BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] protecting kids online
- Subject: [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: eric.chadbourne at gmail.com (Eric Chadbourne)
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:48:31 -0500
- In-reply-to: <li6r47hoyar.fsf@panix5.panix.com>
- References: <52F26E29.9000906@gmail.com> <52F2A6AC.9060301@borg.org> <52F2BD63.6020302@gmail.com> <li6r47hoyar.fsf@panix5.panix.com>
On 02/05/2014 07:54 PM, Mike Small wrote: > Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> writes: > >> Kent Borg wrote: >>> But putting up content blocks seems the wrong first step, it sets her up >>> as an opponent, doesn't it? >> >> Precisely. That's why I call these things half-assed. What happens >> when a kid is told not to do something? What did you -- any of you -- >> do when you were told, as a kid, not to do something? Chances are you >> did it anyway, and chances are you did it because you were told not to >> do it. > > So if you want to cultivate an interest in hacking linux routers, etc., > a good first step would be to block porn? > By the time they have the ability to figure out how to set up their own vpn or something they are ready to view whatever they want on the net imho. We're talking about preteens. Children. They aren't doing any hacking yet. Though I hope the day comes soon. I think Richard and Kent fundamentally misunderstand the situation. The comments of "half assed" and "opponent" are extreme in this situation. The two young girls don't want to see graphic violence or graphic sexual content. They actually cover their eyes, on their own, when that stuff pops up on TV. It gives them nightmares. They are small children. This isn't a matter of education, it's a matter of implementation. Nobody in the family is an "opponent". Things could change but we aren't there yet. And uncle Eric is a very strong proponent of free speech so the very second any filtering can be removed it will be. The reference to drm is apples and oranges. Doesn't make sense here. If you think the google god's algorithms to be so great at filtering I suggest you are mistaken. Such as the girls frequently do searches for various princesses and the like and print them out. Use it for coloring and paper dolls. Occasionally they don't get the princess they expect. You know how porn movies and actors like to have similar names to popular things. I occasionally like porn. You probably do too. Would you leave a porn magazine (if such things still exist) on the kitchen table in a house with young children? We have "educated" the child not to open it. But would you leave it within reach? I assume your answer would be no. So I think we agree there should be limits or filters for children, it's just how to implement it and as they age how to avoid a possible adversarial relationship. My father had a pretty large gun collection. He was never my adversary because the firearms were in a locked gun closet and I could only use them around him. That example is a bit of a stretch but you see what I mean. My $0.02. - Eric
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- References:
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: eric.chadbourne at gmail.com (Eric Chadbourne)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] protecting kids online
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] protecting kids online
- Next by Date: [Discuss] protecting kids online
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] protecting kids online
- Next by thread: [Discuss] protecting kids online
- Index(es):