Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Fears, Just Another Backlash?
An anonymous reader writes "Wired takes a hard look at all the hype about MySpace being a danger to teens, and concludes it's just another backlash against technology and youth culture. The most damning evidence against MySpace are the recent cases of men arrested for dating underage girls they met through the site, but statistically these cases are a drop in the bucket. From the article: 'In fact, with a reported population of 57 million users, MySpace is arguably safer from such crime than other communities that haven't been the subject of the same scrutiny. One example: California, which averaged 62 statutory rape convictions per month in the late 90s, in a state population of 33 million.'"
I've said it before and I'll say it again, technology is very rarely the problem. MySpace is by its very nature a social networking tool (of dubious quality, but that's another issue), and is meant to bring people together. What they do after that is a function of the people, not MySpace itself. And yes, sometimes these people meet through MySpace and then have underage sex.
Sometimes people meet each other through school and then have underage sex... I don't hear any claims that school is a "danger to teens". It's time we stopped blaming technology for merely giving people opportunities to show their moral fibre.
My, that was a yummy potato!
I think they have a quota. At least one station in every market MUST show the viewers/readers a way that the new society is 'bad' at least once a day.
Once a week, they all have to get together and show us the SAME story on some way that we can be kidnapped or killed.
"Dangers lurking in your sink! Details at 11!"
Now...back to the story at hand. Are some kids being fools on MySpace? Sure there are. These same kids would be fools anywhere. MySpace is just one outlet for them.
Back in 1996 when my family got Internet access, dialup access was almost the norm among the middle class families where we lived in coastal North Carolina. We weren't uber-elite, we weren't ahead of the curve by any wide margin. We were like most of our middle class neighbors. My parents at least tried to monitor what I did, and they instilled a healthy fear of revealing my information online because I wasn't an adult and couldn't defend myself against sex offenders.
Fast forward to today. It's quite common for young teens and late preteens to play "taunt the pedophile" with naughty, often slutty, pictures. Parents don't even try to monitor their kids' access by randomly checking on them, reading through their history (rarely worked, but at least our parents tried back then a lot harder than most today). Many, many parents today just don't want to be bothered. It's not their fault that junior is living a completely parent-free life the moment he goes online. Oh no. Parents can't be expected to be the boss in their own homes!
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Too many parents today regard the Internet as Happy Playland(tm) and don't even bother trying to protect their kids today. Then again, maybe this is necessary because too many of my peers in college had a dreadfully naive view of basic security. It's about being a responsible parent. When you had that child, you took on the responsibility of being a parent. That means you sacrifice personal time and career where necessary to raise them. I'm sick of people who insist that they can have it all, while they do half-assed jobs as parents in the name of finding "personal fullfillment" through everything but being a good parent raising a new generation worthy of those who made this country great.
I would moderate you flamebait if I could, instead I'll just (impersonally) flame you.
I believe that the comparison to California's crime rate is invalid because cybercrime may or may not involve actual physical contact. And, if it doesn't involve physical contact (for example, a dirty phone conversation), then it may not be reported.
So what, now -talking- about having underage sex is illigal, should be reported as sexual harrassment or such? wtf? Keep the frame of reference here. The issue was the fact that people were meeting on myspace and proceeding to have real, in person, SEX!. My issues with the legal age aside, you can NOT compare phonesex with a minor to statitory rape.
IMHO, that job should include removing computers from their children's bedroom.
At what age does it become acceptable? 18? 16? 14? If you've got a 15 year old girl that wants to flirt on the net, removing her computer from her room isnt going to stop her. If you want to be sure that she doesnt go meet some 40 year old in a motel for a night of wild sex, then raise her with values that wouldnt let her do that.
Teens running off and having sex with older folks isnt a symptom of the internet, its a symptom of something totally different. Yes, teach them not to put themselves in bad situations, but that doesnt mean removing their privacy to achieve it.
When my dad started dating my mom, he was 22 and she was 16. 30 years ago, that was still a big age difference, but when they past their 30th anniversary this year, it made me wonder what kinda fuss they went through and weather it would be more or less flac if I dated someone 6 years my junior now.
.
And this doesn't happen if people were to meet in a bar? MySpace is not the cause, merely (another) conduit.
The guy is the problem, not MySpace.
While it isn't perfect since connotations of words vary from person to person . . .
You mean like Alanis Morrisette's misuse of the word "ironic"? Connotations "vary" among people who are using words that they do not understand. A simple check of a dictionary can provide the definitions necessary to make one properly understood.
Grammar and proper spelling only facilitate the persuasiveness of an argument since it sounds more pleasing.
Proper grammar and spelling facilitate the persuasiveness of an argument because they make it more comprehend-able. If I cannot understand your argument, you aren't likely to persuade me.
While yes there are cases where the improper use of they/it/ect does hinder the reader
What does electro-convulsive therapy (ect) have do do with your argument? Granted, its improper use would hinder anyone, not just the reader. OK, that's a cheap shot. I'm just having fun with you.
Sadly the easiest way to sum up my argument is... List off how many Authors names you remember. Now, list off who edited their works.
You sum up your argument with a non-sequitar? What does this have to do with the proper use of grammar? Are you under the misapprehension that an editor's job is to cross a "t" or dot an "i"? That the main function of a book editor is to proof read?
Look, your argument is barely understandable, and you haven't really proved any points. Proper grammar is conducive to logical thought, but it's not a guarantee of it.
If you want to use informal shorthand when you're IMing or text messaging someone, fine. Don't make the mistake that such shorthand is acceptable for a more complex "transmission of ideas". For that you need a more formal language.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.