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."

16 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Positive Changes by slifox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)...

    1. Re:Positive Changes by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place."

      I dunno...my parents had a VERY effective manner in dealing with this 'neverending spending cycle' you mention. It was the simple word, "no".

      While I'd agree we have too much advertisement in general...just because it is advertised doesn't mean you have to buy it for yourself or your kid. That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Positive Changes by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      After getting Tivo, my kids didn't even know what to ask for last Christmas. It was great, because they asked for things they really wanted (and were good things for kids, IMO), as opposed to asking for what the TV told them to ask for.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Positive Changes by K.B.Zod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      My wife and I have two kids, ages 5 years and 16 months. I work full time, my wife part time with help from the grandparents babysitting. I can guarantee you that we have lots more to do while our kids are watching TV than hobbies or work. Here's a short list:

      • Cleaning the unending flow of dirty dishes
      • Handling the unending flow of laundry
      • Preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner, or cleaning up from it
      • Making phone calls for needed appointments
      • Cleaning the kitchen, or bathrooms, or ...
      • Did I mention the laundry?

      I could go on. See anything there that a really little kid can help with? See anything that maybe would go a lot smoother if the kids were just still for a little while? Using TV just to stop the whirlwind for even a half-hour can be a godsend for us. We love to spend time with our kids playing with toys, doing art, or romping in the yard, but when we need to do something ourselves — or we just need a break — putting on an educational, age-appropriate TV show can be a useful tool.

      Yeah, we're not perfect parents. But we aren't helicopters either, and we have other stuff we've got to take care of.

    4. Re:Positive Changes by Zashi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that implies responsibility and self-control.

      Sir, you ask FAR too much.

      --
      Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
    5. Re:Positive Changes by pmbasehore · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My parents had a similar answer, "Save your money." They didn't care what I purchased (so long as it was safe, legal, etc) as long as I saved my own money to get it. Really taught me fiscal responsibility at a pretty early age.

      --
      $> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
    6. Re:Positive Changes by cfulmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.

      But, it's also important to teach kids about advertising -- they need to learn that advertisers LIE and will do anything to separate people from their money. (This is, unfortunately, even more true in kid's advertising than with adults.)

      A few Christmases ago, I deliberately bought a crappy, but well-advertised, toy for each of my kids. We opened them up and compared them to what we saw on the TV commercials. I gave the kids the option to return the toys and get something else that I knew they would like.

      There were two benefits: first, they look at advertisements with a lot more skepticism than their peers, and, second, if they get something they don't like, they're very willing to return it for something they do like.

    7. Re:Positive Changes by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude. ("Libertarian" being shorthand for "I want that money I see deducted in taxes on my payslip.")

      That's actually a fairly keen insight, and an attitude you see far too often on Slashdot. I think it comes largely from an adolescent audience on Slashdot. You'll get the same people complaining that a) parents suck because they don't spend every waking hour monitoring their children (and even if you do, you're probably blinking too much you lazy bastard), while at the same time every time a monitoring technology is mentioned that WOULD allow parents to easily keep an eye on their children and what they're doing, the same group yells bloody murder that Little Billy is being sheltered too much and that he'll never stand on his own. The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues and the parent will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of the story. It's as you mentioned: having children is a crime to them and they want to make damn sure that you're punished for it.

      Although, you might want to ease up on the Libertarians ;). There are different things to like about that party. I don't really care too much about paying taxes (heck I work for the government so my paycheck comes from taxes), I just like the hands off approach. I'm a heathen and I like it. Government laws that say that I can't take drugs, that the stripper has to stand at least 6 feet away, or that says what I can and can't do on the Internet annoy me to no end. It's not so much the tax issue for me as I'd just prefer to have a government with a military that protects me from invasion and provides law enforcement to police the most basic of crimes (theft, rape, murder, etc) but otherwise butt the heck out of my life. ;)

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:Positive Changes by Sancho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. The physical representation of American money is made of cotton and linen. The money itself is made if hopes, dreams, speculation, and trust.

  2. If parents demand it... by TechnoBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...suppliers will supply it, regardless of any spurious 'WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN' type arguments....

  3. THis is kind of what parents do by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One of parents job is to slowly expose children to the world as the child is able to understand it. This is much better than limiting the behavior of all adults. For example, some might want to ban alcohol from any venue that a child might attend. This makes sense if the venue is primarily for children, but doesn't make sense if it is primarily adult, where parent can model responsible drinking rather than have the child's first experience at a high school kegger.

    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
  4. Re:They're parents by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this. Especially this snippet: ""...the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content..."

    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.........
  5. Re:They're parents by gomiam · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 ;-)

  6. Because we all know... by BlatantRipoff · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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?

  7. Re:You're kidding by Zashi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    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.

    /end-rant

    --
    Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
  8. Re:You're kidding by JohnWhitney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.