats, they know better! How about reinforcing some rules and regualtions around the house? All we can do is talk to them, or take away the internet all together but then who is to say they can't log on else where? What needs to be incorporated into adult services of any kind is authentication. ID verification anyone? Yes, it would be a little more work for us, but that's just a small price to pay instead of pouring tons of time and work into some tried and proven unsuccessful method. I really don't think the Internet, TV, or the Radio could ever be completely innoculate. What's next, reading the newspaper? I have an idea, just tell your kids to stay inside, cover their eyes and ears and never go out again!

You could be very wrong.

[twitter]

Because, you know, there are no other chat rooms anywhere else on the Internet.

Sure, You Always Have Other Options (YAHOO). Unless you live in the United States or it's Dominion, which is everywhere with electricity.

What, you think you're favorite chat site has more push than Yahoo? This multiple hundred thousand dollar extortion is just the tip of the iceburg from the American Taliban. Yahoo is going to love being one of the three or four chat sites with Federal Aproval while the rest are shut down as if they were places pervs lurk. Don't forget to kill forums and email, mail, phone calls, cans with strings, hand signals, whispering in public and all that dangerous communications stuff used to seduce young girls and boys every day. And beer, can't have beer.

Next up: Protecting women from dangerous outdoor activities by mandatory dress code. Then the world will be safe from seduction at last.

I've got a 4 year old daughter and I'm more afraid of the New York Attorney General (NYAG) than I am of pervs on her computer. My girl will have sense enough to ignore what she will obviously think of a "gross" comments. She and her friends will resent the intrusion on their conversation, just like they would in Meat Space, aka the real world. Of course, if Yahoo and the extortionists win, there will be no place for her to chat but Yahoo's obviously spammed out hell holes.

How about normal law enforcement instead? You know, punish the one in a million people who have done something harmful instead of the rest of us?

Re:You could be very wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

iceburg

Burg = castle. Berg = mountain.
Eisberg ---> iceberg.

Stupid fuck.

Re:You could be very wrong.

[twitter]

iceburg

Burg = castle. Berg = mountain.
Eisberg ---> iceberg.

Stupid fuck.

The six foot cone sticking out of the AC's ass was just the tip of the iceberg. Thanks for the spell check, my multidialect friendly checker missed it. Oh yeah, you might want to chill out. Thinking all those nasty things will make you a nasty person.

Re:You could be very wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

probably works for M$, too. and uses windoze, too. he has an offensive enslaving mouth, the AC does. do you think maybe bill gates paid him to post that? i wonder, you know? they spend their time trying to offend the luminaries of the free software universe, and you are definitely one of them. let them spend their ill-gotten money, i say. their pyramid scheme will collapse soon (we've known that since 1996) and we all know that free software is teh best and always has been always. it's just the tip of teh iceburg. swishy feet my precioussss.

That about sums up four years of your posts, wouldn't you say?

If children aren't allowed into Yahoo! chat rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

what are they supposed to do when they want to hook up with other children for discreet anonymous sex?

Yahoo Shutting Down Room's

[ChaoticNightmare]

Yahoo Shuting Down Room's Would Just Cause Chaos.. Im 16.. And Honestly I Would Just Make A New Exploit Name Or Something 18+ Just So I Could Go In Chat Rooms N Talk To My Friends.. And In A Few Reply's The People Are Totaly Right The Job Shouldent Be Yahoo's Problems To Protect Children The Parents Should Watch There Own Childs You Cant Throw All The Blame On Yahoo They Do Enough To Try To Stop This Issue The Normal User Rooms Are Gone Which In My Eye's Really Sucks There Are Alot Of People Who Used To Be Regulars In Certain Room's Which Are Now Gone.. And Also Yahoo Is Sitting There Day And Night Patching Boot Codes And Changing Login Servers So People Dont Crack Screen Names.. Dont You Think Yahoo Dose Enough The Issue Is The Parents Not Watching There Kids And If Anything Yahoo Should Look For More Chat Mods Or Something..

x0xll_chaotic_nightmare_llx0x@yahoo.com

Re:Yahoo Shutting Down Room's

[0xC2]

I hate to get personal, but you are a poster child for why teenagers should get off the chat rooms and go outside in the fresh air. Perhaps crack a book or two. I recommend anything written in proper english.

If Yahoo could actually enforce this ban, I would estimate 90% of their chat traffic would be eliminated.

Re:Yahoo Shutting Down Room's

[ChaoticNightmare]

well acualy i use my computer because i enjoy it im in AP College class's to be a x-ray tech and i got all a's in school so your comment was very.. stereotypical and whats wrong with the chat traffic? isnt that what they want? isnt that why yahoo and microsoft are working together for a combined (IM) program? maby you should look farther into this topic instead of just randomly judging people...

"Teen Girls for Older Fat Men"

[Skapare]

When asked why it is they chose to ask Yahoo to make these particular restrictions, Mr. Spitzer responded "That was an easy decision. In our society, teen girls have no civil rights. So they are the ones we have asked Yahoo to keep out, along with the teen boys they are looking for. Older fat men, however, do have civil rights protected by the constitution, and unlike teens, they also have lawyers that could sue my ass. That, and they also pay my salary and fund my department."

now that they have some free time...

[haxr]

they can all go get some "hot coffee"

When they close chats...

[sunwolf]

...everyone will switch to the now-compatible MSN messenger for chats.

Authentication

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to manage this? Good faith?

Are you over 18?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Are they going to use the old Leisure Suit Larry method?

Who was the lead Singer for The Beatles?

[ ] John Lennon
[ ] Jon Bon Jovi
[ ] Barney

Or are they going to use the Credit Card method?

Google : Results 1 - 10 of about 4,720,000 for anonymous credit cards. (0.20 seconds)

Kids are smarter today than we were at their age... instead of a Guy in New York named "Eliot" with 1 "l" telling me what my kids should and should not be doing, how about you leave that up to me. Are there pervs trolling chat rooms? You bet... then again... Nobody ever heard of pervs trolling schoolyards, or candy stores or cruising neighborhoods, or at the beach or the mall or...well I guess I could keep going...

How about you figure out ways to punish the people who prey on children, instead of punishing children for wanting to get online and chat...

You haven't done anything revolutionary here, rust rehased the same old bullshit... my child is 5 years old, I bet she could circumvent Yahoo's security in a matter of minutes... however I would also bet that she is NOT likely to go meet some 50 year old child molester at mcdonalds.... why? Because I have instilled in her that certain value

I think Eliot needs to

#1) Learn how to Spell his own name

#2) Send his daughter to a convent and/or his son to military school (I don't recommend church for the boy, he might get raped there, but we can change that with government instituted religion)

#3) Lock himself away and figure out how he can make TV safer for kids by making me enter a 10 digit code every time TVMA R or AO flashes on my screen (and to rotate the code every 20 minutes so kids won't watch me and figure out the code, like the gay parental controls on my digital box)

Flesch-Kincaid to the rescue!

[morcheeba]

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level?
Just screen the posts.
I am sure. It will screen out. Dudes at low grades.

Only when ...

[Agarax]

... Anonymous Coward's like you get sent to the layer of hell God specially reserved for fuckwits and child molesters.

Re:Only when ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we will end up together then after you are through molesting your son. OOPS, I forgot, fags can't have children.

Re:Only when ...

[stor]

... Anonymous Coward's like you get sent to the layer of hell God specially reserved for fuckwits and child molesters.

Indeed, it is the very same place we send those who misuse the apostrophe.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Only when ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rich, considering you do not even know the basics of english grammar, you fucktard. What is your excuse? Mom was too busy whoring around to teach you english?

Re:Only when ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you realise that I like to use your mom's tongue as my toilet paper. She loves it too. Honest, ask her!

Old Reliable

[petrus4]

I've noticed that whenever politicians want to enact some truly repressive piece of legislation, appealing to paternal instincts works even more effectively than fearmongering about terrorists.

Makes me think that in Bush's recent quest to implement perpetual martial law, he's simply going about it in the wrong way. If he could somehow find a way to tie implementing martial law to protecting kids from paedophiles, he'd probably have no trouble getting it through whatsoever.

Eliot Spitzer decides for everyone

[ehanneken]

What I find most disturbing about this story is that New York's Attorney General is dictating a rule that 1) was not debated or voted on by the New York state legislature and 2) applies to the relationships that Yahoo! has with customers in 49 other states (and presumably other countries).

My solution

[rodgster]

Why not address the source of the problem rather than try to restrict the potential victims.

There have been many instances here in CA of child molesters being arrested by the police who posed as underage children in chat rooms.

I understand this costs $, but isn't it better to interdict the perps before they commit a crime? It's not like the perps cannot find other sources of victims. Isn't it easier to catch perps while sitting at your desk and drinking coffee rather than looking for missing children, interviewing past victims, etc.

Blame Yahoo

[commodoresloat]

It seems that if Yahoo! makes the rule they are implicitly claiming to have confidence that they can enforce it. Does that mean that if a child does manage to get into one of these rooms and gets molested that Yahoo! is partly responsible? I'm sure Yahoo! would say no!, but I could easily see this being a reasonable claim in a lawsuit.

You think you're joking....

[Anonymous Coward]

Children will also not be allowed to play in their yard.

Some people will think that's funny. I've been told by a child welfare officer that children should only be allowed to play in a backyard with a fence higher than 5', with all gates securely locked, and no equipment that would allow the child to climb up onto the fence. Anything less than that is considered child neglect and is grounds for a full investigation that may include removing the child from the home until the situation is rectified.

I was told this as part of the investigation that resulted when my 9 year old walked home from her friends house on the next block.

What's really hilarious about this....

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

...is that the age of consent in New York is seventeen, not eighteen. Seventeen-year-olds are perfectly free to go bang anyone they want -- keeping them out of internet chat rooms isn't going to stop anything.

Given that the majority of the planet (and the majority of U.S. states for that matter) sets the age of consent somewhere below eighteen, it's sort of funny that the internet is treated as somehow different. ...and if the argument is that they have to adhere to the MAXIMUM age of consent to just be safe, they'll need to set it to 21 (Trinidad and Tobago, which has the highest age of consent in the world).

You must be new here

[fistfullast33l]

C'mon everyone, read the (second) linked article

I haven't read an article on Slashdot in months.

Little league fields?

[matria]

So are they also going to close little league fields? That's where Jimmy Rice got stalked, and the killer picked him up at his school bus stop. Are they going to shut down school buses?

Protect our children from imaginary threats ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and ignore the real problem.

Chat rooms are perhaps the most benign form of commune possible. What about real sexual encounters? You know, in reality, with other humans being who are more than an alias and some text?

here's the image

[orson_of_fort_worth]

I don't know who's more pathetic: you, because you've obviously been casing the Amazon underwear ads, or me, because I clicked on the link, noticed that Amazon has apparently taken it down, and then Googled for it and found it here.

sigh.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlaw being under 18. That should solve it.

Seriously, as if American society isn't fucked up enough, now they're trying to not only brainwash kids, but also make it impossible for the few of them with some intelligence and curiosity to see there's a world beyond TV and Ritalin. This country is turning into into diarrhea (shit, but without any solidity), and all the sheep just stand by and watch.

Protect us from ourselves. same BULLSHIT LIE

[Anonymous Coward]

US officials also annouced plans to all public schools to anyone under 18. They made this decision after realizing that child predators often seek places of high concentrations of children, and pose as authority figures. Officials indicated next on the list were daycares and maternity wards. When asked about this decision, officals replied "We need to be vigilant to protect our children and eliminate these hotspots of pedophile activity."

Anyone thinks that any authority figure in the US gives a rats ass about children, needs to do a google search on "depleted uranium babies". Also, take a look at all those "enemy combatants" or "collateral damage" with their faces melted off from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the top dogs of the thug system don't care about children (they sure don't care about civilians in any shape or form), then the military doesn't, and it trickles all the way down. Ever heard of a Youth Detention Center? They are all over the US.

My own story:

At the age of 5, I was interred in a US "school" system... of course, that was a euphamism... for my "(re) education"... I'm not sure what my crime was, I believe they ran a slander game on me and called me "ignorant" and needed to be "educated". I spent 12 years in that hell hole and learned little of value, despite that I barked when they told me to bark, jumped when they told me to jump, and graduated with the highest scholastic IQ test of my class.

I thought I was finally free. All I ever really wanted to be was left alone. Isn't that what everybody wants, to be left alone, to purse happiness as they saw fit.

At the age of 35, happily going about my life, living out in my beautiful country where it was peaceful and quit, totally oblvious of the police state around me, I was accused by some kid talking to her mom in the bathtub that I did something to her. Next thing I know I was on trial for my life. It didn't matter that her story made no sense, it didn't matter that there was no evidence whatsoever to support her BS, it didn't matter that the parents kept porn in the house and both parents testified they never saw any child molestation, or that the girls hymen was still intact and she got a clean bill of health from the doctor, despite her accusation I stuck my finger in her you know what.

It didn't matter? Why? Because we have to protect the children. I suddenly was the witch in a witchhunt. I was the target of another kind of slander game

I was naive. I had no clue what was going on. I went to prison for two years, and it was a psycho hell.

Eventually, I won my appeal, but I had to wait two years (beuracracy) and I won only because I fought back like hell, and never surrendered, even though that place was tearing apart my mind.

you have fallen into another dimension, a well
the other prisoners tell you
you're one of us now
you know i don't belong here, you say
oh if you're here it must me you belong, they say
and even if you tell the truth noone will listen, they say
you know why, because you're a criminal

the more you try to prove them wrong
the crazier you appear
you're invisible now
can you feel it?

these people who set themselves up to judge
do so to cover their own most heinous crimes
and to project power
law has nothing to do with morality
it has to do with projecting power
and internalizing their control over you

i have seen it

I survived
my body did anyway
the rest of me died
i died in that place

locked in room 301
i died spiritually
i died emotionally
i died psychologically

that place was a hell on earth
it is hell as any soviet gulag is hell
as any cambodian prison was hell
as hell as any nazi concentration camp was hell

you try and tell me there is any difference for an american prison and those
i will spit in your face

you tell me the steel is any warmer
you tell me the concrete is any softer
you tell me the barbwire is any mor

wow @ all the blame slinging

[click2005]

As someone who has written chat software and run a chat system, can I just say..

There is NO way to protect children from the dangers of the real world. The best (only?) thing we can do as a society is to try to educate children enough to make their own choice.

On the surface, banning/restricting access to people under 18 might looks nice from a moral/political standpoint, but it will have a minimal effect on the underlying problem.

Even with a Bush/MS/RIAA/eutopian world of a hardware locked(palladium) 1984 society, this will still go on, just as it has before the internet. Contrary to popular belief, pedofiles did exist before the internet and will continue to exist despite whatever restrictions are imposed on free speech/association.

Unfortunately, most people seem to feel throwing blame at someone or something will fix this. IT WILL NOT. I have spend 3 years trying to solve this for my own purposes.

People need to understand that the internet makes communication/access to information easier, it is a gateway, a tool. Despite what politicans/business tells you human nature can NOT be stopped. If you put up a barrier, society will eventually go around it.

While I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way, I also think that minors (who are still people and entitled to the same rights as everyone else) should be allowed to make their own decisions in life.

what follows is a few definitions for those who lack the cognitive ability to process rational thought...

Real world = Everything, not just 'the internet'
Educate = teach, *not* scare/brainwash
Politicans = people who try to force their moral/political/religious views on other people for power, personal or monetary gain.

Re:wow @ all the blame slinging

[frankm_slashdot]

this is another two definitions to add to your list.. unfortunatly im not feeling very compasionate or sympathetic right now...

natural selection gods good way of killing, raping & torturing little girls and boys whos parents didnt properly "educate" them about the "real world" and instead left the parenting up to a "politicians" "legislation". legislation a politicians way of gaining popularity with those who have similar moral/political/religious views by telling the world about them and expecting others to follow them.

hehehe.. sorry man. didnt mean to go so morbid with the natural selection one.. but hey.. its late and im tired...
-f

Re:wow @ all the blame slinging

[rinkjustice]

le I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way...

What a swell guy you are!

I also think that minors (who are still people and entitled to the same rights as everyone else) should be allowed to make their own decisions in life.

I certainly don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. They don't pay taxes, or work full time, they're not parents, nor do they even drive. They haven't accumulated enough life experience to make serious decisions. They still need rules, guidance and boundaries.

Re:wow @ all the blame slinging

[click2005]

le I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way...

"What a swell guy you are! "

You have a problem with that?

"I certainly don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. They don't pay taxes, or work full time, they're not parents, nor do they even drive."

So if someone doesn't pay taxes, drive, have kids of their own or work full time shouldn't have the same rights as you? That includes the unemployed, those working part time, those who choose not to or are unable to have kids and even people who are unable to drive. Anyone else you feel shouldn't have the same rights as you?

"They haven't accumulated enough life experience to make serious decisions. They still need rules, guidance and boundaries."

I never said there shouldn't be rules or boundaries, if you read my post, I said we need to educate children to the dangers that exist.

Re:wow @ all the blame slinging

[rinkjustice]

me: "I certainly don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. They don't pay taxes, or work full time, they're not parents, nor do they even drive."

you: "So if someone doesn't pay taxes, drive, have kids of their own or work full time shouldn't have the same rights as you? That includes the unemployed, those working part time, those who choose not to or are unable to have kids and even people who are unable to drive. Anyone else you feel shouldn't have the same rights as you?

me: Read my last statement again and look at the context. I said I don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. Besides, it's already in effect. Minors can't vote and they don't help make the laws, and minors certainly don't have the life experience and maturity to make wise, long term decisions - even for themselves.

Brodie sez

[isecore]

Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

Re:Brodie sez

[karnal]

Nice Mall Rats ref.

Didn't expect to see that in this thread!

Vaste waste land

[xaosflux]

This descion will mean that all chat rooms will be pretty much empty, after all isn't eveyone in chat a 16/f/ny or 15/f/ca chatter already? Maybe this will help spawn a resurgance of IRC, the first wide-use chat, always lurking in the dark and shady corners of the 'net.

a/s/l

[Anonymous Coward]

22 anytime uranus

all hard core porn

[circletimessquare]

under .xxx

all nonhardcore (even naked breasts)

under .com

what horrible horrible rights infraction have i commited on you by doing this?

and how much easier have i made it for parents, overworked and not having the skillset or time to tinker with firewalls with large black lists and buy filtering software?

so, your answer is, and tell me this again with a straight face: when the parent is not around (working 8 hours, sleeping), the kid cannot use the internet?

is that REALLY your position?

you: go tell that to the parent, and tell that to the kid, and get back to me with your position again, ok?

i'll let THEM inform you of what you are asking of them, for the sake of what exactly?

the horrible horrible imposition of a hardcore porn tld?

ooooh! what an odious rights demeaning exercise!

pffft!

what is so odious about a mandatory tld for hard core porn?

PLEASE, tell me in concrete terms what rights i have infringed upon by doing this?

Re:all hard core porn

[thoth_amon]

Many of the following points have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but certainly putting "porn" into a red-light district has several problems.

The "rights-based" objection is that this is simple discrimination based on content of legal speech. It's like saying if you want to talk about Democratic politics, you can do so anywhere, but if you want to talk about Republican politics, you have to do it over here in this little building on the edge of town. Time-and-place restrictions are valid, but they can't be applied based on the content of speech. You can say _everyone_ has to get a permit to march, but you can't say only KKK members need to get a permit; everyone else can march any time.

Another objection here is that you get the same protection with blocking software, but without censoring everyone else. It's hard to find a compelling interest for the government to do this when equally effective software measures are widely available for your use. (Not that either .xxx or filtering software are that effective; see below.)

Defining hard-core porn itself is a serious problem. Any distinction you make, you will regret. If it's harder to get to .xxx material, people will dance just shy of that mark....technically not porn, but undeniably pornographic in every other way. What have you solved?

But preventing access to porn through technical means is much harder than stopping spam. No one wants spam, but those kids do want porn, which is why they look for it. What are the technical problems with porn-filtering?

Well, first, you can't control international traffic. This is a killer to the .xxx idea.

Next, you can't control the peer-to-peer world. (And what are you going to do when we get peer-to-peer chat systems going?)

Third, how are you going to prevent porn-by-email or porn-by-usenet?

Fourth, you have weird technical problems with IPs themselves. I guess any IP that hosts any porn has to reverse-lookup to a .xxx name? If not, kids can get there using the IP.

In short, the .xxx idea has two killer problems. One, it's unconstitutional censorship of legal speech. Two, it solves nothing but poses as a solution; hence it makes the problem worse by indulging you in a false sense of security. Together, these reasons make a pretty tough argument against the .xxx idea.

I don't have a better solution, either; like I said, it's a tougher problem than spam. It's going to be very-difficult-to-impossible, no matter which way you cut it. If you really want a solution, then as a parent poster in this thread mentioned, don't let your kids on the Internet without supervision. If you're a real control freak, try a keystroke logger. But the first time your kid gets caught with that trick, they're going to the library or Internet cafe to do their illicit chatting. Really.....you can't win. You might as well try to act as an advisor to help your children sort out the issues, rather than a dictator with a long list of rules about what they can't see. The list of rules itself may be the problem; it tells kids exactly what to go research.

Your call, but if you go the dicator route, you're going to have a long, hard road ahead. Good luck; you'll need it.

First step to chat ban

[javacowboy]

Mark my words: Yahoo! will be pressured to ban chatting altogether by various child rights groups. First they got rid of the public user created rooms. Now this "age restriction". It will be condemned as insufficient and Yahoo! will have to follow in MSN's footsteps.

Considering that I met several of friends on chat and went to several real life meeting chat parties, this would indeed be unfortunate.

What will the police do now

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Australia, the police regularly go online, pretend to be 15 then bust people and send them to jail for trying to hook up with underaged people - they have special laws for such things http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi301 t.html/. It is usually accompanied by a whole heap of stuff being released to the press identifying the freak/pervert.

Re:It's about time.

[merreborn]

Back in high school I was going to parties and dating girls.

I might be prone to believing that if it'd been posted anywhere other than slashdot.


At any rate, my point was:

1. There are a lot of ill behaved people in Yahoo chat rooms, from obnoxious teenagers, to pederasts.
2. There is no moderation what so ever to clean them up.

Yes!

[Greyfox]

My regime would do that! Also bring back impaling, dueling code (hand to hand weapons only) and ban all current organized religion in favor of the mandatory state sponsored one, which would involve Smurfs. We'd also require samurai honor code for public officials and corporate upper management. Mismanage a natural disaster or steal the pensions of tens of thousands of people and my regime would allow you to honorably disembowl yourself or be impaled.

I'll be quite liberal with the cabinet positions for early supporters, if you know what I mean...

Re:Yes!

[Feyr]

where do we sign up?

Re:Yes!

[Lucractius]

aside from my loathing of the evil blue things...

where do i sign???

or do i have to challenge you to an honor duel first!

Re:Yes!

[MobKiller]

To quote George Carlin : "It's been too long since we burned someone at the stake !"

Hell yeahhh !

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this Score: 4 Insightful?!

Snooze you lose, this is old news.

[PotatoHead]

Kids are on myspace.com and xanga.com

Strike!

Back to old school...

[kerashi]

Back in the day there was nothing for chat but IRC. In fact, google for Chat and mirc will be the fourth thing you see. So even if Yahoo could stop them from coming in, there's still a large number of IRC networks that are not quite so tightly regulated.

I'm happy

[paulius_g]

I'm happy that they did close down the chat rooms for under 18.

Apparently, none of you have been in a Yahoo! Chat room. Let me sum it up for you:
Yahoo chat is none like IRC. It's because any newbie can actually go into the chat and start chatting. This is why it's always full of weird people.

I've entered some popular rooms on some occasions (General Lounge and Voice chatting) rooms and guess what... Within a few seconds, I received a PM from some guy who asked me "How old are you".

I think that this is proof that something needs to be locked down. I fully believe that Yahoo chatrooms are a popular place for these kinds of people to hang out on.

That was my 0.02$

Musicial Insruments

[Anonymous Coward]

And when my music teacher asks me what I'm playing...

Where will the kids chat? IRC of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The big question is which room do they try first,

#irckidsonly

or

#pervertsRus

Either way it's 500 sexbots, 500 cops pretending to be kids, and 500 cops pretending to be pervs for every real 17-and-under.

I think China already does say no kids in churches

[davidwr]

At one time China said kids were not allowed in Christian churches.

They might've softened that now that they are exercising more control over the churches themselves.

Interesting

[BorgCopyeditor]

I say this in all sincerity, sir. Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when Yahoo asks what age they are, these kids are going to say under 18?

LMAO!

I'm 37 and can honestly say I saw more online porn and hung out in more adult online forums BEFORE I was 18 than after. I didn't understand everything I was reading and viewing but I was there! :-)

Baby. Bathwater.

[Caspian]

You draw your own goddamned conclusions.

I'm outraged at this. Although I've never been much for 'chat rooms' (being a geek and all, I hung out on MU*s for social purposes, whereas a non-geek would use chat rooms or, now, IM), I was very active on Internet-based social systems before the age of 18.

Depriving young people of that just because of the miniscule risk of pedophiles is fucking ridiculous.

People are blowing this "ZOMG INTARNAT PEDOPHILES ARE GOING 2 JUMP UOT OF UR SCREEN AND EAT U!!1111" shit way out of proportion. It's fucking ridiculous. They've even spawned vigilante groups to track down Internet pedophiles. One of their recent "catches" claimed to be 19 himself (and by the photo, he might be so), and was caught trying to seduce a PJ mole masquerading as a 13-year-old girl. The site's visitors seem to think that this guy is the slimiest thing since slimed bread, without once considering the simple facts that:

1) The alleged perp was all of 6 (count 'em) years older than his imagined 13-year-old 'dream girl'. He was a teen himself, for Chrissakes. If 13 + 19 ranks (as of 11:25 PM on October 12, 2005) a 4.68 on a 1-5 scale of 'sliminess', then I must ask this: At what point does it go from 'slimy' to 'okay'? How 'slimy' is a 14-year-old with a 20-year-old? How about a 15-year-old with a 21-year-old? 16 with 22? 17 with 23? 18 with 24? At what point does it go from 'slimy' to 'okay'? Many people are married to people with far, far greater age differences than this guy.
2) Sorry to be blunt, but there are far, far better things to waste one's time on than Internet "pedophiles" going after HORNY TEENAGERS for CONSENSUAL SEX. I've heard the "BUT U CANT GIVE TEH INFORMED CONSENT UNTIL UR 18 LOL!1!1!!111' rubbish a billion times, and I'm not buying it. When I was 13, I was assembling computers and programming; I was certainly capable of comprehending what sex was, and I wanted it very, very badly. As does, of course, nearly every other 13-year-old in existence. Even their mole, playing the part of a 13-year-old girl, responded to an offer of sex with a tease:

wa55up (4:17:02 PM): are u a virgin
nickcater_ismahman (4:17:14 PM): yah
wa55up (4:17:46 PM): are u lookin to change that
nickcater_ismahman (4:18:02 PM): lol maybe

Jesus fucking Christ, this "OMG PEDOPHILES!!11!11!!!11" shit is ridiculous. The other species of the planet got it right in this regard: They mate the instant they get old enough to have a libido, which means puberty. Now, coercing (not seducing, coercing) or, of course, raping underaged kids is a whole different ball of wax, but for fuck's sake, humanity is the only species that cruelly denies some of its horniest members the ability to mate. Some would say that it's because young people would make unwise decisions about sex, but in reality, it's just because of a medieval notion of "morality" that the churches and mosques (and, to a lesser degree, synagogues) of the world have managed to carry with them all the way into this twenty-first century... (This is very similar to people who claim that they oppose homosexuality because it's "dangerous", but in reality, they simply find it "immoral").

God. I'm fucking disgusted at this. This anti-"pedophile" shit is almost as ridiculous and loathsome as the actual, find-a-6-year-old-girl-and-rape-her pedophiles themselves.

I'd say lock the loony anti-pedophile crusaders and the actual rape-a-child pedophiles in a room together somewhere. They deserve each others' company.

Re:Baby. Bathwater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. Don't sit here and tell everyone else what is and isn't geeky behavior.

IRC was invented by geeks and used by geeks every day. Don't give me this bullshit about how not being in a chat room makes you holier than thou.

Re:Baby. Bathwater.

[Caspian]

IRC isn't a 'chat room'.

It's a difference in terminology. If you call the place you hang out in a 'chat room', you're probably not a geek. Even though 'IRC channels' are 'chat rooms' in a sense. The difference between 'chat room' and 'IRC channel' is like the difference between 'screen name' and 'login'. They are a lot closer in meaning than in implication. (In both cases, the implication of using the former exclusively, rather than the latter, implies non-geekiness. Geeks say 'What's your login?'; non-geeks say 'lol whats ur screen name'. Geeks say 'Yeah, I was in #foo', non-geeks say 'i was in teh chatroom'...

'Chat rooms' historically were AOL/other-walled-garden (Compuserve, etc.) things, and now are largely Web-based or proprietary-software-based things. IRC servers, MU*s, and other geekier things are generally not CALLED 'chat rooms' by their denizens, despite technically being 'chat rooms' by a broader definition of the term.

Re:Baby. Bathwater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeks don't go around telling everyone what is and isn't geeky, as if they are a bunch of insecure and immature fratboys trying to cement their elitism by declaring everyone else to be lower than them.

IRC is indeed a chat room. Just becuase you don't call it one does not make you cooler or better than anyone else.

To be geek has nothing to do with terminology.

Go blow it out of your asshole.

Re:Baby. Bathwater.

[Caspian]

I'm an amateur language Nazi. I notice patterns in how geeks talk and how non-geeks talk. A person, for example, who consistently uses terms like "screen name", "chat room", and who says things like "My Internet is..." (instead of "My Internet link is..." or "My pipe is...") is very unlikely to be a programmer or systems admin.

It's just an observation on the use of language by two different groups (end-users and geeks). Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Baby. Bathwater.

[Dunge]

totaly agree... it's pretty normal for kids to want sex at 12-13year old, I did when I was at this age and if they go on chatroom seeking for this that's a way like another, close the chatroom and they'll ask their cousin/neighboard but man let them have fun... the only thing I regret about my childhood is not having sex before I did.

Why stop at chat?

[jahelton81]

Let's just turn the Internet off!! After all, why should parents be held responsible for the results of their bedtime pleasures?

Thank the gods...

[John Pfeiffer]

When they figure out a way to actually make this work, I hope they move on to IRC. Because I really LOVE people /ctcp spamming me thinking they're 'leet hax0rs' and it's a DoS attack, whenever I offend their fragile worldview with ridiculous things like truth or common sense.

I'm a firm believer in anyone under 18 not being allowed internet access except at schools and libraries. There's too damn many children out there making forums and chatrooms into a crappy place to try and converse with other people. (Unfortunately some of these 'children' are infact older than 18, but we'll get those in the next phase. The part where we round up all stupid people, and fire them into the goddamn sun.)

I've really, really, really, REALLY friggin had it with the average intelligence level of internet users these days.

In other news

[EternityInterface]

All technology is getting removed to protect us from paedophiles, terrorists and hackers.

Better Idea..

[kahrytan]

There is better ideas then to permanently block minors from Yahoo! Chat. Here is some examples.

1. Logging of every chat with parental locking to prevent eraser.
2. Yahoo! Parental Controls similar to AOLs. Parents could also pick and choose specific chats minors can join.
3. Password protect chatroom so a parent is with minors at computers.

And for another point of view..

[ThePuceGuardian]

It's.. enheartening, to see the general response the crowd here is making. For contrast, however, there's also a discussion of these events on http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink =1709288fark. Now, of course Mr. Spitzer is campaigning for re-election - see www.spitzer2006.com - and is cynically pulling voters in by the 'We must think of the children!' leash.

I confess here - I'm missing something. I don't understand why this tactic works. It's the parent's responsibility to safeguard his children. Is that a role we want to turn over to an Attorney General? Between this, Terry Schaivo, a rash of child brides making news - I've seen more intrusion by government into family affairs in recent years than in preceeding decades. It couldn't possibly be happening if some people didn't welcome, applaud, and approve of it - and they do; they turn out to support and re-elect the politicians who use this tactic. So, again, I'm at a loss, and genuinely I'm looking for someone to fill in the gaps for me - why does this work so well?

Remember your history, people

[SeaFox]

Come on everyone. This is obviously a result of Yahoo's inpending network merger with MSN Messenger. Remember Microsoft closing all those chat rooms citing safety of children. Micorsoft doesn't want any liability if a MSN messenger user gets involved in something they shouldn't in a Yahoo chat room.

The winds of change are blowing, and Yahoo's already starting to lean.

Re:Yep - well said

[efuzzyone]

Well said. Can the government stop 12-13 year teenagers from having sex? This is nothing but myopic on part of yahoo, and how are they going to enforce it?

We need to be vigilant to protect our children.

[Threni]

So...you protect your children - I don't have a problem with that - and I'll protect mine. But I won't protect them by not letting them use a chat room, because that's dumb.

no big deal at all, really.

[nilbog]

the chatrooms at sexoffender.com and iswearimnotapedophile.com are still open to everybody.

Where will they chat now?

[tod_miller]

Out in the park, in the fresh air, and don't worry about them running into 'hey kid, want some candy?' types, in a new agreement, the parks commission has closed all parks to anyone under 18, and to anyone not wearing a trenchcoat and hat.

Gotta make sure they are safe! If you can't police, then just ban people from the streets.

Seriously, I don't blame yahoo! I wouldn't want the cost and worry to ensure the < 18's can chat safe - who gives a shit about those twerp kids, let them play neopets, or something.

The route of the word Pesky - is it from baseball? *thinks*

hrm.

please type the word in this image: nonlocal

random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Slashdot - hosting the most remarkable random letter generator in the world, with its uncanny talent, monkeys could write the complete works of shakespeare in under a week!

SlashParents

[Deliveranc3]

I love Slahdotters, they think it's so cut and dried, it'll be easy.

I will hook my children up with monitoring devices that will accuratly show me everything I need to be a good parent.

What's worse is there doesn't seem to be any feeling in the Slashdot community that they need to balance the kids freedoms or treat them as human beings.

Re:SlashParents

[P0lyh34)]

thats why YOU personally monitor what your kids do on the net. For multiple reasons, first off the law is unenforcable, second, its your job to police those crotch droplings, not us, nor the courts, nor the poilice even. Of course your going to tell us that you work too much to do that and don't have the time, which means you shouldnt' have had kids and have breed irrersponsibly, making pretty much a scum bag.

Way to hell is made by good thought actions

[Pecisk]

Sorry, I don't see how it will protect children, how it will protect them in REAL life, nor I see any sense of WHY they should do it. Way to break forbidden rules is easy one - just do it. And guess what - children LOVE to break forbidden rules. Because they want to know why.

But in this time, they will get confused.

What a heck, of course, better don't learn them anything, make better sheeps for all consumer system.

Yes, I'm ranting, but my common sense says that all this is totally off the way.

Heh..

[Pawsaldo]

If these people get their way, soon under 18's would be banned from the internet. But that can't be too bad can it? :P

No. That's not realistic.

[raehl]

And it's also probably not healthy.

You need to take the time to educate your kids about th ekind of thigns they could encounter online, and then you're just going to have to accept that your kids are going to be hit up by a pedophile at some point and also accept that since you've taken the time to train your kids how to deal with the situation that they will handle it, on their own, accordingly. Kids, especially 13 and up, are perfectly capable of handling the internet as adults when properly prepared.

Properly raising kids isn't a matter of making sure they never encounter a potentially dangerous situation. It's PREPARING them so that they can avoid dangerous situations on their own, or behave in a manner that a potentially dangerous situation isn't dangerous anymore.

If you don't do that, all you get is a very gullible, naive 18 year old who becomes a walking victim.

When I was 9

[themusicgod1]

My family's computer was located *in the kitchen*, where my family ate dinner, where my dad would be watching television, and where my mom was cooking, or doing a puzzle or something. If I had accessed any 'inapropriate' material then, it would have had to have been right under the eyes of either one of my parents or one of my siblings. I'm pretty cocky, but at 8 I was nowhere near that cocky. It's usually only when a child has a more or less private computer that they start getting into trouble. (Just like it's only when youth can have physical privacy that they tend to fuck--but they can be are really good at finding that sometimes).

Secondly I have a seen a rule that I think needs to be used more.
If I ever have a child, and at 8, they can build a computer from spare parts, load the operating system, load the packet drivers, find a proper network cable, open a network connection, and continue to load something more graphical than lynx, then they are ready to look at whatever porn they want if they so choose to, communicate with whatever pedophile they chose to, or anything else they chose to. Unassisted by the parent except perhaps via a small allowance, and help with certain basic hardware and network theory. They should be warned before they connect to the internet that there is a lot of both dangerous people, stupid people, and things wierder than could be previously imagined online.
I reached that stage somewhere around 17. The child should know not to trust strangers long before that age, although this part might just be needless paranoia on my part. I don't trust people and that has really haunted me in my life and politics.

Now that being said, I want to avoid telling everyone how to raise their kids; do whatever the hell you want, but this approach employs a fairly decent test on the childs development, and is not utilized nearly enough.

MOD PARENT +6 INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

God Damn! Mod parent the fuck UP!

Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you close the user-created rooms and force all the perverts into the normal rooms, what do you expect to happen?

Well, here's the logic for you

[Moraelin]

The idea in both cases is whether you're responsible enough to be entrusted with taking that decision. That's all.

So it's not that there's any similarity between being a soldier and being drunk, and noone was making that kind of a connection. The thing that _is_ common is that you're taking a decision for yourself. In one case you take the decision that it's OK to go get shot, in the other case you take the decision that it's ok to drink a beer.

And the government basically says that at a given age, simultaneously (A) you're mature and informed enough to decide to sign away many months of your life, and to risk death and injury, i.e., a _major_ decision, but (B) you're not mature and informed enough to deal with a minor choice that'll affect you for maybe 2-3 hours at most.

Additionally, you're considered mature enough so under high stress and pressure, and while having a gun and ammo, you'll take intelligent life and death decisions. Because that's what war is all about: split-second life and death decisions, at a time when you're soaked in adrenalin. But at the same time you're considered too immature and too dumb to deal with having a slight alcohol-induced buzz.

And if someone's really too dumb to control their actions after a beer as an unarmed civilian, what happens when they find some alcohol to drink during a war? Aren't they just as irresponsible now, only now they also have a loaded weapon and some grenades?

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[cheekyboy]

Most likly the country you are fighting or the foreign land you are stationed in has a sensible 18yo drinking age.

But let me say, its not the RIGHT TO DRINK of that age, its the RIGHT TO BUY drinks.

In australia, and im sure in usa, its perfectly legal to drink with your parents below the 21/18 age limits.
16yos are allowed to be served alcohol at weddings, aslong as they had food and their parents approve.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they had a "boot camp" for the consumption of alcohol I would agree with your argument. The United States does not send untrained 18 year olds into combat so why should we send them into a bar (or worse a car) when many (not all) are unable to handle the responsibility unsupervised. In the military, they will go through a long "supervised" process where they will be trained and evaluated on their ability and maturity prior to entering any combat situations. We don't hand them a gun and send them off to battle two days after they arrive.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[sjwaste]

I'm not sure about the US as a whole, but I've lived in NJ and VA, and both concern the right to consume. In fact, during my first year of college, I got cited by an officer for underaged possession of alcohol and I didn't even have anything in my hands. The fact that I had consumed any (without so much as a breath test, mind you) was good enough for them.

Here in the US, most parents I see won't even give their kids a sip. I'm Italian-American, so growing up it was never a big deal for me to have some wine with a meal or a beer with a pizza. I suspect most other parents would've been outraged by this.

You have to understand, in the US, parents ignore their kids a lot, and feel better when there are "rules" in place to govern their childrens' behavior. It's less that they feel they have to do. Then they wonder why their kids failed out during their freshman year of college. Too much comfort in the fact that they "couldn't" drink, but never actually admitting the fact that they would. Therefore, teaching responsible drinking never happened. I'm not saying this happens to everyone, but I'll tell ya, I know a lot of smart people who failed out of college at some point during my 4 years.

America's full of nieve (sp?) parents when it comes to alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, basically any of the "vices" that their kids are probably going to experiment in, regardless of what the law says they can do.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[F_Scentura]

Of course, its a combination of (in no particular order) MADD's political neotolerance stance, parents' naive prevention of children from any *healthy* interactions with alcohol (wine or the occasional beer with dinner) and to a lesser extent advertising and certain twelve-step attitudes that creates the US's unrealistic taboos and obsession with alcohol.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[charmstr]

Yeah, it's either that or maybe it was hard-earned experience of the 70s and 80s when the drinking age WAS 18 in the United States.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[F_Scentura]

Perhaps you would like to explain how letting a child under 18 (or 16) have a glass of wine with a meal in a trusted family environment will necessarily lead to any of the claims those with "hard-earned experience" may make.

Hint: The most effective cultural prevention for alcohol abuse provides for strong social stigma on public *drunkenness*, not for public consumption of alcohol.

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[HappyDrgn]

In virtually all states that I've been to, it's the right to drink, not just the right to buy. In some states it goes a little bit further than that too, in California and Arizona for example, if you're buying liquor at a store not only does the store need to see your ID, but anyone else you're with. They of course won't bother me when I have my two year old son, however, last week *I* could not buy a beer because my wife (whos over 21) left her purse with her ID in the car... and she does not even drink beer! Of course we where told to go back to the end of the line if we where going to wait for her to go outside and get it (we left our groceries there and went to another store.)
 
Some of the newer stores actually have these scanning devices where they swipe your ID through the machine, About a year ago I was denied a purchase because my ID was bent and would not scan... even though it's clearly indicated on the front of the card my birthdate!
 
In retrospect this puts into perspective America's obsession with assinine regulation...

Re:Well, here's the logic for you

[rasqual]

All volunteers for military service are carefully vetted in boot camp and subsequent training, and a determination is made whether they're indeed responsible enough for the job. This is not true of the larger cohort of people that age in the civilian world, who might be considered candidates for drinking privileges. If the law says they can drink, they're not vetted by anyone to determine whether they're responsible enough to avoid driving under the influence, and so forth.

From a standpoint of protecting society, the apparent presumption is that since you can't vet the entire cohort, you have to pitch to the median and pick an age where the number of lunatics is acceptable.

Give me a vetted drunk soldier any day, at my back, over some lamer civilian frat boy. That's comin' from 8 years of service among, sometimes, drunken sailors.

Allow me to annihilate your misguided argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a pretty misinformed person. Where do I begin?

"The idea of man being steeped in violence is largely lacking in evidence prior to the city states and predicated on the view that we must be violemt because other primates (and therefore occur primate ancestors) are violent. Which they largely aren't."

Ah huh. I guess that is why there is a huge amount of evidence out there that says otherwise. Perhaps you should do some reading?

See below for primates.

"Also, you misunderstand the use of violence in animal status. Real physical harm for many, probably most, animals is a last resort. If you lose a contest to a superior male, you don't feel dissed and come back with a pair of nines, you walk away. You do, however fight the next male that tries to capitalise on it. Or lose out big time as you indeed state. But often it never comes to a fight. It's called posturing. The idea that violence as a retort to loss of status has some historical basis is bilge."

Bzzz. Wrong. Thanks for playing. Status, reputation, and honor are far from trivial. A loss of status could have been catastrophic in the currency of survival and reproduction. Please see here and here for more proof of this.

"Evidence? Like I said, apes and other simians are less prone to intra-species violence than we currently are, and the emphasis in a contest is often not on actual violence. You're following old science."

Once again you are misinformed and it is you are that are following old science without an ounce of evidence to back up your pathetic statements. Chimpanzees regularly form coalitions to raid neighbouring territories. Please read this, this and this.

It sounds like you who is the one following the old science.

Re:Allow me to annihilate your misguided argument

[gorash]

get the stick out your ass and grow up. talk about someone low on the social chain trying to posture to get up higher..

Asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate you.

Re:Asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that would have come across as funny as it did to me to everyone else if you hadn't omitted: '... dad'.

Bogus Report? Teen Chat Rms Still up and running

[bookhappy]

Don't know what's up but if you look up Yahoo Teen Chat those places still exist.

Ah, journalism bullshit at its finest

[Moraelin]

"The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child"

I took the liberty to highlight a key word there: it's a playground, not just any park. So far from being a case of "waah, absurd regulations forbid adults from sitting in parks", it's more of a case of "WTH was an adult doing on a children's playground, if they have no kids, anyway?" No, seriously.

It's not like anyone forbade her from entering parks generally. I'm sure if she just wanted to sit down on a bench, there were other parks in the area.

So what we really have there is just a case of sensational journalism making it sound like something it wasn't. "Stranger Ticketed For Being On Kids' Playground Without Kids" wouldn't have sounded outrageous enough. But phrase it like someone was ticketed for just being in a park, and voila, you have a story that sells.

Do you actually want a bunch of adult strangers hanging around your kids at the playground anyway? I'm sure every parent has told their children to not talk to strangers. It's not stuff that's new. Stories like the Grimm Brothers' "Hansel and Gretel" are about just that: a way to tell kids "stay away from strangers, they might want to kill you." It's a story from 1812 AD, i.e., almost two hundred years old, long before the Internet, Republican-vs-Democrat political games, or pedophiles in chat rooms hype. And people still didn't want their kids to play with strangers or take gifts from strangers. Go figure.

Yeah, yeah, presumption and innocence and all that, and maybe that stranger is just a kind old lady or gentleman that just loves children... but chances are that if you have a kid, you didn't tell him or her "if a stranger offers you candy, and wants you to get into his car... go for it." And if your kid is at the playground, whether with you or not, chances are that you're under the assumption that he/she will play with other kids his/her age, not with adults.

So basically we have a rule that says, in a nutshell, "this playground is for children. If you're not a child or accompanying your own child, stay out." What is unreasonable about it? Seems to me like just what I'd expect from a playground.

" but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule"

And here it's where it starts to sound suspiciously like a crap case of discrimination to me. Exactly what do they mean by common sense? Women are ok, men are automatically pedophiles?

How about just keeping all adults off the children's playground anyway? I'm pretty sure that not many parents are much more thrilled about their little Dick and Jane playing with a stranger woman than with a stranger man.

I'm sure there have been plenty of abductions where a woman was involved. And let's also note that the witch in the "Hansel and Gretel" story is a woman. Yes, it's a fictional character, but for a story whose main purpose is teaching young ones to not take candy for strangersm nor come in when a stranger invites them, it does say that they didn't think "ah, but if it's a woman, it's ok. Then take the candy and go into her house. Only men are dangerous."

Re:Ah, journalism bullshit at its finest

[danila]

Ah, those Americans and their strange ideas about freedom. I grew up in Soviet Union and I knew that I can go wherether the fuck I want to. When I was 4 years old, I took my girlfriend (yes, I had one when I was 4 years old, although we didn't kiss or anything, only held hands) and decided to go across the city to my grandparents (about 10-15 kilometers, no big deal). Sadly, we were stopped by policemen (militiamen) on the second or third street crossing, who politely enquired, where two 4 year old kids are going all alone. :-)

We were taken to the militia station, where I got to play with guns and some other stuff (I still remember a book with a cut-out for a gun inside). It was so fun I am afraid I even forgot about the girlfriend. :) Anyway, the militia found our parents and drove us back home with the police lights on. :) True story.

My point with all that is that the sense of freedom you get living in the USA is wonderful. You can't do that in a mall, you can't do that in subway, you can't do that in a park, you can't go here, you can't sit there, you can't do this, you can't do that. And since pretty much everything is private property nowdays, the owners have every right to stop you from doing anything (and call the police). And of course, the local governments do not lag behind. Only in the US can they prohibit you from making a photos of a public monument (Yes, Chicago, I am talking to you).

Really, living in the Soviet Union was heaven compared with the modern police states of the US and the UK. Too bad you Yanks had to destroy my country. :( That it wasn't the only country you destroyed is not a consolation.

Re:Ah, journalism bullshit at its finest

[Maltheus]

That doesn't mean the Soviet Union was a bastion of freedom. It just means that Americans have no idea what freedom actually is and that we live in Orwell-land. Hell, we've even hired the former head of the KGB, General Yevgeni Primakov, to consult for homeland security. Homeland security also has General Alexander Karpov, former KGB station chief, on its payroll. Just the fact that it's call "homeland" security should be a tippoff to anyone who's ever watched a dystopian sci-fi movie or read any history (fatherland, motherland and now the homeland). Our homes can now be confiscated at will. People are locked away, not being allowed to contact lawyers or even family members to tell them where they "disappeared" to. The only bill Bush is threatening to veto (in his entire presidency) is one that restrains the use of torture. We now invade countries that haven't done anything to us and cannot even be construed as a threat. Elections are routinely rigged (on both sides of the aisle). We have a greater percentage of our people in prison than in any other country. The media might as well be state run, given their obvious bias. The list goes on and on. I don't think it's even open for debate any more whether we represent freedom or tyranny. That doesn't mean that other countries represent freedom, it just means that we're big ole hypocrites.

The Soviet police may have not locked you up as a four year old, but they sure would have if you were a threat to the party. Europeans have given up their sovereignty to unelected EU officials. You're barely allow to surf the web in China. God help you if you're a Palestinian in Israel. Every country is run by evil people who want to take away your freedom. You don't need a government to give you freedom, it's a natural state. The only purpose of government is to take it away. Everyone thinks their shit don't stink. Like the British who always complain about the Iraq war to Americans when they're there in Iraq as well. You gonna tell me you actually trust Putin?

I would move from this country if there were somewhere to move to. But I don't find freedom anywhere I go (or even read about). I do feel safer around police in other countries than I do here. The always have these hate-filled scowls over here and there are so freaking many of them. But I don't see how I'd live any freer somewhere else. That's unfortunate. The first country to rediscover freedom will see a massive influx of the world's best and brightest who've had nowhere to go for so long now. Too bad we've run out of space.

Re:Ah, journalism bullshit at its finest

[danila]

Hell, we've even hired the former head of the KGB, General Yevgeni Primakov, to consult for homeland security.
Not head of the KGB, head of the external intelligence service.

The Soviet police may have not locked you up as a four year old, but they sure would have if you were a threat to the party.
I know that many people beleive that, but it wasn't true. Read about Sakharov, read his memoirs and the memoirs of his investigator (it's the best example of how far from reality this vision of "threaten the party, go to Siberia" is). When you were a threat to the country (not the party), you were asked to stop. Then asked again. Then some pressure was put on you at your workplace. If you ignored all that and insisted on doing something that threatened (or outright harmed) the country, you may have been tried in a court and punished according to the law.

There is nothing wrong with being locked up if you are a threat to the social order, as long as the criteria are just and well known to everyone. For example, I would have not be allowed to distribute American anti-Soviet propaganda in the Soviet Union. If I did, I risked going to jail (although the initial punishment would likely have been lighter).

The most importnt thing is that in Soviet Union I would have been (and was) free to do pretty much everything that I wanted. The limitations were there (total freedom is anarchy), but they weren't encountered by normal people (normal people didn't actively work to destroy the socialist order). I wouldn't be randomly shot in a subway, fined 1000$ because I sit on a bench in the playground without a kid, or fined 10000$ for downloading an MP3.

In real, everyday terms Soviet Union was the freest place there ever was. Much freer than any country today. I would love to find a place where I would be free, but I don't really see many choices. Holland or Switzerland might be ok. Or, alternatively, Cuba, Vietnam or Belarus... But all these options have their shortcomings.

Are you 18?

[chivo243]

Are you online, have you ever been asked for your age when signing up for an IM account? I haven't... I have 5 accounts.... Hmm :-/

Re:Are you 18?

[JohnCub]

Typically there is the "I am at 13 years old or older" checkbox.

I set up a hotmail and yahoo account for my son and they both required I enter my own information as well as a credit card number to verify I was of legal age.

He still gets v1agr4 and c1ali5 spam though. I think they should have to do something about that. His member will increase in size without drugs. He's only 5, he has plenty of time to grow.

MOD DOWN - Read comment to see why

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of this guys arguments are refuted in this post. Especially the points on other species use of violence.

His other points are rediculous. He says "Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of king and country." Throughout what history? The tiny bit of civilized recorded history? There is more to the history of violence than that. In relation to this comment "Enough with your atavistic recourse to murder." Where does the GP state that he is recoursing to murder? And this statement, in regards to social status, is enough to make me believe the guy is trying to get a rise out of everyone as he did to another AC: "And I'm guessing most us on slashdot would be somewhere near the bottom."

Re:MOD DOWN - Read comment to see why

[Damer Face]

> The majority of this guys arguments are refuted in this post.

Refuted by some links? Did we follow the links? To irrelevant books about modern-day chicago and how native americans weren't very good at ecology and started killing each other off long before the Europeans turned up?

Did we follow the links to books on Amazon which contain such gems as:

Reviewers with scientific training have no kind words for The Murderer Next Door. The author's investiture in the controversial field of evolutionary psychology--which posits that human behavior is the product of evolution--leads him to assert that homicidal fantasies are more common than the reader might believe, and smacks of self promotion. While Buss's argument is internally consistent, his premise runs counter to established anthropological and biological studies. Readers unversed in those sciences might receive Buss's claims about homicide's roots more openly, and find them both credible and disturbing.

And:

The problems come with LeBlanc's exaggeration and sometimes shaky scholarship (on which see exchange of letters in ARCHAEOLOGY for Sept.-Oct 2003) ... All this would be trivial if it weren't for the very strong possibility that LeBlanc's book will be misunderstood, by superficial readers, as a claim that "savages" are the treacherous, destructive bloodthirsty, violent, cruel, endlessly-warring beasts that they were said to be in all the earlier literature--from Thomas Hobbes to Hollywood cowboys-and-Indians movies.

> Especially the points on other species use of violence.

One species: chimps. In one location: Gombe. High levels of violence only observed some years after humans started interfering with their lives on a grand scale. The environmental peculiarites of the situation notwithstanding.

Have we considered the criticisms of the "Demonic Males": anthropomorphizing animal behaviour; inductive reasoning; dismissal of evidence that doesn't fit their thesis; interference with the subject. Bad science throught and through.

> He says "Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of
> king and country." Throughout what history? The tiny bit of civilized recorded
> history? There is more to the history of violence than that.

Compare the world's human population now to 2000 years ago to 50,000 years ago.

what's the point?

[ALpaca2500]

does anyone over 18 even use yahoo chatrooms?

Solution to your problem

[Compulsion]

"violence never solved anything"

If you're having that problem, you're not using enough violence.

Who needs parents?

[Wolf2989]

Who needs parents when you have the New York Attorney General on your side!! WooT!

What I would do

[Anonymous Coward]

I would require each user to apply with a REAL paid-for email address, and I would exclude Yahoo addresses right up front. Free email is one of the tools predators use to hide their identity. Then I would put them through a questionaire. When they are contacted via email, the would have to remember things that were
NOT on the questionaire. :) Things that would be specific regarding stuff that happened on their 18th birthday. The next day , they may have been too drunk to remember much, but simple stuff, like who was President when they turned 18, coupled with their questionaire answers. Kids have little grasp on reality, adults have only slightly better. Witness the idiots they vote into public office.

Then I would ask for a credit card number whose information matches the information given in the application. How many kids have credit cards? Yeah, there are tons of numbers floating around, but how many are actually valid?

The smurfs are dead!

[waif69]

Didn't you see the news, the UN bombed the smurfs village and killed them. Way to go UN, you finally found your role in world politics! http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/10/11/uni cef.smurfs.ap/

The truth is we're just ugly,

[crovira]

lazy, poorly dressed, have no social graces or even a passing acquaintance with personal hygene.

You can put the scalpel down. Its not necessary.

Damn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where am I going to pick up underage girls now? :(

As a former door-guy at a bar...

[HWheel]

I used to work at a bar (in Ann Arbor, MI, oddly enough) and whenever I thought someone had a fake ID, I had back-up questions, too:
- Zip code (If they looked at me like "why are you asking me this?" it was usually a better response than an eyes-looking-upward memorized response.)
- What sign are you? (Now you have to remember "your" birthday and figure out the sign.)
- What year did you graduate from High School? (I could usually do the math faster than they could.)
- And usually a bit of minor chatter - "My boyfriend lived there, what high school did you go to?"

You're half right

[dptalia]

Certain playgrounds in New York have banned adults without children....

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child. Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start. Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.

The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule.

The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.

So handicapped will be bottom of your heap

[Ungrounded Lightning]

My regime would do that! Also bring back ... dueling code (hand to hand weapons only)

So in your society the body-beautiful jocks will be able to get away with anything and the weaker, less coordinated, and handicapped better knuckle under, or be challenged to a duel they can neve win.

No, thanks.

Challenged party gets to chose weapons. ANY weapon that doesn't do colateral damage to third parties.

Sniper rifles.

Shotguns.

Two hotdogs, one injected with samonella, one with yogurt culture.

Chalenger does NOT get to call the game.

Try to bring back dueling on your "no firearms" terms and you'll find out one thing about dueling with firearms: When a tyrant imposes his will in such a manner, no challenge is necessary.

---

"Colonists win the toss! English army has to wear read suits and can only shoot when lined up in rows. Colonists get to wear brown-and-green and shoot from behind trees."

Re:So handicapped will be bottom of your heap

[buck_wild]

"Two hotdogs, one injected with samonella, one with yogurt culture."

Bravo, well said.

I would close them for people **over** 18

[ysegalov]

It is better for at least two reasons: 1) old people will not seduce children 2) old people will stop wasting their time But hey, we are those old people )-:

Isn't this just perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, the gov't is supposed to protect everyone, everywhere at all times. Everyone should have some sort of personal government bodyguard. All the time. We should all pay for it. I mean, who needs any after-tax income if the government provides everything.

Why bother working?

No real reason to. Just live off of "the rich man".

Liberals should love this. Really. Gotta protect the kids. Make sure they don't scuff themselves, or break a bone. So require that if your kid runs, they have to wear a helmet and pads. If your kid is online, make sure it's only on a hitler^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment approved computer with special monitoring software to make sure they're safe. Cradle to Grave, socialism at its best.

And, the other comment about kids lying about their age was a good point. The only way to help curb this abuse is to get rid of the problem. Make judges accountable for their actions when they let people like that out of jail on bail. They need some cruel and unusual punishment for what they've done.

Just FYI

[Moraelin]

"Too bad you Yanks had to destroy my country. :( That it wasn't the only country you destroyed is not a consolation."

Actually, you know what? I'm not a "Yank", and I've been even known to piss off the "Yanks" occasionally, but it's sorta heart-warming to see that they don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

Get this: it wasn't the Americans that destroyed your country. The Americans didn't do anything to you, and even sold you pretty much anything you wanted to buy. E.g., grain. Yes, most of the bread you ate in the Soviet days was made from American grain.

Your country was destroyed by your own Communist Party officials. While other countries invested most of their funds in industrial research and modernizing the industry, the CCCP invested almost everything in the army. That's why you fell behind.

See, you had more army than the whole NATO put together. Very modern army too. You had so much army that western Europe shit its pants when Reagan announced the SDI (a.k.a. "Star Wars") programme: with the USA no longer needing Europe to keep the URSS in check, there was a distinct possibility that the USA would just let Europe deal with the URSS on its own. And the estimation was that the military disparity was so insane, that western europe as a whole would lose within a couple of weeks.

But that army came at the expense of your industry. The USA evolved by investing in more/better industry, and having the military expenses as a very small percentage of their GDP. The USSR invested everything they could in more army, and your industry stagnated. By the 1980's your industry wasn't in that much better shape than in the 50's.

You could have been an industrial power equal to the USA. But your supreme soviet decided you'd rather be a military behemoth, even at the expense of stagnating as an economic power.

That, in a nutshell is what "destroyed" your country. It wasn't the Yanks, it wasn't even communism, it was just idiotic mis-management of the economy by your own leaders.

Re:Just FYI

[danila]

Actually, you know what? I'm not a "Yank", and I've been even known to piss off the "Yanks" occasionally, but it's sorta heart-warming to see that they don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

Look, this is not directed at you or at anyone personally. I expect fellow slashdot users to actually "get" what I am saying, because I can't afford to spell everything out.

Get this: it wasn't the Americans that destroyed your country. The Americans didn't do anything to you, and even sold you pretty much anything you wanted to buy.
I am not dumb. I know that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a result of many different factors. However, sometimes I simplify things.

E.g., grain. Yes, most of the bread you ate in the Soviet days was made from American grain.
Nope. Imported grain amounted only to few percent of total grain consumption. And most of the imported grain was used to feed cattle, because it was perceived that the share of animal proteins in the diet of Soviet citizens should be increased. However, manipulators can twist any fact to fit their agenda.

Your country was destroyed by your own Communist Party officials.
To some extent this is true.

While other countries invested most of their funds in industrial research and modernizing the industry, the CCCP invested almost everything in the army. That's why you fell behind.
Soviet Union had the world highest R&D spending as a percentage of GDP - slightly more than 4%. Soviet Union invested heavily in industrial research and modernizing the industry. It is a popular claim that Soviet Union wasted everything on military research, but there is no evidence to back it. Soviet Union had strong capability in most industrial fields. How many other countries you know, for example, that developed a supersonic passenger jet (the correct answer is that there was no other such country). Soviet research was exceptional - the list of startling achievements would take volumes. You just look around here and see things that would be impossible to build without strong industrial research.

See, you had more army than the whole NATO put together. Very modern army too. You had so much army that western Europe shit its pants when Reagan announced the SDI (a.k.a. "Star Wars") programme: with the USA no longer needing Europe to keep the URSS in check, there was a distinct possibility that the USA would just let Europe deal with the URSS on its own. And the estimation was that the military disparity was so insane, that western europe as a whole would lose within a couple of weeks.
The army was large, indeed, but military spendings as a percentage of GDP were not extremely high. Furthermore, there were no other options for the Soviet Union, given that the United States was busy waging the Cold War against it. Parity with the NATO was the only option.

But that army came at the expense of your industry. The USA evolved by investing in more/better industry, and having the military expenses as a very small percentage of their GDP. The USSR invested everything they could in more army, and your industry stagnated. By the 1980's your industry wasn't in that much better shape than in the 50's.

This is simply nonsense. I don't mean to offend it, because I know how people get manipulated to believe even more outlandish ideas, but this is simply retarded. Take any economic indicator and compare the figures in 1950s and 1980s. What you said is not just not true, it's completely, totally and utterly bogus. The Soviet economy experienced constant growth up until the very year 1990. Soviet economy in the 1980s was extremely capable and strong. I wouldn't be able to create stuff such as reusable space place otherwise, would it? And it was hardly the only achievement.

You could have been an industrial power equal to the USA. But your supreme soviet decided you'd rather be a military behemoth, even at the expense of stagnating as an economic power.
Well, we were an industrial power. W

Re:Just FYI

[Moraelin]

"How many other countries you know, for example, that developed a supersonic passenger jet (the correct answer is that there was no other such country)."

You mean there was no such thing as the Concorde? Heh. Dude, I'll tell you what I tell the Americans too: please don't get your "facts" about other countries purely from propaganda.

"The army was large, indeed, but military spendings as a percentage of GDP were not extremely high. Furthermore, there were no other options for the Soviet Union, given that the United States was busy waging the Cold War against it. Parity with the NATO was the only option."

There's a fine line between parity and having 2-3 times the army of the whole NATO combined. We're talking countries combined which had more than twice your population, and an order of magnitude more powerful economies.

"Well, we were an industrial power. What was it that we didn't have? May be an extremely reliable and efficient Unified Energy System, unlike anywhere else in the world? May be advanced nuclear energy industry? Or a powerful aerospace industry? Or a huge machine-building industry, making every possible machine? Or a chemical industry? Petrochemical industry? What was that industry that the Soviet Union didn't have?"

Not enough of either of them per capita, that's what you didn't have. Your industry divided by the population lagged behind more and more. And it was more and more lagging behind technologically, as in: more and more of what you produced was lower tech. Which is really why it lagged. All while military spending per capita was growing higher and higher.

Yeah, technically you had a bit of every industry, but in some cases after you subtract the part that was producing or researching exclusively to support the army, you're left with... well, let's put it like this: _technically_ you had some, in the same way as I _technically_ have an agriculture, because I have a couple of potted plants on the balcony.

At some point, Gorbachev found the country in a position where it just didn't have enough industrial capacity (after subtracting all the expenses) to keep up with the NATO any more. That's why he, and most of the supreme soviet for that matter, rushed to suddenly play nice and democratic. Because there just wasn't enough industrial capacity left to keep up the old "we can bury you all" game and facade.

So if you don't believe me about the state of the industry, hell, I guess you can argue that with them too, then. Because it didn't look more viable to your own supreme soviet either.

"Not to mention that all that was done without exploiting Third World countries"

So I guess you didn't plunder the resources of the whole Eastern Europe after WW2, right? I happen to know first hand that whole countries were not just drained of some mineral resources to support the URSS economy, but in a couple of cases were left literally depleted of some resources. So, please. Spare me the propaganda.

"and that what wealth was created by the system was distributed equitably among the whole population and not just a small group of people (millionaires plus the upper middle class)."

I guess you're trying to tell me there wasn't a huge disparity between how the party officials lived, and how an unskilled-labour worker in the non-russian areas lived. I don't know, dude. Those guys lived and acted as if they owned the place. Just because purely on paper it was "state property" they used and spent, is IMHO more of a technicality, than really making any difference.

And if I were to really be nasty, I'd talk about what "equality" meant to the millions of Ukrainian peasants who literally starved to death to meet Stalin's quotas. But that's ancient history anyway, so I won't go into that.

Still, we're already getting sidetracked. That equality is good and fine and reason for pride, yeah. (If it actually were true, anyway.) But regardless, the power of the USSR still rose and fell as its industry, compared to the rest of the world, rose and fell. Equitably divided or not, after a point, compared to the western world, it just fell. Everyone else grew faster. That's all.

Re:Just FYI

[danila]

You mean there was no such thing as the Concorde? Heh. Dude, I'll tell you what I tell the Americans too: please don't get your "facts" about other countries purely from propaganda.
I mean the Concorde was not created by a single country. :D Tu-144 was.

There's a fine line between parity and having 2-3 times the army of the whole NATO combined. We're talking countries combined which had more than twice your population, and an order of magnitude more powerful economies.

The number of soldiers is just one indicator. Why aren't you surprised that the United States spends nearly three times that of all its potential adversaries combined (and almost as much as during the Cold War)? The Army the Soviet Union had was adequate for its defence. Nobody would support a huge army just in spite.

Not enough of either of them per capita, that's what you didn't have. Your industry divided by the population lagged behind more and more. And it was more and more lagging behind technologically, as in: more and more of what you produced was lower tech. Which is really why it lagged. All while military spending per capita was growing higher and higher.

Aha! Now I get it. In 1917 we had higher tech industry, with tons of different products per capita. But then with each passing year we had less and less and it was lower and lower tech. Now I get it. You really make no sense at all.

Yeah, technically you had a bit of every industry, but in some cases after you subtract the part that was producing or researching exclusively to support the army, you're left with... well, let's put it like this: _technically_ you had some, in the same way as I _technically_ have an agriculture, because I have a couple of potted plants on the balcony.
This simply isn't true. Military expenditures were high, that's true. According to Ponomarenko A., they were 1416% of GDP in 1960s, 1013% in 1970s and 89% in 1980s. For comparision, the United States spent about 67% of GDP in 19651988. Considering that a) the US economy was larger than the Soviet economy and that b) other NATO countries spent money too, it was not surprising that the Soviet Union had to spend a bit more. But that hardly matters that much.

At some point, Gorbachev found the country in a position where it just didn't have enough industrial capacity (after subtracting all the expenses) to keep up with the NATO any more. That's why he, and most of the supreme soviet for that matter, rushed to suddenly play nice and democratic. Because there just wasn't enough industrial capacity left to keep up the old "we can bury you all" game and facade.
That is a lie. Gorbachev is a traitor and a liar. For example (speaking about the same figures), in 1991 he claimed that the Soviet Union spent +20% of its GDP on defence. Careful scientific analysis carried out by specialists (historians, economists, military strategists, etc.) shows that this is demonstrably false. In the late 1980s defence spendings amounted to about 6-7%.

So if you don't believe me about the state of the industry, hell, I guess you can argue that with them too, then. Because it didn't look more viable to your own supreme soviet either.
Gorbachev is a liar. That was demonstrated time and again. He was motivated to destroy the Soviet Union (paid by Pizza Hut, may be) and he did it.

So I guess you didn't plunder the resources of the whole Eastern Europe after WW2, right? I happen to know first hand that whole countries were not just drained of some mineral resources to support the URSS economy, but in a couple of cases were left literally depleted of some resources. So, please. Spare me the propaganda.

Any examples? Spare me baseless accusations. Please tell me which exactly whole countries were literally depleted of some resources that were sent to the Soviet Union either for free o

Statistics sum up the whole stupid argument for me

[freeweed]

Atleast 95% of the abused children are abused by someone they know well, the "don't talk to strangers" thing doesn't really make much sense.

Probably higher than 95%.

In an ethics class a few years ago, a female student was arguing for the presence of cameras in public. Her line of reasoning was "well, they help to keep me safe".

I asked her to consider domestic violence (especially murder) statistics. I then asked her if she's like the police to monitor her bedroom every night. She didn't know quite what to say to that.

Fact of the matter is, any parent using the "think of the children" argument is a complete and utter idiot. If we REALLY cared about children's well-being, they'd all be taken away from the parents at birth, and never allowed to see family members again. Pretty stupid knee-jerk idea, right?

A news story earlier this year was talking about the number of child abductions in Canada. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands. The number of children abducted by a stranger?

5.

Horrible, tragic, and I do agree this number should be zero. However, if we REALLY "think of the children", we'd do a lot more to work to reduce the thousands than the 5. Seems to me we don't.

Birth Rate Statistics.

[JhohannaVH]

Maybe these guys should take a look at what's happening to their state before they go and do that. It's not that I'm for eugenics, I'm not... but I *am* for birth control. Especially when it's Mexicans trying to take over the US. According to the Census Bureau, people are waiting to get married... great. But, the illegal immigrants BELIEVE that they will take back the land that was 'theirs' by populating it. 15% of children born today are NOT OF LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS! Fully 1/5th of new mothers in California cannot speak or read English! And Hispanics have the highest birthrate in America (avg. 5 children), while non-Hispanic whites have THE LOWEST.

Something to be said about preventing subjugation of our nation by illegal immigrant births. At least H1B's are SUPPOSED to be here. And have to go home at some point. It's sad. Very sad. :(

The rate of welfare recipients (yes, in CA, illegal immigrants can get welfare of some type or another, especially health care) is directly correlated with this. It used to be in Colorado where I grew up, if you went on welfare, you got the Norplant, whether you agreed or not. Period. Hrm. Like we need to bring more unwanted, unprovidedfor, and needy children.

While eugenics in its past forms were horrific, there was something to be said for it. :(

Jho

Spitzer's on a serious power trip

[ThePuceGuardian]

.. given that he's also pressuring vendors like EBay not to sell stun guns and Tasers to people living in the Empire State - see http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000570062864/. You have to wonder what he's trying to accomplish, banning non-lethal weapons and closing down fantasy chatrooms - see http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6IBDO0 .html. Are there no more pressing matters demanding a state AG's attention? Oh, right - there's re-election. http://www.spitzer2006.com/ That trumps all other issues..

Well, yes and no

[jonskerr]

Your comments above about the arrogance of the Anonymous Cowards of the world are well taken; however your opinion is only true of SOME of the people of the world; the AC is right about SOME of the people too. While some work to put food on the table (ever see the movie A Day Without a Mexican?) and contribute to the running of society, others are the grit in the grease or are simply parasites. They sit on their asses, wasting the day away flapping their gums and stuffing their cake-hole while some sucker works like a dog to allow them to do it. Politicians for example. Or most of the idle rich.

Some of these people do both. While their crappy jobs put food on the table, they take their meager earnings and spend them at Walmart, thereby contributing to horrible wage conditions in other countries, and filling the pockets of wealthy corporations and individuals, who turn around and use their wealth and power to deny democracy and freedom to the very people we're talking about. And Walmart and their evil ilk are cruel union-busters of the worst stripe, so these people have very little they can do to improve their lot. So the cycle continues.

Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, THAT's a TROLL.

Wow!

Re:Congratulations!

[xero314]

You say Troll, Bush say's patriotic. Who should we belive?

What are your assumptions?

[QMO]

"... the more capable people are most often the least likely to breed..."

You qualify that phrase with the word "often," but your post still implies that you know what makes one person better (more worthy to reproduce/pass on values) than another.

It is at least as possible that adults that choose not to get married and raise children are some of the LEAST capable to be good parents, because they're selfish.

Before the flames come, it should be noted that:
  1. I presented the alternative to the assumptions implied in the parent as a different possibility, not as a fact.
  2. There are many reasons why people don't have children, and not all of them are character flaws.
  3. There are some people that are unfit to be parents that have lots of children.
  4. There are some people that have lots of children and are wonderful parents.

Re:What are your assumptions?

[xero314]

...your post still implies that you know what makes one person better (more worthy to reproduce/pass on values) than another.
3. There are some people that are unfit to be parents that have lots of children.

Are you the pot or the kettle?

I don't know all the requirments to be a good parent, but I will say if your child is playing MA video games, or discussing Sexual topics on internet forums or chat rooms, you are probably not a good parent.

I agree that some people that chose to not be parents do so for selfish reasons (Myself included in that group at one point) and probably should not be having children. On the flip side some chose so because they feel there are enough children in the world already, and would probably have children if the "unfit" parents would stop. Lastly it doesn't really matter if the fit parents are not having children (this does not hurt anyone) but something should be done to stop the unfit from having children

Re:What are your assumptions?

[PunkOfLinux]

Allowing your kid to do that kind of stuff doesn't make you a bad parent. If your child is doing these things and is obsessive about it, and you don't don anything, THEN you're a bad parent.

Re:What are your assumptions?

[xero314]

And I guess you could say allowing your child to carry a handgun does not make a bad parent either, you would be wrong, but you could say that.

I don't think games make killers, and I don't think porn makes rapists, but I do think children involved in these things are signs of poor parenting, which does make for maladjusted adults.

Re:What are your assumptions?

[Descalzo]

On the flip side some chose so because they feel there are enough children in the world already, and would probably have children if the "unfit" parents would stop.

I don't know if you subscribe to that idea or not, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Here's why:
There are a lot of people in the world. If Jerky and Satana McSmackhead have 13 kids and you have 0, then the world just got worse as a whole. If they have 13 and you have 13, then the world maintains its balance of smeggers and nice children.

Note: I am not condemning those who choose not to have children. I merely perceive a flaw in that idea, and am pointing it out.

Re:What are your assumptions?

[xero314]

I think the point is that if I have no children (which is nolonger a possibility) and I stopped Jerky and Smackhead from having children (by way of sterilization or euthanization, your choice) the world gets a whole lot better.

Re:What are your assumptions?

[Descalzo]

So I guess you're saying that fewer people is better?

Re:What are your assumptions?

[xero314]

Fewer than what we have now, or atleast fewer poorly raised people overall (not just in ratio).

A little pity

[QMO]

I feel sorry for you.
I (and my siblings) grew up mostly in the US (we were overseas for a while because of my dad's military service).
Our parents didn't ignore us.
We had rules to help us learn what is right and what is harmful (yes, they are opposites).
My parents (and thus their children) were not blind to the fact that some people drink.
We also weren't ever fooled into thinking that it was inevitable that we drink, smoke, have sex outside of marriage, use drugs, gamble, use bad language, drop out of college, shoplift, etc.
We also weren't ever fooled into thinking that it was inevitable that we become kind, selfless, honest, hard-working or happy.
Our parents were careful to help us understood that all those things are possible choices.
They were also wise enough to make sure that we knew that our choices have consequences now and later, to ourselves and others.
They were also loved us enough to show us by their example, just how happy we could be.
Our parents always knew, and let us know, that everyone makes their own choices.

I chose to never taste alcohol.

Re:A little pity

[buck_wild]

Wow. Thank you for so eloquently stating what I've been trying to define!

As a proud parent of a 3.5 year-old and a 20 month-old, I can say that I share the values that you'd stated. I wish more people could see what you've posted...

Re:A little pity

[sjwaste]

I never said it was inevitable, all I said was that my parents knew that it might happen, or even was likely to happen. They never sat us down and said "here are the bad things you're going to do when you get older." They just were smart enough to know that these things might happen, and chose to talk about them constructively. We're not the typical American family who chose to just pretend like those things never happened. Talking to your kids about drinking, sex, etc is a good thing and should be done. All I was getting at was that my parents weren't fooling themselves into believing I would never do any of those things.

The fact that you chose never to drink is a reflection of your values. Good for you, but don't be one of those people who believes anyone that does drink (responsibly) is somehow worse than them. I'll respect you up to the point where you start thinking that. Essentially your folks raised you the same way mine raised me, with two different outcomes (I enjoy social drinking in moderation, you've chosen not to).

ASL = 768K down & 128K up?

[Anomalyst]

I know it's: Age/Sex/Location, but there is a low but finite posibility someone else besides me will be amused by the subject line.

Jeez, people here don't even understand Darwin.

[jonskerr]

You guys. First of all, just shut up, and think for a few minutes before you post. Questioning Darwin because some idiots get to breed is like questioning gravity because a scaffold is preventing a hammer from hitting the ground.
Darwinism doesn't fail because idiots get to reproduce; there are many many strategies in nature (which we're part of) for reproduction within a species. One is to breed lots of offspring on the off chance one of them will make it to adulthood. Anyone familiar with human history (viz infant mortality) knows this is the norm for humanity. Other means we've developed through the use of technology are fewer offspring, but higher quality care for those offspring. This second strategy is very effective, obviously, but requires a vast amount of wherewithal to support it. Wherewithal meaning not only time and money (the usual meaning) but also social structures that support the reproduction strategy, i.e. schools, elimination of most predators from the environment, ready supplies of clean food & water, controlled environments, laws that control various aspects of the entire thing etc etc.
If you don't like the original strategy, make the replacement strategy more viable! Make it so the 'fewer/better' social structures only apply to those who utilize that structure instead of everyone. (This is the republican/conservative worldview. Make it exclusive and everyone will want in, and screw anyone on the outside.) ...OR... You could do something wise and insightful and realize it also works the other way. Make it easier for EVERYONE to utilize the fewer/better model and they'll have fewer offspring. Instead of cutting the throats of public schools, make the schools better. Educate people and increase their knowledge of how it all works. Enforce the protective laws equally, not just to the beige kids in the beige-burbs. Make the clean food/water/air available to everyone equally. Now, this is difficult as human nature is selfish and no one will want to pay to better the lives of someone else's offspring, as this would be counter to the survival of me-fittest mentality. (This is kind of the liberal viewpoint, but still involves coercion, as it requires people to pay taxes to help others, even members of other tribes/groups/nations etc.)
I recommend a middle way. Certainly make basic food, air, water, education and health care available, but also get anyone really dumb and remove them from the gene pool. Oh, wait, that's kind of what's happening now. Obviously we need some people to clean offices and pick lettuce, and plenty of people do that now who are perfectly fine members of society. Hell, I'd do it if it paid $20 an hour. So we need fewer dumb people gumming up the works; what's the cause? Poor education is a big part of it, but the education system can only work with what it's given. Obviously NOT everyone is created equal; they have different DNA, some of which is for strength, some of which is for intelligence, some of which is for the ability to weasel a cushy job directing FEMA even though completely unqualified.
So new laws allowing the sterilization of anyone who screws up so bad that others' lives are majorly affected need to be enacted. Enforcement will have to be across our entire species, not just certain socio-economic groups.

Your Point B

[Descalzo]

you're not mature and informed enough to deal with a minor choice that'll affect you for maybe 2-3 hours at most.

You HOPE it will affect you for 2-3 hours at the most. The parents of the poor kid you run over on the way home will probably see to it that it continues to affect you for as long as possible.

The choice to join the armed services is one usually taken very seriously, counseling with wise loved ones, weighing costs and benefits. Can you imagine a frat boy and his buddies going down to talk it over with their parents, pastors, and school counselors before grabbing some brewskis? "Mom, Dad, I've been thinking pretty hard about this, and I've decided I want to get loaded."

Then there's the looming specter of alcoholism, which from what I've heard doesn't like to let go.

Add to that the fact that I've seen more damage done to families by addiction than by military service.

On top of that, allowing young men to join the military is clearly beneficial to the country. Letting dinks get liquored up and shoot highway signs is not.

I'll bet that last paragraph is a giveaway to what size of town I grew up in!

I JUST JERKED TO YOUR POST $

[Anonymous Coward]

$bling$

Re: I concur.

[EddyPearson]

To be quite honest i think this was a very good decision by Yahoo!

Let me explain, when i go use chat (IRC) it's always "on topic" (for instance i'll be on #php or #cpp) Yahoo! chat rooms are much more socially driven (ie. people saying "Hi, im Fred, whats ur name?") and I strongly believe that isn't what a child needs. Children should be outside making real friends, experiancing life and learning new things. Not in a small room staring at a screen communicating with people ALL over the world who probably arn't who they say they are, which of course brings us onto the "grooming" arguement which i wont go into becuase i think we've all heard enough on the subject

Good decision Yahoo! I hope other companies follow suit.

*Bangs head against wall*

[Eli Gottlieb]

When will these ageist morons learn they can't score cheap political points by restricting the rights of (and endangering, what with faked ages) young people?

Oh, right, when we LOWER THE VOTING AGE.

In other (future) news. . .

[NetRAVEN5000]

. . . 23-year-old girl sues Yahoo! for only allowing chatroom participants of age 18 or older. She joined a sex chatroom, and she talked to a 16-year-old boy who said he was 18. . .

It already happens on the news today, people. Kids won't stop going into chatrooms just because they're supposed to be 18 - they'll just click the "I'm 18" button - leaving a whole world of trouble for people using chatrooms for sexual pleasure (though not seeking to have sex with minors like in the above example).