Forgive me for suggesting this but it seems that the importance here relies on control rather than respect.
From my understanding, the roles of a parent, a teacher and a therapist are common in one respect: They must work to make themselves redundant.
Now, I'm speaking from a decidedly non moralistic control, engineering perspective here. The world acts as the world acts. We can either limit or filter our input or make the system so robust that it can handle any input without crashing. Surely the latter is the objective when we work to cultivate the lives of our children.
By providing access to a vast world of information in the wild, surely we must be aware that our children will encounter many things which we may not be able to easily predict and shelter them against, even if this is desirable. We are talking about teens or close pre-teens here, I assume, not four year olds.
Perhaps if the children have not learned enough about assessing their own personal values and have not been educated in ways to assess input for them selves, the perhaps we have missed the boat.
I don't accept that the way to raise children is to keep them in a rubber room. Of course where the child is very young, it is our responsibility to not throw them into situations that they do not have the cognitive or emotional resources to deal with. This is just a reasonable protective action where the child has, literally, no capacity to interpret or integrate their experiences. However, if we plunk them down in front of the internet, knowing full well how vast and uncontrolled that environment is, surely we must have already assessed that they have learned enough about themselves to either handle the input personally or can access the resources they need to do so. If not, then we have failed them in their education to that point and railing against the uncensored nature of the real or virtual world is just an infantile or narcissistic reaction to our failed responsibilities.
Requiring a teenager to not conceal their personal actions on the internet is, in my opinion, no less an imposition than any number of technological methods of tracing internet activity which have received their share of opposition on this forum. People will feel opposed to "big brotherism" no matter what its source. Voluntary restriction of usage is just asking for work arounds and disobediance. Ask any tech what they view at work using the bosses bandwidth.
Is the objective here to limit another human being's access to information, as spurious as internet sources may be, or a genuine concern as to the effect that such an exposure might generate.
Once again, providing tools to respond is superior to pretending that those inputs do not exist.
I notice that there is no clear descriptiopn about what the teeen (or pre teen) might be viewing. The suggestion for mnay sources predisposes to viewing porn. If so, the matter might be alternative sexual expression. However, the matter might be alternative political views, social, economic , philosophical or spiritual models.
If the child is not believed to have the ability to assimilate or interpret for themself, then why the hell are the being given access to the internet in the first place?
I prefer to act from a viewpoint of education to assist the child to handle their own environment. I then also make myself available and educate the child that I am available as support for when they have difficulty in handling that environment.
Do we work to control and limit our charges or to educate and support them in becoming free and mature human beings?
The structure of your question suggests you prefer the former. I advocate the latter.
Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this matter.
Of course this homily was coined in the day when you actually could buy Microsoft Software.
With licensing considerations including non transferability clauses, it's only a matter of time before even upper management or (may the spirits of Turing and von Neumann forgive me) the board of directors reviews an annual report and notices that the value spent of "purchasing" software does not appear on the asset register or depreciated assets.
I predict that someone will turn to the financial controller and say something along the lines of:
"So. Let me get this straight. We spent $150,000 this year buying office software and we don't own it?"
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me for suggesting this but it seems that the importance here relies on control rather than respect. From my understanding, the roles of a parent, a teacher and a therapist are common in one respect: They must work to make themselves redundant. Now, I'm speaking from a decidedly non moralistic control, engineering perspective here. The world acts as the world acts. We can either limit or filter our input or make the system so robust that it can handle any input without crashing. Surely the latter is the objective when we work to cultivate the lives of our children. By providing access to a vast world of information in the wild, surely we must be aware that our children will encounter many things which we may not be able to easily predict and shelter them against, even if this is desirable. We are talking about teens or close pre-teens here, I assume, not four year olds. Perhaps if the children have not learned enough about assessing their own personal values and have not been educated in ways to assess input for them selves, the perhaps we have missed the boat. I don't accept that the way to raise children is to keep them in a rubber room. Of course where the child is very young, it is our responsibility to not throw them into situations that they do not have the cognitive or emotional resources to deal with. This is just a reasonable protective action where the child has, literally, no capacity to interpret or integrate their experiences. However, if we plunk them down in front of the internet, knowing full well how vast and uncontrolled that environment is, surely we must have already assessed that they have learned enough about themselves to either handle the input personally or can access the resources they need to do so. If not, then we have failed them in their education to that point and railing against the uncensored nature of the real or virtual world is just an infantile or narcissistic reaction to our failed responsibilities. Requiring a teenager to not conceal their personal actions on the internet is, in my opinion, no less an imposition than any number of technological methods of tracing internet activity which have received their share of opposition on this forum. People will feel opposed to "big brotherism" no matter what its source. Voluntary restriction of usage is just asking for work arounds and disobediance. Ask any tech what they view at work using the bosses bandwidth. Is the objective here to limit another human being's access to information, as spurious as internet sources may be, or a genuine concern as to the effect that such an exposure might generate. Once again, providing tools to respond is superior to pretending that those inputs do not exist. I notice that there is no clear descriptiopn about what the teeen (or pre teen) might be viewing. The suggestion for mnay sources predisposes to viewing porn. If so, the matter might be alternative sexual expression. However, the matter might be alternative political views, social, economic , philosophical or spiritual models. If the child is not believed to have the ability to assimilate or interpret for themself, then why the hell are the being given access to the internet in the first place? I prefer to act from a viewpoint of education to assist the child to handle their own environment. I then also make myself available and educate the child that I am available as support for when they have difficulty in handling that environment. Do we work to control and limit our charges or to educate and support them in becoming free and mature human beings? The structure of your question suggests you prefer the former. I advocate the latter. Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this matter.
Because it only runs pee 2 pee software.
Of course this homily was coined in the day when you actually could buy Microsoft Software.
With licensing considerations including non transferability clauses, it's only a matter of time before even upper management or (may the spirits of Turing and von Neumann forgive me) the board of directors reviews an annual report and notices that the value spent of "purchasing" software does not appear on the asset register or depreciated assets.
I predict that someone will turn to the financial controller and say something along the lines of:
"So. Let me get this straight. We spent $150,000 this year buying office software and we don't own it?"
caveat IANAA (I am not an accountant).
Yet