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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[fossa]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Chuq]

What an ironic sig.

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?

[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?

[aug24]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

Yeah right

[scenestar]

And how are they going to verify age?

Re:Yeah right

[ErisCalmsme]

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

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!

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?

[raoul666]

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

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?

[cjHopman]

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

irony.

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.

Ban Phones

[codepunk]

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

This will help a lot

[CaptainCarrot]

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

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. . .

[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"

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.

[A beautiful mind]

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

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.

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]

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

[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.

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...

[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.

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

[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.

On the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:So basically..

[pymike]

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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)

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

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??

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[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.

aw crap....

[Lehk228]

aw crap, now they are all going to flood in to IRC asking "ASL? ASL? ASL?"

Vigilance!

[GhaleonStrife]

We must be vigilant! So let's be lazy and let the law do our jobs for us!

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: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.

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.

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: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)

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.

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

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.

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...

Interesting

[BorgCopyeditor]

I say this in all sincerity, sir. Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

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: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.

what's the point?

[ALpaca2500]

does anyone over 18 even use yahoo chatrooms?

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/

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.

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.