Internet Censorship for Kids

[rey meustrus]

So we can *probably* agree that internet censorship is bad. First amendment in America, free speech, what have you. But the internet can be a scary place, and while some content is locked behind age barriers (which you can lie yourself through anyway), most is publicly available.

When it comes to kids, I know that this community is pretty open to more things than most parents. Any topic that involves sex usually goes into how much of it kids should know of, and when, and there is an stronger than average opinion around here that there should be more (I'd like to use the word "liberal" to describe it, but the word has too much politically attached to it that it's hard to use it apolitically). So I'm guessing that, since much of what we consider to be "bad" on the internet is sex-related, there will be a strong response against censorship for kids.

But that's not all there is on the internet (I hope that argument is NOT rehashed in this thread). There are extremist groups of all colors and politics, from neo-nazis, to anti-abortion terrorists, to hardcore socialists, to militant environmentalists, to downright anarchists. There is a preponderance of idiots (and we all know that stupidity can spread like a disease). What do you feel is the impact of so much of the world on a young child? At what age should a child have access to the internet, and how much when?

Mamma, don' let your chil' becum wunna' them blawggers...

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[rey meustrus]

What are you, some half-baked troll? Did you hack that admin account of yours?

If it doesn't matter enough to think of the children, then consider that the prevalent attitude is, yes, children need to be censored, and this applies most especially to our schools. This is not a particularly old community, and most of us are either in high school or were several years ago, and probably have experience with internet censorship.

The attitude could be pushed farther to extend to some kind of internet regulation, if not by any national or international body then by the ISP's, fearing the formation of such a regulatory agency. It's possible to conceive of an internet that is MADE safe for children, by someone's definition, and then what would happen to everyone else?

 

[Ellie]

I'm going to apply my generic age-based-discussion logic to this:

Children are only called children subjectively. You don't "grow up" at 18, you "grow up" at puberty, and furthermore puberty happens at different times for different people and is not a clear cut switch - you transition from one phase to another. You don't suddenly become mature enough to handle cocks in every day discussion, nor do you suddenly find yourself overnight growing tits and wanting sex.

It is impossible to create a rule based on maturity, or based on "children", because child>adult is so vague in useful terms.

So, if we want to apply a maturity based thing, well we're gonna have to have one which punishes people wrongly and gives others rights they shouldn't have, because otherwise it's... impossible to do. Is the age-based system the right one? I do not believe so. Is there a better alternative? Probably not.

 

[Glitchfinder]

For the most part, censorship for kids should not be standardized. Instead, it should be based on what a parent wants their kid to be able to see and learn, and what they don't want their kids to see. Although, this doesn't apply to schools and such, where anything that might be considered offensive to someone has to be censored, simply to avoid parents suing the school for exposing their children to harmful information/images, either purposefully or through gross negligence.

 

[Venetia]

i have a hard time with the concept of censorship and children. i dont want my kid to be sheltered but i also don't want them joining some furry cult at age 12 or being solicited for sex in some chatroom. when i was a kid it was mostly a non-issue, so i dont have experience to run on with it.

all i can say is, that i'll try to monitor the kid's activity until i feel they're mature enough to know what is and what isn't appropriate, and when i feel confident they won't run off to some weirdo's car just because they IM'd her/him.

 

[Glitchfinder]

...and when i feel confident they won't run off to some weirdo's car just because they IM'd her/him.

Some people never get that mature...

 

[Venetia]

well, it's a little hypocritical for me, as i met soph over the internet >_>

 

[dadevvtsvre]

all i can say is, that i'll try to monitor the kid's activity until i feel they're mature enough to know what is and what isn't appropriate, and when i feel confident they won't run off to some weirdo's car just because they IM'd her/him.

This, basically. Every kid is different and starts maturing at a different age, and it's really the parent's decision whether they should use censorship. Any good parent will know when their child is responsible enough to handle the internet without censors. The problem is that there are a lot of irresponsible parents out there who allow complete freedom at an age where the child is too young to be able to have discretion. But that's more or less the fault of the parents. There will always be bad parents out there, and no amount of censorship will prevent the children from being affected.

That said, I wouldn't let my kid on the internet without some parental blocking until he was at least 11 or 12. Even then, I'd still want to check what he's visiting until he was 13 or so. Invasion of privacy? Probably. But I think I'd rather be looking out for my kid instead of him getting into god knows what on the internet.

 

[Venetia]

there is lots of password-protected software available to parents smarter than a toaster which log internet history so they can run through and see what's being browsed while they're not looking. but a lot of parents are too stubborn/stupid to learn basic software and some parents are too lazy to care.

that's probably the way i'll go, some kind of passive watchdog thing. so if i see that li'l jimmy is spending 3 hours a day at furrydix.com, i'll be able to confront him with information on why he needs to be more careful about who/what he associates with.

im just going to assume that, occasionally, there'll be queries on sex or something. i mean when i was a kid it was about bashfully squirreling away dirty magazines. there's no harm in sometimes being curious about that kind of shit. it's no different really with the internet. what's worrying is when they start being indoctrinated by wayward/too-adult communities or when they get pick-up lines in chatrooms.

 

[Ellie]

Trouble is look how immensely useful and a basic need Google, and Google Images, are. Most parental blockers I know block them both, and safesearch isn't terribly accurate (though does get rid of most porn from google images).

 

[Venetia]

children seeing porn isn't what worries me on the internet. people soliciting children is. honestly that should serve for anyone. seeing sex/nudity is just seeing a facet of life. engaging in it or being solicited to is a completely different matter.

 

[Glitchfinder]

children seeing porn isn't what worries me on the internet. people soliciting children is. honestly that should serve for anyone. seeing sex/nudity is just seeing a facet of life. engaging in it or being solicited to is a completely different matter.

There's sex/nudity, and then there's yiffshit. You'll probably want to block the yiffshit.

 

[mawk]

or the kids will never be able to watch pokemon the same way again

 

[psiclone]

or the kids will never be able to watch pokemon the same way again

god, yeah. have you ever seen a humanized pikachu being fucked before? you're totally missing out...

on the other hand, I'm with Ven on this. i'm not going to shelter my kid like I was, which was apparent to many people in high school.. and is a whole 'nother topic.

 

[rey meustrus]

So then, the bad parts of the internet are the chat rooms and the furry websites?

I've always thought about children's privacy in this way: if you teach a child that you're always watching what they're doing, and that you have a right to monitor them, you're teaching them to live under Big Brother (aka China). Same thing with school authorities, I think. Schools have powers over their students that would be wildly unconstitutional were they not minors, such as enforcing dress code, confiscating electronics, and requiring they be in a certain place at a certain time, every day. Though when I think of this, it mainly applies to high schools, where the students are trying to exercise their freedom and responsibility, but being taught that they don't have any.

How does one tell if a particular child is capable of handling responsibility, and how can we as a society allow them all to exercise responsibility at a time when each one is ready? Aren't we just teaching them that if they misbehave, there will be artificial consequences, rather than allowing them to understand real consequences?

 

[mawk]

"monitoring your child's internet access is a gateway to Communism" - mewsterus, 2009

 

[mawk]

Aren't we just teaching them that if they misbehave, there will be artificial consequences, rather than allowing them to understand real consequences?

consider that people are largely talking about preventing kids from getting their asses solicited

consider for a moment what the "real" consequences are

p.s. enforcing rules and imposing artificial consequences if they are broken is by no means a feature of totalitarian rule alone, and it is not limited to schools and parents. your cluster of fallacies could easily be used to argue against federal laws, a police force; anything beyond total objectivist self-governance.

 

[Venetia]

So then, the bad parts of the internet are the chat rooms and the furry websites?

i would be also worried about their frequenting pro-nazi websites or vore sites or anything else ranging on the seedy, horrific, prejudiced, etc. i was just giving examples.

 

[So fist]

I've always thought about children's privacy in this way: if you teach a child that you're always watching what they're doing, and that you have a right to monitor them, you're teaching them to live under Big Brother (aka China). Same thing with school authorities, I think. Schools have powers over their students that would be wildly unconstitutional were they not minors, such as enforcing dress code, confiscating electronics, and requiring they be in a certain place at a certain time, every day. Though when I think of this, it mainly applies to high schools, where the students are trying to exercise their freedom and responsibility, but being taught that they don't have any.

Oh christ. Really. I think of it as preparing them for the real world. Because you see, in the real world, people are always watching you and judging you, and the stupid things you do will have consequences that are worse than having to have uncomfortable chats with your parents about why you are going to pro anorexia websites to get tips on managing hunger pains (and yes these type of sick communities exist). And that is true whether you live in a relatively safe and free democracy like the states or in some backwater anarchy ridden third world nation with no government to speak of.

The truth is my friend that Jean Jacques Rouseau is dead wrong on human nature. We are not born with innate natural goodness that is ruined by the unnaturalness of society. Laissez Faire parenting most often does not yield responsible, well adjusted, or even creative children. The kids raised without safe boundaries at home and a modicum of parental guidance are often less capable of managing their often coddled maladaptive behaviors in public social contexts. And they are usually among the lazier and least motivated of children, because well no matter what they do the parents are always left at the same distance in their lives whether they do bad or good. Instead what they learn at home is there actions are of little to know consequence, which is a dangerous lesson to be well practiced in. So they will just do what they want since there are no sticks or carrots at home to push them in a productive direction. Its not rocket science really.

Also your school has legal guardianship over you meaning that any issue that can be construed as negligence on the school can have serious legal repurcussions. Take the california gang rape case. Fifteen year old girl was raped at a dance on the school's campus for two hours. The school had four or five resource officers at its disposal and a full staff of chaperones at the dance yet all of them hung around the gym area. There was no effort to secure the campus until the end of the dance around 10 - 11 pm, and this is despite the fact that it was no secret that there were people hanging around on the campus. Two resource officers kicking the drinking parties off the premises might have prevented this horrific crime and you better believe that the parents of the victim will seek restitution from the school system as they should in my opinion. Your safety on school premises is the school's and its employees responsibility regardless of how stupid and irresponsible the child may be, and any principal with a brain in their head takes that seriously.