Slashdot Mirror
Senate Votes To Empower Parents As Censors
unlametheweak recommends an Ars Technica report that the US Senate has unanimously passed a bill requiring the FCC to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." "...the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government. It asks the FCC to focus the inquiry on blocking systems for a 'wide variety of distribution platforms,' including wireless and Internet, and an array of devices, including DVD players, set top boxes, and wireless applications."
Well its about time this issue becomes more widely recognized in government...
If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT.
If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.
"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).
Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc... NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation
"With over 500 channels and video streaming, parents could use a little help monitoring what their kids watch when they are not in the room,"
The amount of content will only grow, and it is too difficult to categorize and rate every piece of video & audio, especially highly-paid-for items like advertisements.
They are taking the blacklist approach, and as we all know, that will only work if you have the resources to maintain the list against all new and possible content.
Rather, they (parents -- NOT GOVERNMENT) should be taking the whitelist approach, which, given an infinite content set, is far more realistic to successfully maintain.
Yeah, that means taking time out of your day to ensure that your kids are only watching content that you deem appropriate for them (and this obviously should change with their age and maturity). That means not sitting your kid in front of the TV while you go persue your own hobbies or work (imagine that: sacrificing for the sake of your family). Most families are not in situations where the parents must work round-the-clock to provide *basic* supplies for their kids -- if the parents' excuse is they must work instead of parenting, then perhaps they need to cut down on their spending for the sake of their childrens' upbringing: a kid needs a good parent more than the latest clothing, a big TV, or yearly vacations.
This is probably not news to most people here, but far too many Americans are quick to call for government censorship of TV/radio/internet/videogames/etc, rather than simply investing their OWN TIME into raising their kids.
Now, of course, we should, as always, still remain vigilant and make sure that this newfangled "parent-empowered" censorship isn't simply a masquerade for actual forced censorship (read: government censorship)...
...it'll make sure that broadcasts are tagged up with useful metadata about the contents, if nothing else; which I'm sure will be good for everyone, and it'll add some granularity of control between different devices - which sounds ripe for adding cool new features.
...suppliers will supply it, regardless of any spurious 'WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN' type arguments....
This is to get people to accept more control under the guise of "protecting the kids".
Once the control has saturated the various markets and has become accepted by the people as normal, the government will take over.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its called spending time with your kids. Turning off the tv/etc when they get into something you don't approve.
We don't need a technological answer.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Would that mean that in the US you would finally be able to see on national television what we here in the Netherlands have been able to see since the 60s (if we want to): naked people?
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Parents are already 'enabled' as censors over their children. It's called looking at what they are doing and watching, and preventing them from watching the stuff they disagree with.
Asking the FCC to impose a technical mandate on every piece of communications technology to allow parents to individually censor every thing according to rules is asinine. Because we're all going to end up paying through the nose for our TV and ISPs and consumer electronics which have this stuff in it.
Sadly, parents seem to expect that someone will come up with a technical solution to all of their ills. I think it would be both expensive and ill-advised to try to get this stuff built into all of the technology around us.
This is the worst sort of mandate, because, once again, we look at implementing mechanisms of censorship which will be in place for all of us -- all in the name of the children. Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
For the internet the same is true. It is much better to give parent control of what and when the child can access certain content rather than limit content to that which is appropriate for a 12 year old. This is not censorship in the conventional sense as the content is available. A motivated child can leave the house and gain acess. Rather this is a little thing called parenting, which many around here might say is something way under practiced.
One thinks that this is only a problem for two groups. First, teenagers who either do not have a means to get out of the house of out of school, for instance rural or homeschool kids, to unfiltered computers. Second, adults who live in the parents basements and do not pay rent or pay for their own phone/cable and computer. Otherwise, such technologies are merely part of rearing a child.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
not that it matters to congress, but doesn't the V-Chip already block everything?
Isn't every TV, game console, and DVD player already shipping with a V-Chip?
They're using their grammar skills there.
I'm not inclined to not have a television --- I like F1, and watch Doctor Who --- but there's a single TV which is sat in the corner of one room, which is turned on to watch specified programmes and turned off when they finish. The kids know my parents don't have a television, that I'd be perfectly capable of simply disposing of the one we have, and therefore that they shouldn't push their luck. Televisions in bedrooms, kitchens and other rooms in the house? How common.
ian
Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Force them to hand over encryption keys?
Waterboarding?
Obviously these parental powers need to be enshrined in law.
Hearing a beep or a brief moment of silence in place of an expletive is plain obnoxious. Can we not come up with something that makes that sort of censorship optional? I'd want it if I had kids, but I don't, so give me the F bombs!
I recently discovered that there was a really cool filtering tool that came on all my game consoles, dvd players, televisions, computers, and music players. It is a button that says "on". When pressed, the filter activates then the picture and sound stop. I thought it was new, but it has only been relabeled. Previously this feature had been marked as a "O" or a "I" on a giant toggle.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Ok...they're making a law where parents can control what their kids watch?
Since when is this new?? Since when did we need a law on this?
Ok, we didn't have the internet out when I grew up, but, we did have TV, and my parents were quite effective WAY back then before laws like this...in censoring what I could watch. First, they were home when I was home in the evenings (imagine this, we actually had a meal called dinner together, and it was home cooked, and yes, my Mom worked too), and they knew what was on the TV. At a young age, I had a bedtime...I remember having to go to bed at 8pm then 9pm when younger.
Even past that, they would say what I could and could not watch. I didn't get my own TV in my room till I was a teenager, and deemed old enough to start making more of my own decisions, etc.
Wow...you know, the more I talk about things like this...it IS truly amazing that people of my generation actually made it to adulthood, what with all the lack of laws like this, electronic parental monitoring, and lack of cell phones. Geez, I won't even get into the fact that we were actually tossed outside to play when the weather was nice.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We have implemented the following...
1. Limited TV - Rabbit Ears only or pre-selected DVDs. Yes, we say "no" to many programs. When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.
2. ClarkConnect - proxy, firewall, ad blocker, content filter, anti-virus, spam blocker, for the house. Any connection to my wireless or wired LAN has this protection. The time on the computer is limited and monitored.
3. We have not abdicated authority to our children. They are children, we are the parents. The responsibility for raising them and what they take in is with us, not them.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Isn't that called grounding? And, considering some kids' reaction to showers, one would think they were being waterboarded ;-)
...how much the V-chip is used by parents. In a nutshell, an FCC report tells us that a 2007 Zogby poll reported a V-chip usage of 12 percent. What I want to know is how are they going to get parents to use "advanced blocking technologies" when the parents won't even use what they currently have?
If parents mention "waterboarding" to children the latter will probably roll their eyes and say something about it being called "wakeboarding". And they need more pocket money.
This can only come from the parents. Personally I find FoxNews objectionable as its absolute slanted trash, other parents think its education for their kids. Personally I find the god channels objectionable for their "send money for redemption" pitches and homophobic and other outbursts, other parents find this stuff uplifting and important that their kids should watch.
Kids shouldn't be left in front of the TV with the remote. It really isn't difficult and TV should be a minimum thing, a treat, not the basic right that is in every kids' room.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
...get rid of the freakin' tv. My wife and I got rid of ours, and are ever-so-much the happier for it. Our son is growing up without a tv addiction, and we still all curl up and watch appropriate movies on our laptop. Sometimes he'll sit on my lap and we'll watch YouTube videos (Muppets how, Sesame Street, etc). Guess what? It's the ULTIMATE whitelist. You want your child to learn how to do more than just sit in front of the tv, veg out, and get fat? TEACH THEM! You ever want to see what parents are really like, watch their young children. A toddler will mimic you to perfection, in all the good and the bad. Play games with your children, wrestle with them, build things from blocks, read to them (anyone remember books?!), take them for walks and hikes, take them fishing, play video games with them There's some great emulators for pc!), teach them how to do something other than rot their wee little minds in front of a glowing box ALL DAY LONG. All things have their time and place, but it's amazing how well NOT having a tv works.
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
Why Golf Channel? Bedtime stories not putting your kids to sleep quickly enough?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Does anyone else think that it's not censorship for a parent to choose what their child watches? This is pretty much the opposite of censorship to me. The government isn't saying what should or shouldn't be available, they're trying to let parents choose what their kids can and can't see without limiting the choices of other adults...
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
Even if corporations give parents power to control this stuff, public schools in the U.S. are still forcing all sorts of stuff down kids' throats, regardless of how parents feel. Everything from politically motivated "scientific" teachings regarding creationism to the definition of marriage, over which a Mass. man was arrested because he refused to leave a meeting until the school reached a compromise about teaching his child (a practicing Mormon) to accept gay marriage. The school didn't compromise.
Things like the gay marriage debate put church and state on a collision course, setting up the state with its own particular belief system even to the persecution of those who want to worship their own way. Far from being able to exercise religious freedoms, those with differing opinions are being labeled hate criminals.
Yes, I was kidding. The generation of people raising kids today were raised by the generation that said, "hey, children, you shouldn't have to take shit from anyone. If you want something, go get it. Demand it. The world is yours. If something is wrong, it's not YOUR fault. Don't take the blame for what isn't in your power to control."
/end-rant
Instead of raising a bunch of ambitious, well-adjusted people, we've got a population with an undeserved sense of entitlement. We have to face it, the West (the USA in particular), has a population that shirks responsibility because they feel it's their right. Or something like that. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I agree with the GGP. I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been. My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them. Time and time again we've seen how greatly restricted children, and adults too, run a muck given the first opportunity. People complain of an immature adult population. I believe this is the result. Being a child at heart is wonderful. If you can still giggle at a fart joke when you're middle aged, good for you. But if you can't control your laughter when in court for your third DUI, you have a problem.
Let's not keep our children as children. Let's help them grow up. Help them make informed decisions instead of having to experiment behind closed doors, unsupervised by those who know better.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them.
One thing you need to understand is that children don't have the experience and coping mechanisms in place to handle all of the content you or I could. There are things that I could watch or read that I would find mildly upsetting that would give my children nightmares for weeks. This is because they don't have the same risk-assessment capabilities that I do, because they don't have the experience.
So yes, I do shield my children from things I think they can't handle yet. When I feel they have reached an age that they are mature enough to, I will gladly let them chose. Treating children as miniature adults, though, is just stupid.
Although it's good to see our government stepping back and saying "enough!" when it comes to being forced into the roll of babysitter, it still encourages the idea that child-rearing should be convenient for the parents. Only now, this would at least place some responsibility on the parents to act when the child is doing something undesirable.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of technology like the "V-Chip". It's one thing to put a child-proof lock on medications or guns, but seriously... a child-proof lock on a TV?
With such technologies getting much more common, I wonder how long until we start seeing "reverse thought crime" laws. (Basically anything that entices a child's thought process to stray outside a parent's preferred baseline.)
Right now, many of pissed off at our government for secretly tracking our everyday activity through all sorts of technological measures. Yet, we're more than happy to use similar measures on our own kids to make things easier for ourselves. In reality, what we're doing is breeding future generations to be tolerant of a world that constantly monitors your every move.
How about instead of using technology as a leash, give the child the chance to choose to make a bad decision and then catch them in the act to scare the shit out of them? Under such a system of continual cat and mouse style games, you're child should either become much more trust-worthy or, at least, much better at deception (if you're going to lie, do it well...). Either path they take will help them adapt to life as they get older.
8==8 Bones 8==8
What you're doing is fine and what I expect of responsible parents. What isn't fine is keeping your child locked away until they are 18 and sent off to college. I don't think extremes one way or the other are good. Children should be eased into the world, with parents at the ready to help when they need to.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
I leared everything I need to know about raising children from the 80s: When a problem comes along, you must whip them.
I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been.
My immediate reaction was that you are completely wrong, but on reflection I think that you're partly wrong. The issue is lumping together an entire medium under one hat. I'll take the simplest one: television.
Television breaks down into two categories: free-to-air and pay-to-view. I think your position is perfectly reasonable for pay-to-view channels: if a parent chooses to purchase a channel with content he doesn't want his children seeing, it's his responsibility to ensure they don't see it.
Free-to-air, on the other hand, is a lot harder to filter. You don't want to have to cover your children's eyes as you walk past shop windows on Saturday afternoon.
In actual fact, from what I read on Wikipedia about the current US regulation, it already seems to recognise this distinction and to have a fairly sensible implementation thereof.