Slashdot Mirror
Internet Not Really Dangerous For Kids After All
Thomas M Hughes writes "We're all familiar with the claim that it's horribly dangerous to allow our children on to the Internet. It's long been believed that the moment a child logs on to the Internet, he will experience a flood of inappropriate sexual advances. Turns out this isn't an accurate representation of reality at all. A high-profile task force representing 49 state attorneys general was organized to find a solution to the problem of online sexual solicitation. But instead the panel has issued a report (due to be released tomorrow) claiming that 'Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons.' The report concluded that 'the problem of child-on-child bullying, both online and offline, poses a far more serious challenge than the sexual solicitation of minors by adults.' Turns out the danger to our children was all just media hype and parental anxiety." Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
But.. who are we going to have to think of now?
You just got troll'd!
they will never know, given that this study is online.
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Fuck 'em.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It should fine, as long as the child is not using a windows machine full of adware that pops up each minute trying to sell him viagra or one night stand services
just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
This just in.. It is in fact a child's parents who are most likely to abduct them! Best throw the kids out on the street for their own safety.
Next they'll be saying that internet users who are online every day actually know something about the online community.
Internet is still a dangerous place for kids, it's just not as dangerous as what others might have put it.
I certainly don't want my kids to use this report to tell me it's more dangerous for them to play in the playground across the road than letting them surf net all day.
The report says child-on-child bullying is more serious a problem to deal with, and I'm sure if they could solve this problem for kids, they would have solved the sexual solicitation problem as well.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
What's next? Next thing you know they'll find out it's actually pretty hard to come by child porn, that it's not that easy to build a bomb off Internet instructions or that a "skilled hacker" cannot just infiltrate anything and do anything by typing onto his keyboard for 20 seconds.
Please, don't take our societal innocence away by destroying our misconceptions and delusions about the Internet.
You just got troll'd!
machine full of adware that pops up each minute trying to sell him viagra or one night stand services
But... But... I thought that WAS Windows?! ;)
A Man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- Albert Einstein
A few words:
tubgirl
lemonparty
meatspin
goatse
mr. hands
2girls1cup
Do you know how easy it is to stumble across these things? Of course, that does not mean that the government should step in and do the job of a good adult to protect their children... I'm just saying, the internet is not exactly the most kid-safe place.
For instance, I was playing on a counter-strike source server a few days ago. A six year old kid rolled into my server. We regularly have pornographic sprays, adult voice chat, etc... We all tone down how we act when he's in the server. But for every group of people who try to act good around young children on the internet, there will be 100 more groups willing to link them to 4chan.
Do your jobs, you god forsakenly poor parents!
Wow. Who would've thought that something that we've been using for so long had such a secret?
I mean... isn't that one of the few truths of the internet?
That if children get anywhere near a computer,
sexual predators spy on them through the webcams...
I also enjoy how the attorney general publicly refuted the results when he didn't like them.
I wish I could do that with things I don't want to be true.
Recession? nahh... War? No way.. thats just an exaggeration by liberal media.
I've seen 8 year olds riding Tokyo's subway system solo. The instant any of them show any signs of confusion or distress -- and that's very rare, since their parents teach them how to ride -- any number of genuinely helpful adults (plural) in the vicinity come to their rescue. This is all perfectly normal, and it's entirely within the physical world. Everyone is safe.
The Internet is not even physical. There's always a wire (or wireless connection) separating its participants. Simply combine the Internet with a parent or responsible adult and it's safer (psychologically) than even the Tokyo Metro. (And it's always physically safer.) If government simply concentrated on promoting and supporting good parenting, that'd solve myriad problems. [How about starting by allowing all qualified parent(s), including same-sex parents, to adopt?] The Internet is not a parent any more than a subway car or glass of milk is, so it's ridiculous that any government would try to make the Internet a parent.
My kids have been on the internet since a age of 2 (each).
Yes, the browser was pointed to Disney or Sesame Street, but they learned to go where they wanted to go. My oldest had the lock Netscape, but around 5yr I came one day found she had found away to URL prompt. So from that day forward I have left the browsers unlocked. My youngest first words would to the effect of "mom-dot-see-oh-em'.
Yes, I check on kids usage via firewall logs from time to time, but find nothing wrong. I even enter their rooms to see what they are doing (but VNC is easier).
My wife while telling about the birds and bees, also give the kids on-line lessons as well. Showing what happens when you mis-type some kids site names and showing how to get out of the mistake.
It is up to us to raise our kids.
It is up the Richard Blumenthals of the world to find a new job and let us raise our kids!
I was exposed to all this my first day of school, and I was not even able to understand what was going on, but even at that time some kids knew all.
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.
And our Nation must defend herself from it. I read somewhere that militant islamocommunists were using the World Wide Web to recruit teenage girls for fascism, devil worship, prostitution, and fascist satanic prostitution. Do you want your daughter to become the psycho slave of electronic-armed islamocommunist terror-zombies? Vote!!!!!!!!!!! yo
The world has bullies. You can't legislate that away any more than you can murderers or hippies. Let's focus less on training wheels for kids and more on.. balls. "Gosh, the world is a harsh place."
for adults.
But seriously sights of nudity and sex will not destroy a child. Parental abuse on the other hand...
I saw porn at age 8 due to discovering a friend's older brother's cache, and I am not a rapist nor would I ever hurt anybody...in fact, the porn was not that interesting until I hit puberty.
All it did was make me realize how much of the world was being hidden from me by adults, and it got me to read some childbirth books in the library to confirm the rumours.
So my theory is beating your children will make them rapists, not porn, because violence is taught best by action and those with bitter hearts will have less mercy.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
None of those things can cause physical harm to a child (or adult, for that matter). What you're talking about is exclusively (and very speculatively) psychological harm.
But by that standard telephones in the house are also dangerous, because junior could ring up a sex line and learn about the mechanics of... well, whatever. The radio is dangerous, too, because junior could listen to Rush Limbaugh. (Rush is even on during playtime. Think of the children!)
You've stumbled onto the correct answer, though. Would I ever let my child use the telephone, listen to the radio, or surf the Internet unsupervised? No, not until certain ages at least, which I should decide based on my most qualified assessment of the child's maturity level. And at least with the Internet I can put a lock on the PC or Mac and require a user ID and password. (I can also quite easily force browsers to only visit certain sites, like Sesame Street's.) I can even cart the whole kit with me if it's a notebook or lock it in a safe if I want. I have far more parental control options available, none of which have anything to do with the government.
Something tells me the research for this study avoided any site with "chan" in its URL.
Anybody want my mod points?
Heaven for bid that a minor might see picture of a sexual act. Generally children are not interested in such things. Should they accidentally come across such material "oooo gross!" is their typical response and they quickly surf away. In the end though what have they seen? A very real and natural part of reality. Not something to be afraid of, not something that will "scare" them for life. With the simple guidance of parental figure to explain the Truth to them in a way suitable to their age, they will be just fine. It is these die-hard "do gooders" that turn sexuality into a perversion who truly scare our children --and ultimately exacerbate the problem.
I am an eight year old boy in Colorado who would like to make friends with older men ...
That man will do anything to get his name in print. He gets his job done, I have to give him that, but he's probably the biggest glory hound I've ever seen in the world of politics.
IMHO, the internet itself is not the real risk factor. The risk is in a potential lack of parental supervision. In day-to-day "real world" situations, there is generally some level of supervision, even if it is just a careful listening ear. Situations in which supervision is not possible or as easy, eg. children traveling to school by public transport etc. are considered more dangerous. The internet, for many, falls under that kind of 'more dangerous' category either through a lack of ability or intent to supervise what minors do and where they go online or an unfamiliarity of parents with the ever changing online realm.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
The Internet isn't a baby sitter any more than videos/DVDs. Responsible parents should monitor their children's media consumption and teach them about being critical, separating fantasy from reality etc.
My kids are too small to use a computer for now, but once they become big enough I'm not going to just let them browse at their leisure. I'm going to monitor them by first being there with them, and once it seems they are OK on their own I'm going to be in the same room. Only much later will I allow them to browse on their own, and even them I'm going to reserve the rights to monitor their logs.
Parents should get a grip and deal with the fact that getting kids involves parenting and responsibility. Not just media. I'm responsible for seeing to it that they exercise enough, eat healthily, brush their teeth, go to bed in time... That's the way it works.
.: Max Romantschuk
Hmm, have you ever listened to Jethro Tull's Aqualung? That park across the street may not be so good a place after all...
'See the pretty panties run. Oh, Aqualung...'
I never got my ass kicked at a playground, but have you ever experienced getting your ass kicked by a particularly nasty virus or identity thief?
Perhaps you haven't, but then again you were educated and wary... because you know the internet is just as dangerous a place.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
IT'S FOR THE FUCKING CHILDREN, REMEMBER?
We have to ferret out ANY possibility of evildoing, even if it is just the improper thoughts of unclean minds!
Of course, only WE are capable of judging such things... everyone else is corrupt and an evil panderer on these internets.
You CAN'T be taking away the one terrorist tool I had to control the U.S. population: the fear of being labeled a pervert, even for doing innocent things!
Oh, no! I am melting! Melting...
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/pedo-bear-seal-of-approval.png
As an active member of the internet generation, I have to say that the internet has done a lot to screw me up, mostly because I found 4chan early.
I was a contributor to the Prodigy Online Service Trivia Area when I was 16... we had a safe roped-off Teen area where the only adults allowed were those who held the moderator tools to kick anybody acting up, and if you were above the age of 19 you were directed to the later in the night all-ages games.
You couldn't trust a stranger... but anybody who hung out for any length of time over a reasonable span could be trusted. Not very many adults could appear at 4pm ET anyway. It's hard to fake intentions through months of encounters.
I doubt my kids (if there ever are any) will ever have a similar experience. There's just no place online where you can meet random people and assume they'll be mostly good anymore.
I know of many men who have complained about the same thing: they dare not intervene when a child is in trouble or threatened, for fear that they will be mistaken for the cause of the trouble.
It is very sad that our society has come to this, and there is no doubt whatever that it is the fault of the women. I don't mind saying that: I deal with stupid bitches every day.
I see a lot of posts correctly stating Richard Blumenthal is a fucktard
I see a lot of posts correctly stating that everyone should just get off our backs and let us parent our children.
I see very few, if any posts, trying to admit that the internet is a "dangerous place" in the same way real life is, that the populous is, by and large, rather ill-equipped to deal with this, and don't give a suggestion on how to correct that situation.
Hacks like Blumenthal are in it for political gain and of course package a complex problem in a simple message with a half assed solution. The real message should be that the internet is international, and made up of real people, just like the real world. Most people you find are kind and decent people, but a select few are out to do no good. Parents need to be taught this, and then taught to pass it onto their kids. A few public announcements would be nice. Some letters home to parents from teachers might help. Workshops at local schools would be better, as well as some sessions in school for the kids. Hey, don't accept email from strangers is just as good a lesson as don't accept candy from strangers, if you ask me.
We have plenty of lessons for kids on crossing the street, not taking drugs, and recycling, we can't come up with some simple rules for surfing the internet we can give in school?
Or is my kid too old that we are already doing that?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
My son has just turned 14 last december, and he is not only free to surf on the internet but I personally encourage him to do it as a way of finding knowledge.
Here are my reasons:
1. Porn: with or without internet he will find porn very easily if he wants. Porn can be copied via usb from a friend, porn can be burn in a CD and porn can be found in a magazine. Anyway I am not scared if he watches porn, after all the desire for sex is as natural a the desire of eating, and he has the right to search for it if he wants. I am sure he will not become a rapist or pervert for watching internet porn.
2. Child abuse: my son doesn't need to find friends or talk to strangers on the internet. He has plenty of friends (both sexes) in real life, and they "bother" him enough online for him to have even time to pay attention to other people. Besides, a kid can't be raped through a wire, so as long as you know where your kid is going you don't have to worry.
The fact is he will mostly use the internet for chatting with his school friends (about homework, movies, games and the girl he likes) and for finding info about something he is interested in. He can spend hours surfing wikipedia and googling about stuff he likes (which includes geek stuff, wrestling, X games, soccer, surfing, tennis, UFO's, dinosaurs and music).
If you teach your sons the right things when they are younger they will reach puberty with things clear on his mind, and internet will just be the biggest library available for them, curiosity and desire of knowledge are as natural as sex desire on ANY human.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
I work at a college... I've been present to assist with classes aimed at raising parental awareness of Internet predators...
As part of the class a detective enters into an on-line chat board and manages to get someone to bite pretty easily... Perhaps it's staged... perhaps it's just where their choosing to chat at...
I don't know, but the overall effect is that I tend to monitor my kids activities when they go onto the Internet.
Can someone please pass this on to the Australian Federal Government, in particular the Minister for Censoring the Internet, the Hon Stephen Conroy.
kthnkxbye
/Mike
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
The headline is completely false and misrepresents the article, too: the report did NOT conclude the Internet is not dangerous. It only concluded the danger is "overblown."
Of course the Internet is dangerous for kids. That's a no-brainer. Only by shutting your eyes to the facts can you possibly come to another conclusion. There's plenty of examples of it.
Is it an epidemic? Not according to most definitions of the word. Will most kids be solicited? No. Is there a real danger out there? Of course.
Is the danger "overblown"? Ask the parents of the victims.
Those of you claiming the danger doesn't exist are just as bad as the people saying there's a predator around every corner. There's a middle ground: realize the danger IS there, but take precautions and don't let it control your life.
Yet more proof that the media should just be turned off for 6 months to a year or however long it takes. The entire world would no doubt change dramatically for the better. The media fills us with whatever crap they can think of....or better yet, whatever makes them the most money and gives them good ratings. If news stations were shut down for a while we would be out of this recession, that they only made worse, in no time. When the news and all sources of media say how "terrible" the internet is for children many people banned there children from all social sites and chat rooms. Some banned them from the internet all together unless the parent was basically staring at them the whole time. If that had happened to me i would DEFIANTLY not be where i am in my career.....or my life for that matter. When all sources of news scream at everyone how terrible the economy is...."cant get a loan," "shopping is WAY down this year," "dont buy a car, wait it out," "blah blah blah...terrible terrible terrible." if that is all you hear, you can bet your ass that its going to stay that way or get worse. DOWN WITH THE BIG GUYS IN THE NEWS BUSINESS!!!
I am sure that this report is very comforting to the children (and their parents) who have been victimized by sexual predators via the internet. It is also pure BS! Just because someone releases a roport like this doesn't mean that its conclusion is true ot correct.
And it is NOT the governments business (ANY government...are you listening Australia?!) to supervise or babysit anyones kids while they are on the internet. That is the PARENT's responsibility, and THEIRS ALONE!!!!!!!!!
I was born in 1989, and I had unsupervised internet access starting around 1997 (when my parents first got dial-up). The first few times I was online, I was with my parents (just because we were in a group looking at this cool internet thing). A porn banner came up at one point during the group experience. I'm grateful this didn't launch my parents into knee-jerk lockdown mode. On the contrary, they just sat me down in the living room and talked to me for about 10 minutes. The gist of what they told me about the internet:
- Don't reveal your name, address, share photos of yourself, or do anything that identifies you (I didn't care; I already had enough friends at school. I didn't want to talk to anyone new online).
- If someone asks you for this info, don't tell them, and stop talking to them (Same as above).
- Don't look at porn; it's unrealistic and gross (I looked at porn anyway. It gave me a boner but I didn't even know what to do with it. After a while I got bored and went back to playing Quake).
- Don't do anything illegal. If you're not sure about something, ask us (I downloaded a ton of warez off of Hotline servers, but that's in a legal gray area).
Overall, it was pretty laissez-faire. Just some warnings about what to avoid. But that was it... no monitoring software, no cyber-sitter bullshit, no "you can't use the computer if we're not in the room" rules. I was happy about the rules they set up. I'd often be at a friend's and we'd want to play an online game or something. We could hardly ever do it because all of my friends' parents were scared shitless about the internet by shows like 20/20 and Dateline. They'd insist on being in the room if we were going to be online. Sometimes I'd argue with other parents, using defenses like "We're not idiots; we know not to tell people where we live or who we are. Give us a break". This didn't do much other than result in some angry calls to my own parents. My best friend's dad was pretty computer literate and went all CIA on his son's internet use... logs checked weekly, blacklisted sites, the works. This treatment lasted all the way through senior year at high school! Worse yet, when I offered to hook my friend up with a proxy or VPN, he balked and said he didn't want to go against his parents' wishes. I feel sorry for anyone who's conditioned to think that total surveillance like this is at all reasonable.
Parents who monitor your children's browsing: I realize you just want what's best for your child, but remember that you are not a demigod and that your children are human beings with a right to see the world for themselves. Seriously. "Shielding" them from pedophiles and naughty pictures is like never letting your kid out of the house for fear of ticks and rattlesnakes. If you're worried your kid will see goatse and be scarred for life, then open a web browser, look at it together, and talk about it. Your kid will probably see it either way (after he moves out, if it comes to that), so you might as well take the initiative and put it in perspective to minimize any danger. I'm living proof that seeing rotten.com, goatse, playing Quake, and looking at porn (all at an early age) does not fuck you up.
Should I ever have kids, they'll get about the same treatment I got - they'll know they can do anything and everything that doesn't risk measurable physical harm. They'll know right away that screwing up this simple rule means no more internet until they've learned their lesson. Considering my own childhood 'net experience, I don't expect any problems. I'll do my best to foster in my children an unquenchable curiosity about all parts (good and bad) of life on planet Earth... doing otherwise would serve only to chisel away a little bit of their lives.
Prior to looking at porn, I honestly had NO CLUE that anyone would partake in anal sex. It sure wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Seeing things like that led me to develop an academic interest in everything that I had never encountered in daily life
Well said.
I'm sure /.ers will be too busy gleefully gloating and basking in their smug sense of superiority to RTFA, which states that a portion of the study was made up of "executives of 30 companies, including Yahoo, AOL, MySpace and Facebook." Seems to me like they'd have a vested interest in promoting the safety of their OWN social networks.
this is not what the REAL conversation is about, which is: the reason that adult males have REAL reasons to fear the consequences of attempting to help a strange child.
It is not about scaring the child, and it is not about giving the child false impressions, etc. In fact, it is not about the child at all. It is about the adults.
If you do not understand this dilemma, then you have been living a sheltered life. Wake up.
Next thing you know they'll find out it's actually pretty hard to come by child porn, that it's not that easy to build a bomb off Internet instructions or that a "skilled hacker" cannot just infiltrate anything and do anything by typing onto his keyboard for 20 seconds.
It's not?
Actually, all the things you referenced are as trivial to find on the Internet as they are in your local library. More so.
What's missing is "why not do these things?" Unfortunately with the current environment of delayed pain, parents are called to give their children some guidance on ethical behavior. That doesn't always end well.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Some of the first people I met online was professional warez groups, phone phreaks, carders, anarchy information site admins and so on.
It was a good experience to learn about The Terrorist Handbook, the weaknesses of the visa system, how the global phone system works, and how to organize global warez trading organization. But it might not be the ideal most parents look for.
Other people of interest back then was the Norwegian satanic community that existed at the time. They provided sound samples from authentic church burnings and "religious inspiration to anyone who was interested.
Most people did not find this kind of things, but it was not hard to find if you looked for strangeness. The situation might not have changed to much.
"the internet is not exactly the most kid-safe place" [my emph.]
Might not be friendly, might not be appropriate, but it's safe.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
these guys obviously didn't include /b/ in their samples.
i've seen something similar to meatspin on the foursquare court!
There goes the entire pushpoint and argumentation point for all the Internet regulation banter the lobbyists use ...
One of my regrets raising my two daughters, both in their early/mid teens, is that we have been over protective of them. They have lived very protected lives. When they were young, school was a couple of miles away and there were no kids in our neighborhood. They now live in the county so they have to be driven every where. So other than a couple of hours after school, we have complete control over what they do, who they see, who their friends are.
This is how my wife wants it to be. She has bought into the fear factor. "Everything is so much more dangerous these days." "Kids are not safe." "My child might get kidnapped, molested, or killed."
But at age 12 when she was growing up in the California Bay Area, she used to ride her horse 20 miles to the top of skyline not returning all day. When I point this out to her, she says "Oh but that was different, things were safer then."
I don't thing this is true. I think that if you look at the percentages, incidents per 100,000 people, I suspect that the numbers are probably similar to the 1950s and 1960s and better than in in the early 1900s or late 1800s. It is just that the population has increased by an order or more in magnitude and the media picks up each horrible event and makes it front page news. This makes the events seem much more common. "Yikes! Kids are getting raped and murdered every day!"
The regret I have for over protecting my kids is that in a few years they are going to go off to college. This may be the first time they are on their own. I think we have done a good job raising them so I am not too concerned that they will do something to totally screw up their lives. But they will face a lot of temptations. They will make bad choices; drugs, sex, lifestyle, paying attention to school work, etc. My concern is that they will be facing these situations without the security of home an family to moderate their behavior or to act as a protective cushion when they get hurt or in trouble. Yes we are there, but we are not there every night.
And I feel lucky. At least we have talked about sex and birth control. They live in the Sierra foothills in a rather conservative and religious community. I see some of our friends who have raised their kids in an even safer "Just say no" environment and I wonder what their kids are going to do in college. As an older generation used to say, "You know what they say about Catholic girls..."
Kids need to be given chances to make mistakes when they are young so they can learn from them in a loving protective environment.
Will they suppress it?
Yes, minister.
Just like Santa Claus?
WAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Something like that is far more damaging to kids than any number of suspected online predators...
What has been seen, cannot be unseen.
No.... the internet is way dangerous to kids. Just not for the reasons they've been plugging for the last 5 years.
Is anyone who pas attention really surprised by this ? (Except for the people who get paid to make other people scared about things, like Attorneys General.)
;-)
Especially when it's from seening teh boobiez on teh interweb or seeing a man's doodle pop up on screen (as opposed to RL, in front of your face, spitting venom... trouser snake sneak attack!!!!).
Such "scarring" that may occur will be no worse than the scarring from being bullied once.
Internet is like big city (like New York, Beging, Berlin, London) where is all kind stuff available.
You do not let your child go alone to wonder to city like he would want. But... what older your child gets, more you let him to wonder and explore the city. And soon if you say "Do not go there" and you trun around, place where you can find him/she is exactly that place where you told not to go....
Difference in Internet to real world city, is that in real world city, a 10 yeard old kid does not get inside of stripbar (or atleast should not!) or anykind nightclub. He/She does not get boose from store or drugs from pharmasy. But, he can get those if he meats wrong people, then he is in more danger than can believe.
In Internet, even the 5 yeard old is possible to find information about drugs, boose and videos what you would not like him/her to see. But, to find that stuff, you need to do a little search for them (thanks internet search-providers!). But at least your kid can not get drugs, boose or anything FROM internet... if you kid spends 2 hours in his/her room surfing web, you can be 100% certain that she/he is not coming out drugged or drunk (unless she/he has found those on your boose-cabin or closet ;-)
To protect your kid... you do not limit their access with "STOP" signs everywhere or scare them off until they are 18/21 by promising to beat a crap out of them if they do something what you do not proof. You educate them when they are kids... you teach them basic moral rules what to follow by using their own brains, think what they are doing...
If you let your kids live freem, without anykind control or limits... without authority... without telling them why something is need to done and why something not... by explaining them all... so they can see the reason for that. Not just saying "Just dont do this and do this. "Shut up! Dont ask questions, just do what I say!".. then they start come more and more against you, what ever you say.
One good way is give tasks for your childrends... give them weekmoney if they take garbage out everyday, clean their rooms and help your wife/huspend to carry food-baskets etc... every task gives them a small amount of money end of the week (not on friday).
Teach them that what ever questions they have in their minds, they can come to you and ask it. If you do not know it, you can teach him/her to find it from dictionary/wikipedia etc.
And what is most important thing... spend time with them... every day. Because since they born... the time goes so fast that you do not even notice when they are waving on door when they leave to college and starts their own life... and in that point... you just hope that you have gaved to him/her/them all the love, time and knowledge what you have effort to give, because when you are old, they are those who will help you...
Internet is just a small part of your problems on educating childrends.. biggest problem is you and your partner...
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
hrm... is Richard pissed that he was wrong about his stance or that our children aren't in imminent danger?
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
As long as 4chan exists;
This article is wrong
'Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons.'
I guess he didn't visit shashdot.
A prior report out last year also said concerns could overblown. However some kids were more apt to be targeted.
"Study: Fears of Online 'Sexual Predators' Are Greatly Exaggerated"
"Fears that children are at risk to sexual predators on the Internet are greatly exaggerated, according to a study published today in American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association. Janis Wolak and her collaborators at the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham conducted the research."
Myth:
Internet predators go after any child.
Fact:
Finding: Usually their targets are adolescent girls or adolescent boys of uncertain sexual orientation, according to Wolak. Youths with histories of sexual abuse, sexual orientation concerns and patterns of off- and online risk-taking are especially at risk
http://www.spicejar.org/asiplease/archives/000669.html
Anyone who thinks such a study will change the hearts and minds of people is naive at best. Consider that:
-- Human beings have a strong inclination to cling to the anecdotal, the intuitive, the "obvious." There is a dearth of ability to look at things in a well-rounded, complete, scientific manner or to allow facts to override innate prejudices.
-- Never forget that many of the "think of the children" campaigns are not about "the children" at all -- the kids are just a convenient, emotional peg on which to hang the desire to ban or sanitize things for all of us.
-- Facts are simply not viewed as "facts" when they conflict with a strongly held belief, most especially one based at least in part on religious grounds.
These factors rear their ugly heads time and time again. Every yardstick shows that the War on Drugs is a failure, and actually counterproductive, yet the notion of legalizing/decriminalizing those substances (and shifting money and resources away from law enforcement and punishment, and towards education, prevention, and treatment) is anathema because "using drugs is wrong." Climate change is a fact that must be dealt with, but you will find countless naysayers who either have their own interests to protect (the oil companies, big business), or have such a limited and narrow understanding of the phenomenon that every colder than average event, trend, or season in isolated areas (such as what has been happening this winter in some parts of the U.S.) is instantly seen as "proof" that no such change is taking place. In the same manner, studies such as the one cited will not deter many individuals from believing that scads of ogreish perverts are stalking our children and that the "Internets" are a cesspool of danger.
Until and unless evolution produces more humans capable of accepting fact over emotion, of embracing the scientifically proven in lieu of the simplistically observed, of seeing the big picture and not focusing on isolated exceptions to the rule, then we shall continue to have studies like this marginalized or outright ignored. Maybe someday...don't hold your breath.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Have you tried http://nambla.org/?
FRA: STFU GTFO
That is all :)
A Man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- Albert Einstein
Quoting the end of the article:
> One problem is that it is difficult to verify the
> ages and identities of children because they do
> not have driverâ(TM)s licenses or insurance.
The answer is obvious! Drivers licenses should be issued in kindergarten. It may make our streets more dangerous, but the Internet will be safer, surely!
I've been on the Internet for a great deal of my life, and I've never been propositioned. I must have been doing something wrong.
"You know what they say about Catholic girls..."
My favorite way to phrase it is "prohibition leads to excess".
My own anecdotal experiences with catholic girls definitely support this premise. ;)
(And before anyone asks, no, I don't have pics. But trust me, it's true.)
Knowledge != Intelligence
If the internet is "just like the real world" then it should be noted that most parents don't let their kids run around out in the "real world" unsupervised. In other words, if the analogy holds, then I shouldn't let my kid on the net without looking over his/her shoulder the whole time. I doubt that's how most parents operate.
There are two types of "danger". The kind that comes looking for you, e.g. sexual predators, and the kind you go looking for, e.g. age-inappropriate content. With regard to the latter, the net really is "less safe" than the "real world", since in the "real world" there are age restrictions placed on the purchase of inappropriate content. On the net its widely available free of charge.
Dead on. I wish Mr. Blumethal could see this advice.
Hey Pudge
Can you tell us how we can tell when our moderator points expire? Under the old slashdot layout it would show up in our user page when we are logged in. It isn't in there since the layout changed a while back.
Do you know where we might be able to find that? I have one moderator point left from my most recent allocation and I would like to know how long I have left to use it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This must change! B-tards UNITE!
To this day I haven't seen ANY of them
Here you go (you did kinda ask for it), but please bear in mind that a couple of these really are the sickest things ever.
Tubgirl (still image, pretty damn sick) http://aimtools.serialchiller.org/images/tubgirl.jpg
Lemonparty (still image, more funny than anything else) http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/db/Lemonparty.jpg
Meatspin (animated gif, again, more funny than sick) http://jj.am/gallery/d/5614-2/Meatspin.gif
Goatse (still image, mildly sick, satisfies some scientific curiosities) http://www.avitable.com/adam/blog/goatse.gif
Mr. Hands (This one is actually new to me. It's a video, mildly sick but kinda funny) http://lbn.threat.tv/mrhands.mpg
2 Girls 1 Cup (Video, probably the sickest one on the list. I sincerely hope these women were paid more than they probably were.) http://www.slutload.com/watch/wMfFtNmWz2/2girls1cup.html
These links were all found in 10 minutes with cursory google searches, so I don't think you really tried all that hard to see these, but now you really have zero excuse.
Knowledge != Intelligence
I personally worry about the 30+ year old guy that's sitting down pretending to be a 13 year old girl and responding to someone's sexual advances on-line.
That's gotta do weird things to a person's head after several months. Like maybe he can only get off anymore if he dresses in a little skirt and his wife violates him with objects?
I don't know. Not a job I'd want
(wow, and the screen word is "fatherly" Maybe he calls his wife daddy)
Our country (USA) is run on fear. Our media sells us fear because we love it. Our politicians use that fear for personal gain and power.
So... dont expect a politician to suddenly acknowledge this report.
EVERYONE on the internet knows that kid touchers are not the norm... but it seems that the media just loves to paint the world as dangerous, rather than acknowledge that the world is full of GOOD people, more so than bad. Of course ironically, if they focused on the bad, they would probably be pointing the cameras at their bosses, CEOs, and political guests...
And we cant have that can we?
Today's history lesson for the youngsters -
LBJ and Nixon commissioned a study of pornography. Some vocal people thought porn was causing the collapse of civilization, so academics and various smart folks were tapped to study the issue. They did good, scientifically-valid research and recommended in their final report in 1970 that porn was not a danger and restrictions on it should be loosened.
Reagan would have none of that. By golly, the whole purpose of studying porn is to prove that it's bad and give the government an excuse to crack down on it, right? So the Meese Commission was formed to study the same subject, again. This time, however, the folks controlling the study were a group of intellectually dishonest (or substandard, I can't tell which) political hacks who knew damn well on what side their bread was buttered. They found that porn was TEH EVIL! Like, totally. IOW, they produced exactly the report that had been promised by their bosses to the conservative/religious right to help Reagan get elected. Science be damned.
Since then, the Meese Commission report has been used to justify more liberty-destroying legal and legislative maneuvering than you can possibly imagine. Ever since, it's been a very painful thorn in the side of all reasonable people who believe in free expression.
So our attorneys general have started down the same path. They put together a group of folks who knew what they were doing and had them study the issue. The report comes back. Some of the attorneys general don't like the result.
I predict a Meese Commission ver. 2.0 will be slapped together with orders to do a new report showing that all computers reach directly into the minds of children and destroy their innocence as soon as the kid touches the mouse. We simply can't allow truth and common sense to get in the way of our paranoia, now can we?
History should repeat itself in 5, 4, 3, ...
-1, Offtopic
Because -1, Asshole isn't a valid option.
Perhaps I am offtopic, but I had a slashdot question that I wanted to ask a slashdot employee (Pudge works for slashdot in case you have forgotten). And with his posting history it is virtually impossible for me to post a question in reply to something he has said earlier.
Sightings of Pudge in public are less common than sightings of Dracula in the daylight. Being as I have seen this message of his in a public discussion, I fully expect to see a sasquatch walk across my front lawn in the very near future.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I think that 5-10 years ago or so the internet was much more dangerous for kids. I think that the widely publicized efforts of law enforcement to catch the online predators in sting operations have scared away most of the predators.
Did the report mention that aspect?
I think that a parents' reaction to what a child is looking at has a lot of weight in how memorable it is to the child.
So, bullying is a more prevalent problem than sexual predators. And jellyfish stings are more common than shark attacks -- but I'm not going to throw my kid into a shark tank just because they're not as prevalent a threat. Parents who decide that the internet is now perfectly safe and that it can't possibly happen to THEIR kid are idiots, regardless what this report says.
Worth listening to (if iPlayer allows you to), as the tone of the presenter made my flesh crawl - if she had said "... as a mother ..." once more I would have thrown a shoe at the radio - and the content was cleverly presented to make it appear more substantial than it actually was.
You're dead on. In fact, I feel the same uneasiness as the original poster, and feel a similar awkwardness in situations where I'm alone with a female stranger. I completely understand the caution women exercise and I'm glad my wife is cautious and aware of her surroundings; but it is an odd feeling to recognize that the woman walking across the parking lot in front of me is keeping a close eye on me, or even hurrying her pace when simple chance has placed my car near hers.
I find myself walking to the side when following a woman who is by herself so that she can see me in her peripheral vision. I have slowed my pace before when the woman walking ahead of me toward the parking garage elevators was clearly keeping a wary eye on me, so that she could get the elevator car to herself.
I understand the caution, and I sympathize with it; but it almost makes me feel guilty or dirty when I haven't meant or done anything remotely wrong.
It's a tough issue.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I think children today are over-supervised. My childhood preceded the period of hyper-vigilance about pedophiles that is the norm today (and way before the interweb thingy, you youngsters go on about). We frequently engaged in activities around my neighborhood without any adult supervision at all, riding our bicycles, organizing impromptu softball games, etc. Most of us survived this. What has been lost to the next generation after me, is the sense that you are entitled to any privacy as a child. Many who grew up in the eighties and nineties would find that their parents felt perfectly justified in monitoring their every movement, eavesdropping on every conversation, and even reading their diaries. Some day I'll be supervised in a nursing home by that generation. They're probably going to put a camera in my room.
"Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report." if they really cared about kids then they would take the results happily just like any scientist would
Just raise the minimum surfing age to 18. That is just as good as most the other cockamanie laws the government comes up with. Is that how you spell cockamanie?
The Thing is.
Here's a webpage where kids can share tips about being bullied via text or online: http://www.txtup.co.uk
... did you even notice my name? Who are you calling a wuss?
Jesus Christ!
Won't you at least take the trouble to figure out who you are conversing with, and what about, before you go calling names?
Look at Cannabis prosecution...
The facts don't really make a difference -- they'll implement whatever laws they want and claim that any studies to the opposite are biased or unrealistic. They they'll also implement rules to prohibit studying interactions of actual children in privacy and protection grounds.
Never let the facts get in the way of a personal/political bias! That's government's motto -- especially if there is money in it. Think of all the money we'll need to add to "online cops" -- and all the prisons we can build for those who violate our restriction (even if the restrictions are shown to be unnecessary...)...
Selling fear is a far more efficient way of manipulating^h^h^h...governing people...
Bullying is a BIG concern though - through email and also through MSN and IMing. Of course it is up to parents to monitor and educated their children about the dangers and to help their children become confident to use the internet safely. I say get a decent kids email provider NOT a free Yahoo or whatever account - which will just spam your child to within an inch of their innocence. I use safensoundmail but have yet to find a decent MSN controller. I think that on instant messaging bullying can get more viscous than it would in the playground.
... just a misunderstanding.
I could have been clearer in the way I wrote my post. No need to apologize. Besides, after insisting that I misunderstood you in that other thread I found your reply to me here quite amusing. All entertainment value and no offence.
:-)
http://marriedmansexlife.com/