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

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: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.

Only when ...

[Agarax]

... Anonymous Coward's like you get sent to the layer of hell God specially reserved for fuckwits and child molesters.

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.