A recent Notice of Inquiry from the FCC is looking for opinions on how the "evolving electronic media landscape" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such media. The full NOI (PDF) is available online. "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house,' while today, media choices are far more widespread for children, including videogames, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
it's always "protect the children"
I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no
did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes
did I learn? yes
enough ideas without statistics I say
I agree 100%... The more "responsibility" the government takes, the less the parents will take. And IMHO that's the fundamental problem that has yet to be addressed... Fewer and fewer parents actually parenting and taking responsibility for their own children.
I agree 100%... The more "responsibility" the government takes, the less the parents can take. And IMHO that's the fundamental problem that has yet to be addressed... Fewer and fewer parents actually parenting and taking responsibility for their own children.
There. Fixed that for ya.
But, no, seriously. if the governments says your child has to do a,b and c, and has to have x,y, and z (even though it means husband and wife must take second jobs in order to provide them), you've limited what the parents CAN do.
Firearms are just another means of killing people, Ideas could instill hundreds, thousands or millions with the desire to kill(hence the revolutions of the past) and they'll achieve it with/without firearms if motivated enough. I imagine many governments see ideas as far more dangerous than guns.
The FCC's tasking is to maintain orderly control of a supposedly scarce resource, parceling out that resource fairly for the good of our society, and ensuring that users of the resource do not interfere with each others broadcasts so that its utilization is not compromised.
How this turned into a game of censorship is a story of failure of government, and failure of the citizens. Not to mention downright unconstitutional. There is no authority given to the government that allows it to implement censorship; and there is an explicit legal wall against it that can only be misinterpreted by idiots in the form of the first amendment to the US constitution:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Sadly, they never did a decent job of seeing to the good of our society, preferring to service the demands of corporations over any recognition that the citizens might have something to say as well. What do I mean? Well, where are the citizen's broadcast bands? Nowhere, that's where. This is not a technological problem, or a scarcity problem. We've simply been disenfranchised.
The Internet is not a scarce resource. We can make "more of it" simply by laying cable and deploying devices. It won't interfere with the rest of the Internet. It doesn't require parceling out; its nature is that the more entities connect to it, the more pipe we lay, the better it gets.
So what, we should be asking, is the FCC doing anywhere near it? Doesn't someone need their hand slapped about now?
"it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes did I learn? yes enough ideas without statistics I say"
You think YOU had a dangerous childhood??
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, my parents both worked, yet I came home to a house alone (when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school), I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids, roamed all over (again without tracking and cell phones), I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns, we 'stole' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps (and sometimes forts in the woods). Goodness, when we went to a mall, my parents would set up a meeting time and place, and we'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time, yes, I wondered around unsupervised?!?!? Yep, I dove off diving boards in swimming pools! I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time. I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking, bicycling, skateboarding....while never wearing a helment.
Yep, it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty!! By today's scared standards of treating children, we should have all been killed by and accident, if not abducted, raped and killed first...and of course, our parents would have been arrested for child neglect.
Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics...
We both must be about the same age - I'm 45. It just kills me that we have to have "play dates" for my kids to play with other kids, and my kids don't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid. We agree that today's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear, driven by the media.
Anyway, some things are different today. My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad's Playboy magazines, which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job. Dad's back then had it all - no poopy diapers, wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs, and who felt guilty if you didn't get enough sex...
Today, kids don't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex. And, let's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com. Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video. Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.
I took advice I got here on slashdot, and use the free opendns.com DNS filter. I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers. OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings, only blocking phishing and hard-core porn. These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up. Instead of more government censorship, how about a program for training/educating parents, so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent, and free tools that already exist out there? Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick. Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter, not just how to use the DVR. All parents know how to record Pokemon. How many know how to protect their kids from googling "hot guys"?
Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you.
If you are talking about things that parents can do themselves you are correct but if you plan to use the force of law to regulate my behavior then it absolutely pertains to me, children or not.
There are SCADS of "plans" in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house. On the shiny side of that there's DNS solutions, filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.
Your right to raise your kids does not trump another's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another's right to express said perversions. Deal with it.
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, [...] while never wearing a helment.
Same here to all the above.
I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids, but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail. My father-in-law is convinced that there's a pedo behind every tree and that I'm stupid for not being more worried about it (yes: those were his words). Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate?
Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story. The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.
A better way to use anecdote would be to ask, "How many of the people I went to grade school with were abducted by strangers" vs. "How many of the people I went to school with were hurt in car accidents?"
"Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story. The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.
To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot:)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment. Is that an acceptable statistic? Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid.
As such, they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible. Children work very well.
The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics. Look at the debates over health care, stimulus, and such. Who do they put into the argument who doesn't have bearing on what you were addressing? Children, the poor, the elderly, or the "insert favored group here". All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand.
If the government said, "Y'know, we'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere, over all electronic media, really: restrict what is said, know the identities of who is saying it, get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say, citizens, can we do that?" the answer would be a resounding, "Over Our Dead Body."
The "kids" thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down...
The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.
Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements. This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud.
The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.
How much of that is due to video games like Dance Dance Revolution and Wii Sports, and how much of that is due to parents keeping their kids indoors due to media-charged fear of child molesters?
Fuck you very much the FCC; fuck you very much for fining me. Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck: thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me. So fuck you very much the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free. Clear Channel's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so. He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo, so fuck you all so very much. [youtube.com]
While the FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, they allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations without even blinking. When Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they took years to decide whether strong competition against terrestrial radio should be allowed (Clear Channel and the NAB lobbied against the merger hoping both Sirius and XM would fail). The FCC is useless and should not be given more power.
The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- t
"The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history."
Yeah, that was one ugly saggy tit that's for sure!!!
Man, for some reason I'd expected Janet to have kept her 'rack' in much better condition!!
I bet when the FCC's done, "net neutrality" will have evolved into something unrecognizable, more akin to censorship of our personal blogs and emails (and probably bittorrent too) rather than true net neutrality.
Mark my words. You'll come back here a year from now and say, "Wow you were right." I think we need to regulate monopolies like Comcast, but based upon what I've heard coming from the FCC Chair, he has something else in mind - control of the web. So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).
> So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).
The big difference is, for the most part Comcast's remedies if you subvert them are largely civil in nature -- denying you future service, charging you penalty fees, suing you, or the like. The government can have you thrown in prison.
Of course, some companies and court jurisdictions have been hard at work finding creative ways to criminalize breaches of corporate policy (particularly through abuse of "theft of electricity" rationales), but for the most part there's still a line between things that are criminal vs merely civil. Comcast's mostly on the 'civil' side, but the government is almost exclusively on the 'criminal' side.
Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds". You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.
Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives. Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".
Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests. I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed). I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family. This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.
As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities. Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life? That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having. So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible. Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.
Make your own decisions for your own family. Don't allow the government to do it for you. This one's gotta go down. The government has no place dictating this.
Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television". Please. As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.
Wait, so she's not given access to the greatest information resource of our age, nor to even measured amounts of what has become, rightly or wrongly, the central transport medium of western culture?
Good luck with that. I love the idea that depriving kids of something will keep them somehow pure. How's that forbidden fruit angle craving of hers coming along?
Also, as a self confessed geek, I would have though you would have been trying to foster an interest in technology and computers in general. Each to their own, but I can't say I agree with your approach.
But, as you say "each to their own". My worst nightmare would be having the government force my preferred approach down the throats of every American family.
Not to go all "Clinton" on you, but I should explain (in case you care, which you probably don't) what I mean by "my daughter is not on the Internet".
- She does get email from grandparents, and with our assistance replies to that email.
- When she wants to learn about something she's heard about, say a new animal or something, we go together and look it up, and I use that as a launchpad for the kinds of creative play her daughter's school encourages (we look up owls, and she goes and draws so
I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words). If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.
Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday. Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees, and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.
What I don't understand is this American idea that nudity is wrong. No, I'm not a nudist.
I have family in Finland and when I was 16 and stayed at an aunts house, I happened to take notice of a rather peculiar advertisement on TV. A full frontal nude shot of a rather un-pretty man. I don't remember all the details but apparently it was a cell phone commercial.
The fact that I still remember this to this day is shocking in itself. The most basic thing we have as humans is our bodies and our minds. Why is it that we censor our bodies to such an absolute degree?
What, really, is the big deal here?
I agree with you, c64, children should be able to learn about the basic human body and what it is for. There is zero harm in that. Obviously, however, I wouldn't show them hardcore porn, but if there happens to be simple nudity or a discovery program about the birds and the bees, so be it. And if you're against them seeing that sort of thing, limit their exposure to it, but please don't ask the government to decide for _you_ because that would mean they are deciding for _me_ as well. Be a parent and parent your children.
The backwards ideas about the human body and sexuality pervasive in "mainstream" American society can be directly traced back to fundamentalist Christians, and to the founding of our country. Puritans, Baptists, Methodists, (old-school) Catholics, Quakers, The Amish, etc all had direct and strict influences on how we as a culture developed, for better or for worse.
So, as usual, we can correctly blame the issue on Bible-thumping nincompoops spewing forth fire and brimstone damnation for anyone that even admires a bit of exposed ankle.
At least women aren't being branded with scarlet A's anymore for looking a married man in the eyes.
>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to. >>>
Because.
When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.
Okay granted YOU didn't say you lie to your kids, but I know a lot of parents who do. Then later the kid gets pregnant or knocks-up a girl at age 13, and they wonder how that happened. Duh. It's because they never TAUGHT the kid how their bodies work, that's why. I don't see any reason to withhold knowledge. Better they learn it from me under my supervision, then on their own or from someone else.
>>>I don't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general
>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to. >>>
Because.
When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.
Ahh. I guess it makes a difference once you specify an age. My daughter first asked us about this at 2.5 years. My wife and I chose to tell her that it was something that we felt should be discussed when she was older. And no, we did not tell her some dumb ass lie about storks or baby fairies. I agree that lying to your children is akin to child abuse, however I think in many cases withholding some things until they are old enough to process and understand it is important. While we didn't tell her about the
Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. Many adults don't for that matter.
Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sure there is some physical limit before which it's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they won't learn it as quickly. The brain is very flexable like that.
Yes young brains learn fast. My 6-year-old niece surprised me when she lifted my T-shirt and said, "Your chest is hairy. That's because you're a MAN. And mommmy has boobs because she's a WOman." I just said, "Uhh... yep that's right." I don't know where she picked that up, but apparently her brain's developed enough to recognize the key differences between boys, girls, men, and women.
She's also really good at using the computer. She's learning faster than my adult brother, and I've been trying to te
Why aren't parents being held responsible for censoring their own children? It's the parents the put the computer in their room in the first place. Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?
Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government, for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames?
I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting. If stuff is going out over the public airwaves, then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents, to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.
Videogames, last I checked, were not broadcast over the public airwaves. They are bought and sold as private transactions.
And before anybody says "commerce clause". . . I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content. But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.
Caveat: I am not a constitutional scholar. (However, some people who apparently *are* constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of, or disregard for, these issues.)
The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other's toes. Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification.
Except that 3 of the 5 commissioners of the FCC were appointed by Obama, so this Notice of Inquiry was supported by at least one of the commissioners put in place by Obama. Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.
Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.
The key difference here was that Bush was too foolish to understand the Constitution - Obama has said in interviews that he believes the negative reciprocity upon which the Constitution is based is flawed, and that we ought to have a system of positive rights.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Obama is better because he intentionally violates the Constitution, while Bush just did it through ignorance?
It'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC, and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers. I just don't see this happening.
The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture, yet the FCC doesn't seem to have any clue what it's supposed to be doing. They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers (ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves), while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them (censorship, this nonsense).
It's been five years since I this piece was written at Mises, and five years since I posted a link to it from Slashdot, but it's still relevant and needs repeating:
The FCC shouldn't fine a network over an inadvertent nipple slip.
Mostly like the (somewhat broken) MPAA, there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.
I don't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto. But I certainly don't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid. Voluntary rating systems are the way to go. However, unlike the MPAA, the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.
oops I mean Pennsylvania they sent two teens to jail (for one night) because they took photos of their naked bodies. Oh horror! You can see your teenage body naked while showering or dressing, but use a camera to capture that sight with your cellphone...... and the world will come to an end!!! (So claims the prosecutor.)
It's especially stupid considering the U.S. Supreme Court ruled nudity is not pornography, therefore not a crime. I guess the prosecutor doesn't read SCOTUS decisions.
tired of this "control the internet for the kids" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree 100%... The more "responsibility" the government takes, the less the parents can take. And IMHO that's the fundamental problem that has yet to be addressed... Fewer and fewer parents actually parenting and taking responsibility for their own children.
There. Fixed that for ya.
But, no, seriously. if the governments says your child has to do a,b and c, and has to have x,y, and z (even though it means husband and wife must take second jobs in order to provide them), you've limited what the parents CAN do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The pachyderm in the post (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC's tasking is to maintain orderly control of a supposedly scarce resource, parceling out that resource fairly for the good of our society, and ensuring that users of the resource do not interfere with each others broadcasts so that its utilization is not compromised.
How this turned into a game of censorship is a story of failure of government, and failure of the citizens. Not to mention downright unconstitutional. There is no authority given to the government that allows it to implement censorship; and there is an explicit legal wall against it that can only be misinterpreted by idiots in the form of the first amendment to the US constitution:
Sadly, they never did a decent job of seeing to the good of our society, preferring to service the demands of corporations over any recognition that the citizens might have something to say as well. What do I mean? Well, where are the citizen's broadcast bands? Nowhere, that's where. This is not a technological problem, or a scarcity problem. We've simply been disenfranchised.
The Internet is not a scarce resource. We can make "more of it" simply by laying cable and deploying devices. It won't interfere with the rest of the Internet. It doesn't require parceling out; its nature is that the more entities connect to it, the more pipe we lay, the better it gets.
So what, we should be asking, is the FCC doing anywhere near it? Doesn't someone need their hand slapped about now?
Parent
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:5, Insightful)
You think YOU had a dangerous childhood??
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, my parents both worked, yet I came home to a house alone (when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school), I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids, roamed all over (again without tracking and cell phones), I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns, we 'stole' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps (and sometimes forts in the woods). Goodness, when we went to a mall, my parents would set up a meeting time and place, and we'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time, yes, I wondered around unsupervised?!?!? Yep, I dove off diving boards in swimming pools! I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time. I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking, bicycling, skateboarding....while never wearing a helment.
Yep, it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty!! By today's scared standards of treating children, we should have all been killed by and accident, if not abducted, raped and killed first...and of course, our parents would have been arrested for child neglect.
Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics...
Parent
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:5, Insightful)
We both must be about the same age - I'm 45. It just kills me that we have to have "play dates" for my kids to play with other kids, and my kids don't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid. We agree that today's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear, driven by the media.
Anyway, some things are different today. My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad's Playboy magazines, which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job. Dad's back then had it all - no poopy diapers, wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs, and who felt guilty if you didn't get enough sex...
Today, kids don't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex. And, let's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com. Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video. Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.
I took advice I got here on slashdot, and use the free opendns.com DNS filter. I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers. OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings, only blocking phishing and hard-core porn. These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up. Instead of more government censorship, how about a program for training/educating parents, so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent, and free tools that already exist out there? Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick. Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter, not just how to use the DVR. All parents know how to record Pokemon. How many know how to protect their kids from googling "hot guys"?
Parent
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are talking about things that parents can do themselves you are correct but if you plan to use the force of law to regulate my behavior then it absolutely pertains to me, children or not.
Parent
responsibility is yours (Score:5, Interesting)
There are SCADS of "plans" in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house. On the shiny side of that there's DNS solutions, filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.
Your right to raise your kids does not trump another's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another's right to express said perversions. Deal with it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, [...] while never wearing a helment.
Same here to all the above.
I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids, but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail. My father-in-law is convinced that there's a pedo behind every tree and that I'm stupid for not being more worried about it (yes: those were his words). Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A better way to use anecdote would be to ask, "How many of the people I went to grade school with were abducted by strangers" vs. "How many of the people I went to school with were hurt in car accidents?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot :)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment. Is that an acceptable statistic? Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid.
Putting opponents on the defensive (Score:4, Insightful)
is a tried and true practice.
As such, they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible. Children work very well.
The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics. Look at the debates over health care, stimulus, and such. Who do they put into the argument who doesn't have bearing on what you were addressing? Children, the poor, the elderly, or the "insert favored group here". All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand.
Parent
Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
It's Not About "Kids;" That's Just the Ruse (Score:5, Informative)
If the government said, "Y'know, we'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere, over all electronic media, really: restrict what is said, know the identities of who is saying it, get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say, citizens, can we do that?" the answer would be a resounding, "Over Our Dead Body."
The "kids" thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person?
Well, you're here, aren't you? ;)
Physical activity. (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.
Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements. This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same has been said about TV.
The same has been said about books.
etc.
Older generations always criticise change brought about by younger generations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More kids are killed by football and other physical activities than surfing on the net or videogaming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.
How much of that is due to video games like Dance Dance Revolution and Wii Sports, and how much of that is due to parents keeping their kids indoors due to media-charged fear of child molesters?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before video games, there was a wide range of active and sedate activities to choose from.
But the sedate ones couldn't trick your brain into thinking you're being active (pumping adrenaline, etc).
Quoting Eric Idle (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck you very much the FCC; fuck you very much for fining me. Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck: thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me. So fuck you very much the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free. Clear Channel's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so. He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo, so fuck you all so very much. [youtube.com]
Opinions? (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, I've been looking but I don't see anywhere on the FCC website to actually give them feedback.
Re:Opinions? (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, I've been looking but I don't see anywhere on the FCC website to actually give them feedback.
That's because they're in control of their own Electronic Media.
Parent
The FCC is useless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, that was one ugly saggy tit that's for sure!!!
Man, for some reason I'd expected Janet to have kept her 'rack' in much better condition!!
Re:The FCC is useless. (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet when the FCC's done, "net neutrality" will have evolved into something unrecognizable, more akin to censorship of our personal blogs and emails (and probably bittorrent too) rather than true net neutrality.
Mark my words. You'll come back here a year from now and say, "Wow you were right." I think we need to regulate monopolies like Comcast, but based upon what I've heard coming from the FCC Chair, he has something else in mind - control of the web. So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).
Parent
Re:The FCC is useless. (Score:4, Insightful)
> So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).
The big difference is, for the most part Comcast's remedies if you subvert them are largely civil in nature -- denying you future service, charging you penalty fees, suing you, or the like. The government can have you thrown in prison.
Of course, some companies and court jurisdictions have been hard at work finding creative ways to criminalize breaches of corporate policy (particularly through abuse of "theft of electricity" rationales), but for the most part there's still a line between things that are criminal vs merely civil. Comcast's mostly on the 'civil' side, but the government is almost exclusively on the 'criminal' side.
Parent
Imagine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds". You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.
Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives. Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".
Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests. I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed). I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family. This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.
As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities. Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life? That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having. So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible. Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.
Make your own decisions for your own family. Don't allow the government to do it for you. This one's gotta go down. The government has no place dictating this.
Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television". Please. As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.
Re:Imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so she's not given access to the greatest information resource of our age, nor to even measured amounts of what has become, rightly or wrongly, the central transport medium of western culture?
Good luck with that. I love the idea that depriving kids of something will keep them somehow pure. How's that forbidden fruit angle craving of hers coming along?
Also, as a self confessed geek, I would have though you would have been trying to foster an interest in technology and computers in general. Each to their own, but I can't say I agree with your approach.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The study of what is behind what you call "depriving" is way beyond the scope of a Slashdot post, and probably would be marked as off-topic anyway.
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/02_W_Education/index.asp [whywaldorfworks.org]
But, as you say "each to their own". My worst nightmare would be having the government force my preferred approach down the throats of every American family.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to go all "Clinton" on you, but I should explain (in case you care, which you probably don't) what I mean by "my daughter is not on the Internet".
- She does get email from grandparents, and with our assistance replies to that email.
- When she wants to learn about something she's heard about, say a new animal or something, we go together and look it up, and I use that as a launchpad for the kinds of creative play her daughter's school encourages (we look up owls, and she goes and draws so
Just say no to FCC censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words). If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.
Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday. Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees, and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.
Re:Just say no to FCC censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't understand is this American idea that nudity is wrong. No, I'm not a nudist.
I have family in Finland and when I was 16 and stayed at an aunts house, I happened to take notice of a rather peculiar advertisement on TV. A full frontal nude shot of a rather un-pretty man. I don't remember all the details but apparently it was a cell phone commercial.
The fact that I still remember this to this day is shocking in itself. The most basic thing we have as humans is our bodies and our minds. Why is it that we censor our bodies to such an absolute degree?
What, really, is the big deal here?
I agree with you, c64, children should be able to learn about the basic human body and what it is for. There is zero harm in that. Obviously, however, I wouldn't show them hardcore porn, but if there happens to be simple nudity or a discovery program about the birds and the bees, so be it. And if you're against them seeing that sort of thing, limit their exposure to it, but please don't ask the government to decide for _you_ because that would mean they are deciding for _me_ as well. Be a parent and parent your children.
Parent
Re:Just say no to FCC censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
The backwards ideas about the human body and sexuality pervasive in "mainstream" American society can be directly traced back to fundamentalist Christians, and to the founding of our country. Puritans, Baptists, Methodists, (old-school) Catholics, Quakers, The Amish, etc all had direct and strict influences on how we as a culture developed, for better or for worse.
So, as usual, we can correctly blame the issue on Bible-thumping nincompoops spewing forth fire and brimstone damnation for anyone that even admires a bit of exposed ankle.
At least women aren't being branded with scarlet A's anymore for looking a married man in the eyes.
Parent
Re:Just say no to FCC censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.
>>>
Because.
When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.
Okay granted YOU didn't say you lie to your kids, but I know a lot of parents who do. Then later the kid gets pregnant or knocks-up a girl at age 13, and they wonder how that happened. Duh. It's because they never TAUGHT the kid how their bodies work, that's why. I don't see any reason to withhold knowledge. Better they learn it from me under my supervision, then on their own or from someone else.
>>>I don't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general
Agreed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.
>>>
Because.
When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.
Ahh. I guess it makes a difference once you specify an age. My daughter first asked us about this at 2.5 years. My wife and I chose to tell her that it was something that we felt should be discussed when she was older. And no, we did not tell her some dumb ass lie about storks or baby fairies. I agree that lying to your children is akin to child abuse, however I think in many cases withholding some things until they are old enough to process and understand it is important. While we didn't tell her about the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sure there is some physical limit before which it's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they won't learn it as quickly. The brain is very flexable like that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes young brains learn fast. My 6-year-old niece surprised me when she lifted my T-shirt and said, "Your chest is hairy. That's because you're a MAN. And mommmy has boobs because she's a WOman." I just said, "Uhh... yep that's right." I don't know where she picked that up, but apparently her brain's developed enough to recognize the key differences between boys, girls, men, and women.
She's also really good at using the computer. She's learning faster than my adult brother, and I've been trying to te
What happened to parents??? (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government, for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames?
I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting. If stuff is going out over the public airwaves, then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents, to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.
Videogames, last I checked, were not broadcast over the public airwaves. They are bought and sold as private transactions.
And before anybody says "commerce clause". . . I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content. But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.
Caveat: I am not a constitutional scholar. (However, some people who apparently *are* constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of, or disregard for, these issues.)
Re:How can this be legal? (Score:4, Informative)
The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other's toes. Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification.
Parent
Re:How can this be legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How can this be legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.
The key difference here was that Bush was too foolish to understand the Constitution - Obama has said in interviews that he believes the negative reciprocity upon which the Constitution is based is flawed, and that we ought to have a system of positive rights.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Obama is better because he intentionally violates the Constitution, while Bush just did it through ignorance?
Parent
Unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC, and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers. I just don't see this happening.
The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture, yet the FCC doesn't seem to have any clue what it's supposed to be doing. They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers (ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves), while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them (censorship, this nonsense).
FDR's Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
FDR's Thought Police: Still Alive, Still Censoring [mises.org].
How about zero control? (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC shouldn't fine a network over an inadvertent nipple slip.
Mostly like the (somewhat broken) MPAA, there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.
I don't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto. But I certainly don't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid. Voluntary rating systems are the way to go. However, unlike the MPAA, the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Transylvania...
oops I mean Pennsylvania they sent two teens to jail (for one night) because they took photos of their naked bodies. Oh horror! You can see your teenage body naked while showering or dressing, but use a camera to capture that sight with your cellphone...... and the world will come to an end!!! (So claims the prosecutor.)
It's especially stupid considering the U.S. Supreme Court ruled nudity is not pornography, therefore not a crime. I guess the prosecutor doesn't read SCOTUS decisions.