-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2007/12/31/australia-keeping-the-internet-clean-for-kids/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Here in the States it's usually the right wing political types who advocate for this kind of stuff (and that's where most of the fundamentalist religious types hang out too).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/13/guardianweeklytechnologysection.comment
Note I don't like the title they gave it ("The internet can't be censored and it's wrong for governments to try"). I don't assert categorically that the Internet can't be censored, in fact "Can you censor the Internet?" is the question I've explored for many years.
It's interesting that they cite things like "cyber-bulling" and the "abuse of child avatars in virtual worlds" as the motivation behind it. I would have thought that cyber-bullying would most occur via email and IM or maybe through youtube in an extreme case. How would you go about filtering that out without some NSA-style surveillance? Are they going to ban Second Life, WoW and MySpace too?
Lastly, all I can see is some kind of HTTP-blacklist being done which totally ignores the channels for most questionable material (not to mention the maintenance required to keep that blacklist up to date).
I reckon that most Aussies will not even be aware of it or object to it and those that are into p0rn will simply opt out or find a way around it or paying extra for unfettered access.
While we all agree that the Chinese model of "policing" the net is scary and objectionable but surely there is a middle ground to be had ???.
And by the way, I've blogged and blogged and blogged about this topic, for many years, and NOT GOTTEN HEARD, given the way the bogosphere amplifies a few elites and minimizes almost everyone else. So I gave up. It's not worth it.
Our rights online are in danger and I can't stop remembering the manifesto of John Perry Barlow.
a. Australian's rights are not being attacked as Australia has no free speech laws, and
b. It's an opt out system, so just contact your ISP and you can remove the filtering.
Just some simple searches in Google can yield nasty results. Since a parent can't watch every action, some outside tools should be used.
I use bsafe.com and it helps tremendously.
What I have to laugh about is all of these people (not those who posted here) who have no trouble for schools to hand out birth control to kids without parental consent but have a big problem with some simple filtering. (Likewise, try to exercise freedom of speech in left leaning institutions and you get shot down and attacked very quickly.)
As for the government deciding what we watch, I have a problem. I think the government can and should educate people on the necessity of using something like bsafe.com, but they shouldn't do the filtering. Likewise, the schools should teach reading, writing, etc. and stay away from handing out birth control without parental consent.
One final point, as a society, we know that certain behaviors are bad. For example, we know that sites that talk about killing others are not good for people, especially kids. We know that porn sites aren't good. It's hurting our kids by ignoring what is bad. In other words, when we won't judge content because we are afraid that we might offend someone, that is wrong; raising our kids is more important.
I wrote more than I thought but some of this comes from Evan Sayet's talk called "How Modern Liberals Think". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
Evan talks about what he calls Modern Liberals and their inability to make proper judgments because of their fear of offending people. If you have some time, watch it. See the Q&A at the end of the video, too.
I'd rather my son have total access to Wikipedia and Google than have lots of net nanny filters on (which the kids usually know the way around anyway -- most 13-year-olds I hang around are more astute about computers than most adults I know -- they learn faster, are better networked together, and they have time to waste trying things out).
I've seen what the filters block and usually it's legitimate material along with all the objectionable stuff.
My blog is blocked in China. On many filtering systems info about breast cancer is blocked. Etc. Etc.
That's why I want government out of this.
Parents should get involved in their kids lives. Especially their online ones.
Sorry about the message below but this blog is censored in China.
[Posted by 221.221.8.201 via http://algart.net/ww This is added while posting a message to avoid misuse.
Try: http://webwarper.net/webwarper.exe Example of viewing: http://webwarper.net/ww/scobleizer.com/
The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, was overturned by the Supreme Court for the restrictions it placed on adult access to and use of constitutionally protected material and communication on the Internet.
Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 by four women: Tipper Gore, wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore; Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; Pam Howar, wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar; and Sally Nevius, wife of Washington City Council Chairman John Nevius. The PMRC also advocated against supposed subliminal backmasking in records,[2] and accused bands including Led Zeppelin, Rush, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Kiss, and Queen of backmasking to promote Satanism and drug use.[3]
All you have to do is look up in Wiki and there is a smorgasborg of info. Yes, in the past decade the Bush administration has made some bad calls. But let's not forget what has happened prior to that when you are accusatory.
Let's not forget about the censorship that Democrats are placing on Christmas every where in the country. We just went through that not 2 weeks ago. Google it.
By putting yourself into the political area, you risk alienating those who turn to you for interesting industry and technical information and opinion.
Personally, I frame it as, "I'm surprised the left-wing socialists from California haven't tried it before. All hail the coming revolution, and let us crush dissent of our deal leaders the Clintons."
But that's just my opinion. You're welcome to consider it meaningless, and I do yours now.
Unsubscribing...
Otherwise...love your stuff! Very interesting that you are not afraid to upset your right wing readers. I suppose that's why folks keep reading.
Oh, and Australia is dead wrong (as you say). It's time for parents to parent. I'm a new reader but I wonder how easy you were on Google for its dirty censorship deal with China.
The problem is that you understand the Internet, the dangers that lie there, and how to teach your kids to be responsible. Most parents that I see today don't understand technology, and have been so conditioned by the media that they think if their kids are using the Internet, they're going to be kidnapped by sexual predators or look at porn all day. I'm not really surprised at all that so many parents are calling on the government to "protect" their children. It is all part of our society's move away from personal responsibility, and blaming anyone else that we can for anything bad that happens in our lives.
It's when kids are squirreled away in their rooms or in a basement -- the activity completely separate from family life -- that they may be more tempted to get into various kinds of trouble online.
I think you have a touch of BDS there, Robert. As other commenters have pointed out, the urge to censor exists on all sides of the political spectrum. Have a look at the speech codes on college campuses, for instance: they all come from the left. Every time Congress has a go at pornography filters, plenty of Democrats vote yes, along with a good number of Republicans.
s comments but.......
I have five kids at home ages 10-16, and I feel that what ever they see or do not see, and how ever they access info is MY JOB to decide. I am not for more government rights, I wish for them to have less access to how I live my live.
This is an extension of the government nanny state (they even provided free copies of Net Nanny) that Democrats have been pushing since day one. They want to take care of you from cradle to grave with programs ranging from $500 grants at birth that Hillary advocated for to universal healthcare (worked great for Britian... except for all those people whose records were released, and all the 3 month waits for surgery) to social security.
Face it, Australia made a bad choice with the labor party and if you vote for a Democrat in the states you are voting for the same thing, more big government nanny state actions and less freedom.
As I said, I don't want the government determining what to filter, but I think the government should push for people to think about it and to urge use of the commercial tools out there. I don't want the politically correct speech police or the anti-smoking lefty's on this either.
As for Google and Wikipedia, I have Wikipedia open, Google's parental parameters set for the result list and let bsafe.com deal with the rest. Younger children are very, very impressionable. Just letting the filth come to them can negate and ruin a lot of good parenting. And by not condemning bad behavior, the parent makes it hard to even discuss bad behavior - and all of this is happening when the child needs guidance the most!
In a lot of ways, things are twisted now. People are taught not to judge - so bad behavior is excused and ignored. People ignore the bad behavior and ignore the consequences, but vigorously attack the people talking about the bad behavior. This paragraph is why I'm spending time writing on this subject. To me, it is vitally important for parents to filter content (at various times and amounts) so our kids aren't desensitized to bad behavior.
Watch that video. It starts about 9/11 but the root ideas transfer to many aspects of our culture and I see patterns of what Evan is saying everywhere.
To be clear, I don't want the government to censor, but it's vitally important for parents to censor. There are plenty of tools available that give the parents good control.
I wish more people would think like that.
Can you cite specific examples? You really need to back up such statements with facts and examples. Otherwise, this is merely a hasty generalization.
Which political group advocates the passing of more "hate crimes" (thought control)?
Which party introduced the "Securing Adolescents from Online Exploitation Act of 2007"..it was a Democrat from Texas. Passed in the House 409-2. The two NAY votes? Both Republicans. Do you even know what this law requires?
Which party is working hard to block permanently banning taxes on internet access? Why!, it's the Democrats.
Quite frankly, bills proposing one kind of internet regulation or another come from BOTH sides of the aisle. No one group has a monopoly on this.
I bring this up because this is another case where certain liberals are using the government to suppress speech.
In Australia’s case, the government should not be getting into the filter business and I wouldn't assume the people behind this are right wingers.
I'm a bit confused by this statement. How is legislation that is passed in a another country making our rights in the US "under attack"? In relation to this specific issue, what specific rights of ours in the US are "under attack"?
As for "protecting the children".. that type of language, more often than not, comes from the left.
This is a complicated set of issues. We need to balance freedom of speech with protection of the innocent. How is this accomplished? Is there any hope in truly accomplishing it without curtailing freedoms?
To say that responsibility goes to parents only is absurd. Unless a parent chains their children to their beds without a television, computer, game system, phone or access to friends, there is no way a parent can police this stuff alone.
Those who still want access to porn and violence will still have it. And opting-out of the clean feed won't lead to violation of civil rights in Australia. You guys are just being paranoid.
Furthermore, opting-out of the clean feed is a sensible solution. Why should those who don't want porn and violence have to opt-out. We don't have to opt-out of porn magazines and videos offline, so why should we have to do it on the Internet?
I am an Australian parent and I applaud the Labor government for having the guts to clean up the Internet.
IMHO,This would be a good tool for parents in the U.S. to help protect children. Further, I see required (or very strongly suggested by gov, like the comics code in the 50's) filtering by ISPs becoming the norm in western democracies in the next decade, starting with child porn and malicious code sites. It's already happening now.
--David burt www.filteringfacts.org
I'd say most politicians treat blogs a sources of income, but of no real importance. Need I remind anyone of the impact on weblogs on Howard Dean's candidacy?
As for Australia, I would think the people of that country are intelligent enough to differentiate between filtering illegal material, and suppressing dissidents, which is what China is faced with.
Still, the tinhats are in full swing with this one. I loved what the Australian Women Online weblog had to say (ping backed above):
"One popular blog, TechCrunch went so far as to suggest a conspiracy between our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and the Chinese. And what did Duncan Riley from TechCrunch offer as proof of this conspiracy? A satirical video downloaded from YouTube. What an idiot!
If Riley and TechCrunch want to be taken seriously in this debate, they will have to lift their game. Infantile YouTube videos and wild conspiracy theories may be sufficient to stir up support for the argument against clean feeds on TechCrunch, but it just won’t cut it elsewhere."
It just gets harder and harder to get attention, doesn't it? You have to bring in clown acts.
But for Scoble to assign all this "big brother" mentaility to the domain of "right wing political types" shows how ignorant of these issues he really is. It was Clinton (D) who signed the Communications Decency Act in to law back in 1996. That was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the SC. So, which party was trying to "protect the children", again?
Everything in their world is the liberals fault.
Say something negative about the bush admin, and you're branded a bush hater, bush derangement syndrome.
Funny with these same internets, they dont know about the james dobsons, the
'family council' orgs that spam the fcc about janet jacksons boob, etc.
To quote Milton Friedman:
"Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."
It was in fact the previous right wing government who where very, very much aligned with George Bush and your Republican government's ideologies, who resisted internet filtering.
I would expect that, if the Democrats win the 2008 election, this is much more likely to appear on their agenda than the Republican's.
The argument against seems to be based solely on paranoia. Paranoia about it somehow being intrinsically linked with freedom of speech. As others have asked, how is freedom to distribute porn connected with freedom of speech?
Has censorship of movies, TV, print etc meant we've ended up with police-state like suppression of freedom of speech through those mediums?
And why do we accept censorship in those mediums but expect the internet to be open slather? And the "too hard" argument is just a cop out.
We have mechanisms in these other mediums to support parents (for example, adult magazines in plastic covers, adult shows later at night, children not admitted to adult-rated movies etc). As a parent I know that there's these mechanisms to help me ensure it is harder for my children to be exposed to things I don't think they should.
But when it comes to the internet, you want it to be 100% my responsibility. In my house that is working really well, but how do I exercise that 100% responsibility when my child is not in my house? As I say, the mechanisms are there in other mediums to help me, but you don't want it on the 'net.
I worked in IT for 20 years and we had to implement filtering at work to protect ADULTS from themselves. If adults can't even use the internet appropriately, why do we think children will? Even our own who we've educated not to. So why shouldn't we be trying to protect children too?
One other STUPID argument against filtering is it won't be foolproof or be 100% guaranteed. So what? Nothing is. Doesn't mean we shouldn't at least reduce the risk. Isn't it better that our children have access to only 10% of the crap than 90%?
Access to porn on the internet should be a choice as it has always been in other mediums, not a given.
http://sarahmeyers.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/aus...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHzG2GaUp68&rel=1]
My kids always went to Catholic schools, too, but I never polled the other parents regarding their political party. I can't even remember it ever coming up, except for people I knew very well. I'm just going by national statistics.
I just think it's best not to stereotype groups of people, including political groups. I'm conservative and Christian, but I'm not a part of what people call "the religious right," because I'm not evangelical or fundamentalist, I believe in civil unions for homosexuals, I want major changes in health care in this country, etc. etc.
I think the world is much too complex nowdays to make assumptions and judgments based on whether or not you believe in God, or like George Bush, or believe that abortion is morally equivalent to slavery, and so on.
To my mind, being totally black and white about free speech are no better than any other radical position. It's just common sense that we don't let anybody and everybody have full digital access to vulnerable children, any more than we allow them to have full physical access.
And yes, this is an attack on freedom.
And clothes, too. As Mr. Naked Time, Sexy Time says, there's nothing more freedom-suppressing than clothing.
They only want to clock Child porn (fair enoug) and violence, which I suppose is also fair enough.
They think that they will use the ISPs to do the blocking.
Cheers
Darren
http://www.executivespeaking.wordpress.com
Robert, how are you going to stop Patrick or Milan trawling for porn at friends' houses where the parents don't want to, or know how to, filter content?
How would you feel if you found out Patrick was inviting his friends over to look at porn on the internet? And how would you deal with his friends' parents who might want to lynch you?
Kids are going to try to find this stuff, but we don't have to make it any easier for them than it needs to be.
The same way as parents have taken responsibility through the ages, by instilling discipline and respect. My parents didn't follow me around 24/7, I did some bad stuff, I avoided some bad stuff.
My parents didn't ask the government to prevent me from being able to look at porn mags around my friends house!
tis why your son is an asshat.