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.
(This may appear OT at first but bare with me).
There's a documentary circulating right now called Zeitgeist Addendum. It's a sequel to the 2007 documentary called Zeitgeist. I'm not saying that I agree with all of it's conclusions, and it does ignore a lot of facts that don't support it's message, but it is informative and interesting. The first part is an overview of the fractional reserve banking system and points out how money gets created by banks out of thin air via loans. (You can also read the Wiki page on fractional reserve banking for a good overview as well).
What the first part of the documentary points out is that since money is created by banks via loans (and the initial deposits making those loans possible in the first place are central bank loans), all money is debt. Thanks to interest there simply isn't enough money in circulation to repay all loans. When people are in debt they seek employment to repay those debts. And thus the fractional reserve system becomes a form of enslavement. Only people don't realize that they're being enslaved.
Whether or not it's actual enslavement is up to your own interpretation of the system and it's intents (there's many other arguments in favour of fractional reserve and central banking). However, I think this is a good example of the carrot method of controlling people. You can argue that it still boils down to fear (fear of not having the income and not being able to repay debts), but money in general is a good way of getting people to do something by offering them something that they want or need rather than threatening them directly.
So there are other ways of controlling people. Though maybe at some psychological level it still boils down to the fear of not having the carrot.