Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Good Low Cost Free Software For Protecting Kids Online?
An anonymous reader writes "I have two kids, 7 and 8. I would love to allow them internet access on a regular basis. The problem is what's out there: I really don't want them to deal with porn ads and such, but making either a blacklist or a whitelist myself would take months. So I figured I would ask you: what free software would you use with preferably prebuilt lists to protect your kids online? What is out there with fairly easy configuration ability (to allow for game servers — they love Minecraft), but secure enough they can't just bypass it using a Google search?"
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
If you're looking for software to take care of your children for you, you've already failed as a parent.
The internet is all about communication, be it with other individuals, corporations, etc.
Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision? No?
Then you may want to consider just making sure that there's a human with your children while they're using the thing, until they're at an age where you choose to trust them on their own for a bit. You'll be there to explain the odd random thing that happens.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
I'm not aware of any Free software in this space, for free software you've got MS Live Family Safety (works with most browsers on Windows and some applications) and OpenDNS content filtering. I use the Live family safety on their laptops and OpenDNS on their tablets.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
OpenDNS has it's limitations, but overall it's really good.
Try OpenDNS. It's got good granularity for filtering criteria and you can either filter at your router, or on a per-computer basis.
Plus, their founder has a /. UID of 17.
Maybe they're running linux. Adding the cost of windows on to that would make it significantly more expensive. Maybe they're being rational enough about it to not be scared into immediately whipping out their wallet to have someone else protect their children. Maybe there are FOSS alternatives that are actually better. Did you actually do any research on it? If so, it'd be nice to hear what your results were.
My father uses this software, BSecure Whole Home Filtering. Its great, you can customize the filters to your hearts content. Plus you can cover all the computers in your network by changing DNS servers on your router.
Link: http://www.bsecure.com/
127.0.0.1 block.this.com (there are tons of blacklists, pick one or several and add an entry for each,... You should only need wget, sed and other basics) Puppy linux has an example, but could use a better selection of lists.
And back in the dinosaur days(read early 80s) when I grew up the kids STILL figured out how to access the stuff, and we created a secret community stash in the woods. You contributed what you could, you took when you needed. Amazing system :P(and of course by the time I was a teen I was the one that was smart enough to dial up BBSes and d/l porn from there, and distribute it to friends in exchange for floppy disks)
Monstar L
I've used K9 Web Protection for years. http://www1.k9webprotection.com/ It's free and does a pretty good job. I also setup my wireless router to use OpenDNS as an added layer of protection for any of my kids friends who may bring something over and connect to our wireless network. It's not foolproof, but you can setup a filter level and it does a decent job of stopping "accidental" clicks.
Firefox, AdBlockPro, Noscript, and the computer in the living room.
You know what parenting is all about? Its about getting your kids prepared for the real world, and not have it hit them like a brick at 18, or whenever you choose to let them off the leash. Its about teaching them respect. allowing them to make their own decisions, but being their to support them when (because of lack of experience), they make make the wrong ones.
If you ban them from the internet unless you're there watching their every move and making sure they're not looking at bad stuff, then they're gonna end up hating you with a passion. Using the internet in secret around their mates house, loosing any kind of respect for you.
One possibility is http://dansguardian.org/
It is filtering based and there are community maintained blacklists and whitelists for it for different audiences.
Good luck and as much involvement as you can have in their internet use to teach sensible web use will be beneficial as well.
Wax on, wax off baby!
That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities.
Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible.
Install ad-blocking extensions for your web browser.
Install NoScript or some other JavaScript blocking extension.
Don't give the kids account administrative privileges.
If possible, run an operating system that doesn't permit them to install their own software.
Turn on whatever parental controls are available in the OS.
Keep it patched and up-to-date.
Beyond that, the question is really a matter of sitting down and having an honest discussion with your kids. You can supervise them if you want to come across as overbearing, but really, the single best thing you can do is to be someone they feel they can trust and share whatever questions they may have. The reality is that the world is full of weird and disturbing and dangerous shit. It's not possible, or even desirable, to try to protect them from being exposed to such things forever. Rather, teach them how to judge for themselves, and encourage them to come to you for advice. If you cannot build trust and respect, you have already lost. They will simply learn to hide things from you.
Finally, there's something to be said for simply not giving them unsupervised network access. When I was that age, I didn't play online video games. I didn't have the luxury of playing Minecraft or whatnot. And I was happy to have what I did. The more quality time you spend with your kids, the less they will feel a need for things like television, mobile phones, iPads, and the internet. It means bringing them up to read paper books. Going outside and getting exercise. Getting them interested in crafts or other creative pursuits that build fine motor control and dexterity. Teaching them how to use their imaginations and developing their critical thinking skills. Could you do these things with computers and modern technology? Sure. Is it easier? Not necessarily.
You're right. Obviously the first thing that comes to your head, no matter what the question was, is always correct.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Maybe they're running linux.
They're obviously running BeOS, gahhh!
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Do you really think a parent hovers around their kid 24/7?
Do you really think a kid should surf the net 24/7?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Helicopter parenting FTW!
Or not... i've seen kids who's parents watch carefully over their shoulders all their childhood. They don't make good adults.
I have kids of my own
I love them
I like to think of ways to protect them
But I also know that I simply can't protect them 24/7
Instead, I teach them ways to protect themselves
I teach them how to discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and why something are "Right", and others are "Wrong"
Services like "Net Nanny" (and others) can only give an illusion of "protection" - and parents all over, always like the feeling of instant gratification, that "My Kids Are Protected"
Sure, I am worry about the safety of my kids, but I prefer to let them learn, from the real world, rather than creating an artificial green-house so that my kids are insulated from the real world out there
Perhaps my approach is wrong
Perhaps I am a bad dad
But that's what I did, and that's what I do, and what I will do, for my children, whom I adore !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You probably aren't a parent. Most people here hold your view (as I did) until they have little ones to protect, then decide that the educational opportunity offered by /b/tards and Goatse is pretty much zero, and decide to restrict educational opportunity to the books available at home and in the library.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Your boy's not old enough to have hormones going wild and informing him that boobies are the greatest invention ever, so that software makes sense to avoid inadvertent stumbling upon. For the parents of kids just a bit older though, it's use is likely both useless and a symptom of bad parenting. As soon as they're physically able to reproduce, they need to be able to make decisions about it as a responsible adult; they will be in situations where they have the final say on the matter.
Me, I'd say both he and society are better off if he's wanking to a porn tube site and not knocking up the thirteen year old girl down the block. So, drop the net filter subscription and invest in either a damned good anti-virus or teach him to use Linux. Before it becomes an issue, because you've no idea when he's going to talk his way into his first set of panties.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
I highly recommend using the Privoxy content filtering proxy server. Since using it I can't recall ever "accidentally" having come across a porn site and the ad-free experience makes browsing the internet much more tolerable. You can also add your own filters based on host names, partial URIs and even funky things like image dimensions (to block out banner ads from specific providers) and it has the ability to strip GIF animations down to their first frame (no annoying blinky/flashy adverts). You can also define exceptions so that ad-supported web sites you approve of can still display their non-invasive ads and/or certain banking sites aren't fucked-up by having their Javascript blocked (why aren't they on SSL anyway?).
All of my desktop computers and mobile devices use it - it's particularly amusing to see how insistent some mobile apps are trying to get their advertising - especially Angry Birds, which tries about 8 different FQDNs and IP addresses before giving up and letting you play anyway.
Even with Privoxy, though, you cannot replace supervising your children's online time. I also recommend *not* allowing computers and connected mobile devices to wander off into bedrooms, etc. - make sure your kids are in the lounge/kitchen area where you can keep an eye on them.
I've two kids of my own and, amazingly enough, I was a kid once as well.
Monitoring and Filtering software is rubbish. All it does is create an artificial wall that your kids will see as a "forbidden" area. You are a /. user which means, most likely, you are a smart guy. That means your kids are probably smart too. Putting up a program like this - your kids will see a challenge and go out of their way to break/circumvent it. It's what I would have done as a kid...
Communicate with your kids. Educate them. Explain to them about the internet and life in general. There are things and places that are not good for them now and it's best if they don't go there. But do it in a way that doesn't insult their intelligence. Amazingly enough, education and communication work. Will they maybe end up with a nasty pop-up on screen? Maybe. But that might happen even with NetNanny installed.
Treat your kids like people, tell them of the dangers, explain WHY those things are dangers, and give them alternatives.
PS: No - I am not some, "Think of the children", bleeding heart freak. My kids have been spanked on occasion, they've been grounded, and done plenty wrong. They are kids. Shit happens. But by treating them like people and not pets, the shit that has happened has been minor and far less than most of my "Time-out" peers.
*snickers
First porn I saw? Elementary school (black and white photos)
Second naked pics? Library (color, woohoo!)
Third naked pics? Home
First information about hardcore sexual practices? Psychology section of school library.
It works best to guide our children, we instill values in them a far earlier age than most realize, then they make their own decisions. But if you decide to make them work around your efforts to thwart their curiosity, such sites can easily be included in the Hosts file provided above.
I thought the same way you did-- concern over my kids, hands wringing, brow sweating...
Then I had a revelation-- I could just install MY CLEAN PC! and it was truly the answer to all my
-- aaah, f**k it. Nevermind.
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7. It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like, and that their bodies are all wrong, and need silicone, and botox, and collagen, and liposuction and thousands of dollars of other cosmetic surgery to be attractive to men; or from a source that will teach your sons that women are sluts, bitches, and whores to be used as nothing more than a willing hole, and that "real" women have bodies like porn stars.
They are not old enough to understand the nuances of sexuality at that age. Their minds are still developing, and it is not unreasonable to want to make sure that their minds are not being filled with garbage. Looking at a black and white pair of tits is a LOT different than a 30 minute high-def, full color video showing everything in brutally clinical detail. It's natural that they will be curious about sexuality as they begin to mature - and that's why a responsible parent will make sure they HAVE resources to satisfy their curiosity - but if you think that the hardcore porn being produced today has educational value in teaching children about their sexuality, you are way, way, way off base.
The fact is, none of this parental control software is foolproof... It will always let the odd thing through, and if its purely software based rather than running on a separate network device then it's not exactly hard for someone with physical access to the machine to bypass it.
Kids have a natural desire to do new things, especially things which are forbidden.
Instead you want to educate the kids.
If it's not a forbidden subject then younger kids will have no interest in things like porn...
They will encounter questionable content themselves sooner or later, better that they be prepared for it under an environment controlled by their parents than stumble into it unprepared and on their own.
That kids will see things like porn and violence isn't the biggest concern, it generally won't interest them and they will just move on unless you make a big deal about it... The biggest concern is grooming pedophiles, and these won't be found on the porn sites targeted by software filters, they will be found on the online forums and chat services which are actually aimed at kids.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
Not all children are the same, anyway. What works for one may not work for another. You know, like with human beings...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There IS NO SOFTWARE SOLUTION that will keep your kids safe on the 'net.
Period.
You'll simply have a *very* false sense of security, a hole in your time/budget, and kids that learn first that you're not very smart, and second, that the game to play is "find ways around limitations my parents set for me". That, and they'll also quickly learn all about "two girls, one cup", "lemonparty", and probably "goatse" as well.
Either be around when they're using the 'net, or turn the damn thing *off*, and tell them to do something else. It's really not that hard.
Sure, you won't be "cool". You might not be your kid's "friend" any more, at least for a while. They might even tell you "I HATE you!!".
Suck it up. YOU are the adult here. YOU set rules & limits. You're supposed to be a parent, not their buddy. Your job isn't being "cool". Your job is doing "parent" things, like make unpopular decisions that they may not understand for years yet, if ever.
Try setting rules that they're not to go online without a parent around. Take a crucial cable with you, or lock it up, when you're not there. Put the computer in the family/living room.
You have to decide whether the time you spend doing things other than supervise your children's 'net use is more important than they are. Software can't do it. It's just there to salve your conscience with illusion, and make money from your guilt.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's right there, "Nanny". If you're going to pay someone else to raise your children for you, why bother having them at all?
Children aren't some kind of exotic pet that you can stick into kennels when you don't feel like looking after them.
I simply don't think that 9 year olds should be using the Internet unsupervised. But I definitely think that children should not have TV sets in their rooms. (In fact, the majority view of my children is not to have TV in the house).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Probably said a thousand times but here comes again:
Using a filtering software has a very limited use - sure, it can block porn ads (but so does adblock) on torrent sites and you can easily block chat sites you don't want your kids hanging in. But - this works for a very limited time. I would say a few years max just in the 7--10 age - if at that. Then they find out that hey, they can access the blocked sites at their friends house or at library, and while it has been previously forbidden it must me exciting and they want to find out what it is.
So put the computer in the living room. Give them privacy over time (room to write personal messages without observation on Facebook etc. when they demonstrate that they can act responsibly) as they mature. If they screw up educate, and encourage them to report online bullying or inappropriate behavior without the feat that *they* are disciplined. Sure, they will see a few porn images if they are interested - you can't watch them every second. But kids did see those back in the day from porn mags in the garage of someone who's dad had a stash piled up there. It will not destroy their mental health or anything. Just educate them on the real threats - do not meet strangers from chat rooms without adult present, as you would not meet a stranger from the street in private, this stuff is easy and easily taught when you do not over-mystify it.
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
Here's one bad example: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18282560 and here ""Certain behaviours that I only used to have bored 40-year-olds asking me about goes now right down to the under-16s asking me about it."".
This report might include some research, I don't have time to read it right now.
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it. So we're even there.
I have no intention of exposing my children to Goatse. Sure, they might not be hurt by it, but I would hypothesize it's even more unlikely that they will be hurt by the lack of hardcore pornography. So I'll play it safe (well, as safe as I can), and not have big gaping assholes as my screen saver just to show that I'm somehow more "enlightened" than the people that filter what their children are exposed to.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
All I ask is that you later post the IP logs of the people that were actually dumb enough to download a zipped exe file from a link in a slashdot comment.
Aaah yes, because fetishism is a sign of mental illness...
No, it's not, the fact that some shrinks haven't caught up to the times is not my problem.
The vast majority of people have fetishest fantasies, many are comfortable expressing it and live happier lives because of that.
The fact that more and more people reach that level of comfort at an earlier age is not a bad thing, it's a GOOD thing.
Let me put it this way - me and my wife are planning to have children, we already decided that our habit of being naked around the house will not change. We will not suddenly start hiding the handcuffs and spanking paddles lying about the house, we will not suddenly put a lock on the play-room door and order them never to enter it - we'll just tell them "when the door is closed, you cannot come in."
Many people think that raises HEALTHIER children. In many cultures, that is how ALL children are raised (most of Europe).
In Dutch culture for example it's common for teenagers to have a sit-down with their parents when they feel ready to have sex and discuss it with them - the young couple asking for advice (not just practical but on the whole thing) before going ahead.
It's also normal practice to get consent, along with good advice.
The Netherlands boasts one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. And get this bit: 70% of American's regret the timing or person with whom they had their first sexual experience according to studies. In the Netherlands, only 15% would like to change anything.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
So basically... you've linked me to a few examples. Kind of like blaming Doom for Columbine. What idiotic 13 year olds are these? And assuming they take everything at face-value, why aren't the parents there educating them? It's not porn's fault.
I looked at porn when I was a kid and when I was a teenager. I suspect most people do. Now, how many go out and rape others because of it?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
>I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it. So we're even there.
No, you're not. See you're the one who is making a prediction. In scientific terms - that makes you the one who has to provide proof. He is denying that there is any grounds for your prediction.
Of course, the real truth is, most parents define "their children will become sexual beings who are ultimately sexually active with their own natural kinks and pleasures" as "harm".
Here's my advice dude - go stand in the mirror and say to yourself: "One day my little angel will have a great time being somebody else's dirty, dirty girl... or possibly his/her mean dominatrix"
Then say it until you make peace with the fact and stop being scared of it. You'll be a much better parent afterward.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
My links weren't very good, but I don't think you read them anyway. Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.
I have no problem with fetishism. (Also, the quote isn't from a "shrink", it's from the editor of the letters page for a crap newspaper.) What is a problem is when outside influences (pornography, media, etc) normalise certain behaviours, which pressures teenagers into doing things they don't want to do.
Here's a quote from a report by the NSPCC (British charity, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Children)
Our research into young people’s experiences of violence in their intimate relationships
clearly demonstrates the very high levels of violence that some girls experience from their
male partners. A third of girls reported some form of sexual violence and a quarter
experienced physical violence, with many reporting controlling behaviours from their
partners. The very detrimental impact of such violence on the welfare of girls is clear. In
contrast although boys did report experiencing violence from a partner, only a minority
reported any detrimental impact.
Some boys in the interviews showed very negative attitudes to girls, often objectifying them.
This was especially prevalent in their attitudes towards pressuring girls into sexual contact
and their lack of awareness regarding the impact of this on their female partners. For example,
in one group interview with three boys, when they discussed their sexually coercive ‘tactics’
the other boys in the group responded with admiration. It was clear that some boys
predominantly viewed girls as primarily sexual objects, and that sexual coercion was seen as
normal and acceptable. Little regard was held for the girls’ feelings. In other interviews boys
were either unsure or unaware if their behaviour constituted sexual pressure. The pressure on
boys from peers and the media to portray a dominating sexual persona is also an issue.
In contrast, for girls a disembodied and passive sexuality predominated where sexual pleasure
was mostly absent in their discussions. Many girls stated that the sexual aspects of their
relationships primarily consisted of attempting to resist the pressure they experienced from
male partners. They found this aspect of their relationships hard to negotiate and worried that
their partners would finish the relationship if they confronted them about their behaviour.
These girls derived a great deal of peer status from having a boyfriend – a key protective
factor would be to ensure girls were able to gain self-esteem from other aspects of their lives.
Is that acceptable? I doubt many of them discussed their relationship with their parents, and I doubt their parents had that kind of relationship.
You raise a point, still the massive left-over anger from completely clashing with my dad over how one should live your life was so huge by 21 that when I felt he was making a mistake in a decision about a much younger sibbling - we had a fall-out so big I didn't even visit my parents again for 6 years.
What if one of them, or me, had died in that time ?
Now 14 years after I left school - we get along fine, I live my life exactly the way I said I wanted to when I was 14, the difference - now my dad cannot tell me not to.
I knew he had good intentions, boys who die their hair pink on one side and blue on the other have a harder time getting jobs in his world-view (but I don't have that problem because I have a sufficiently impressive resume that employers really don't give a damn what I look like - especially since my work isn't customer-facing).
Over the years, he even came to adopt some of my ideas - especially in terms of artistic expression and the need for that to be uncensored even by yourself.
We got along great until I hit puberty, then we didn't actually get along at all again until I was so old and successfull that he stopped trying to tell me how to live. Now I can happily ask his advice about many things - things where he has experience I lack (I bought my first house a few months ago, he's had a few - of course I had him help me go over the contracts and check that the deal was above board and the house was really what it appeared to be).
I also grew up enough that when a while ago he said to me "maybe you should stop with the tattoos now, it's getting a bit much" I didn't get angry - I just smiled and ignored it. But I didn't have that capacity at 18 - I had a sense of who I was, but I didn't have a decade's worth of proof that it can work, I had nothing to back me up then - just stubbornness to drive me forward.
So sure, kids hating parents mostly work out after a few years... I would rather not have such a few years with my kids - because I don't know that I, or they, will be around long enough to see it end.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
> Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.
UK is really not representative of European culture in general. I don't live in either but I've visited both many times for extended periods.
> What is a problem is when outside influences (pornography, media, etc) normalise certain behaviours, which pressures teenagers into doing things they don't want to do.
So teach your kids about body-ownership. Teach them that conformity is evil and it's important to be true to yourself. Then if your daughter WANTS her ass spanked then she will do so without spending years feeling guilty about it - and if she doesn't want it (or maybe wants to DO the spanking) she'll have the courage and confidence to look her puppy love in the eyes and say so.
That's what I want to give my daughters, I want to raise little Tiffany Achings.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Is that acceptable? I doubt many of them discussed their relationship with their parents, and I doubt their parents had that kind of relationship
No it's not, but the kind of things you blame I think have nothing to do with the issue, the same existed when I was a teenager and the internet didn't exist then.
So teach your boys to respect woman, teach your girls to be confident and self assured - and you yourself should buy her her first vibrator.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Yet I am sure you are ok with them seeing violence.
I dont understand why people think that a chold seeing a boobie will scar them for life, but watching Elmer fudd unload a shotgun in donald ducks face is perfectly fine.
Nudity is not bad or evil. Stop obsessing over it.
And yes I have raised 3 children.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They are absolutely not allowed on Facebook. Period. This has been a major issue for the older one.
I'm not surprised. That's essentially the same as saying "you can't communicate with your friends". In the 1990s, you may as well have banned him from using the telephone. Having had parents who didn't ban me from using the phone, but insisted on sitting next to me while I was using it, I urge you to reconsider your decision. The result was I avoided using the phone, since I'd get criticised if my friend swore (etc), and I felt I couldn't speak freely. I did not turn out all right, and at least part of this is because my parents restricted my privacy and freedom so much.
I look at it the same way I look at real life. I wouldn't let them walk the streets (even in my nice neighborhood) alone
Yeah, my parents did this. They lived in a tiny, safe village. My friends were allowed to walk around alone. Since I wasn't allowed to, I wasn't given any advice on how to walk around (how not to get lost, how to stay safe, etc). When I was about 11 I told my mum I'd joined a couple of after-school clubs. I went a few times (so the teacher knew me), but most weeks I'd walk round the city for an hour (the school was in a big city) and be back just before the club finished.
Another time, I said I was going to a friend's house after school. Most people used the normal public transport to get home, so there was no need for my + friend to get a particular bus. We wandered round the shops for a while. When we got to his house, my mum was there screaming at his parents for being bad parents and imagining rapists. They were shrugging "they're 13, what's the problem? they probably went shopping".
Little kids should be running around, playing with legos, learning how to socialize, etc.
And how will they do that, when there's always either an adult present, or when they can't join in with the other kids' socialising (on Facebook)?
Yeah, from the female perspective male sexuality appears alien, hostile, evil. The reverse is also true, but those ovaries are so valuable what they say tends to have more weight. Actually embedded in that girl-talk are the challenges boys face that no one gives a shit about: girls being cock teases, de-sexualizing and dehumanizing boys, using boys for status, and even the outrageous claim that girls' violence against boys is not detrimental!
You're not a parent. You're a fucking a prison warden !
>My kids don't have a computer.
I had one at age 7. By age 9 I wrote my first computer program. I'll be damned if I won't give my kids even the OPPORTUNITY to do that.
> I wouldn't let them walk the streets (even in my nice neighborhood) alone, why would I let them wander the internet alone?
I walked to school every day (sometimes I cycled), alone. Sometimes with friends. By the time I was your eldest's age we liked to walk out at night, climb an unbuilt-up mountain to the other side of town and go catch the late night movie, then head back home - all on foot. We'd get home to my place around 4am on Saturday mornining, make coffee and all pass out in a big heap in the living room.
My mom was used to walking in on Saturday mornings and finding 5 or 6 teenagers from around the neighbourhood in her house asleep on the floor.
She was very happy that we chose HER house to fall asleep in.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I can sympathise with your sentiment, but I think you base your views on the wrong things.
First of all, I don't think pornograpy is the reason why children learn some sick ideas about how sex, relationships and the world in general works - we are all immersed in rubbish culture from our TVs, advertising etc etc.
Secondly, pornography is only superficially related to sex. It has always struck me how unsexy porn is; with it's focus on unnaturally perfect, hairless bodies, and the complete lack of intellectual or emotional appeal, this is perhaps not all that surprising. You can say, in a way, that pornography is actually quite prudish.
I have never tried to stop my children from accessing pornography. What I have done, though, is to discuss the mater openly and without trying to impose my views - after all, I might be wrong - and instead talked about things. Funny enough, their reaction to pornography has always been one of revulsion. I think this is related to what is called the Uncanny Valley (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) - porn looks almost, but not quite, like the real thing, and therefore feels creepy.
Do you really think a parent hovers around their kid 24/7?
Do you really think a kid should surf the net 24/7?
We're on slashdot, so the answer is probably "yes, and constant exposure to child rape porn, racism, bestiality and real life beheadings never hurt anyone."
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
and to conform physically to some very narrow gender stereotypes.
All this proves is that the world needs more tranny porn.
Don't know why it hasn't been mentioned in all of the comments so far, but Open DNS http://www.opendns.com/home-solutions/parental-controls/ will handle exactly what you need, and its harder to bypass than some other software out there.
I have children, and you're right. But the answer is not to turn the raising of your children over to machines or corporations.
Put the only machines the children can access into the most public room in the house. Do not allow them to have computers in their bedrooms (or in any room with doors) or to have wireless access to the Internet until they are old enough to buy their own computers with money they have earned themselves. Do not use any sort of censoring or blocking software, at all, ever - the lesson that stuff usually teaches is how to deceive and subvert your over-controlling parent.
When your children are using the computers, you need to regularly inspect their activity with the Mark I Eyeball. Be a parent, not a proxy for some church or software corporation.
Because, seriously, blocking them from seeing this stuff at home is a pretty sure-fire way to get the opposite of what you want. What you want is for your children to grow into well-adjusted, sexually confident, healthy adults. You do not want them to be twisted by the circumstances in which they encounter sexual material, so you want to be present when they inevitably stumble across nasty porn. When they look up and say "Daddy, what is that man doing to that other man? Why is there a sheep in his boots?" you want to be there so you can explain the difference between healthy physical relationships that include sexual activity, and exploitive abusive relationships such as your children may find presented as "normal" in Internet porn, Catholic schools, or Senate bathrooms. You do not want them to remain in ignorance until they meet an exploiter, and you do not want them to believe this is something you cannot discuss with them in real time.
If you're uncomfortable with this role, tough luck, it's kind of late now to decide you're not going to be doing any meaningful parenting. You should get in touch with the local Unitarian Universalists or United Church of Christ; they have extremely good sex education resources that they will be happy to let you study if you don't know how to deal with it. If using resources published by religious organizations seems to contradict what I said above, then you didn't understand what I said.
Teach your children age-appropriate things at the earliest age they can comprehend them. If they can play minecraft, they should have already been taught that there's a right way and a wrong way to approach sexuality, and if you aren't going to teach that lesson, somebody else is going to do it while you're not looking. Like their soccer coach, or the priest, or the music teacher, or that nice man next door, or an older child...