FTC Says Virtual Worlds Bad For Minors 355
eldavojohn writes "A new report from the FTC is claiming minors have access to explicit content via online virtual worlds such as those found in online games. The report makes five recommendations to keep little Johnny away from the harms of Barrens chat: Use more effective age-screening mechanisms to prevent children from registering in adult virtual worlds; Use or enhance age-segregation techniques to make sure that people interact only with others in their age group; Re-examine language filters to ensure that they detect and eliminate messages that violate rules of behavior in virtual worlds; Provide more guidance to community enforcers in virtual worlds so they are better able to review and rate virtual world content, report potential underage users, and report any users who appear to be violating rules of behavior; and Employ a staff of specially trained moderators who are equipped to take swift action against rule violations."
Or parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or parents could be parents. Don't want you kids looking at something? Act as the filter don't let them buy/play games that expose them to things you don't want 'em to see....
Take some responsibility here folks!
Riiiiiiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to keep them out of school too. (Score:1, Insightful)
Are they going to take the kids out of public schools as well? Online chat is nothing compared to what's talked about in the hallways of our middle schools and high schools.
Re:The Internet is The Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up.. beat me to the punch.
Parents should be the one who ultimately decide whether their kids are ready to join online worlds and, if they're not, prevent them from doing so.
We as a people should not need a government organization dictating what our children should or should not be exposed too. I realize it's politically incorrect to blame voting parents for anything these days but there is no government rules that will replace a good parenting. Furthermore, I'm starting to realize a good chunk of those pushing for things like this are parents who really don't want to put in the work to raise their children and instead would prefer the government or schools do it for them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of touch bureaucrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm convinced that most adults, especially those who claim the mantle of "protecting the children" forget what it's like to be a child.
I mean, come on. Don't you guys remember the ribald jokes told as early as the first grade, and the whole fascination with that mysterious, taboo subject that nobody who talked about it really understood, and nobody who understood it talked about it?
I am a parent of a five year old, and I'm far more concerned about advertisements and commercials than I am worried that he'll overhear a reference to boobies or weiners. Exposure to "adult subjects?" Please. Like you never told a joke about headlights or train tunnels when you were six, or sung the "Miss Lucy" song.
And as for chat rooms and other "predator" hangouts, well, that's another level of threat... one that the media has a whole other set of objectivity problems with. (And common sense and involvement with your child is all it takes to manage that threat.)
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what they're really missing here? Teenaged boys are looking for explicit content and you'll never be able to stop them from finding it.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I would much rather not have to deal with other people's children or silly rules to protect them. Build kiddie pools and throw the little snots and the content filters in them.
Except that isn't how it will work.
The reason we need things like this in the first place is because parents aren't doing their job. If parents were paying enough attention to realize that Grand Theft Auto probably wasn't child safe... Or if parents were actually explaining what is appropriate language and behavior... It wouldn't be necessary to come up with these rules and filters to protect them.
The fact of the matter is that many parents just toss their kids in front of videogames. It's easier than actually parenting them yourself. It keeps them distracted and quiet while you go do your thing. Except that not all videogames are child-safe. And weeding out the child-safe ones from the adult titles would require effort these folks are obviously not interested in expending. So the ultimate goal here would be to render absolutely everything child-safe.
Which means that all your videogames would become kiddie pools. And even though you're an adult, you'd have to put up with the content filters and rules that are designed to protect the children of these lazy parents.
Re:Or parents... (Score:1, Insightful)
Friend of mine had 4 girl daughters, me, I had no kids.
I was blathering on about no-government, yadda, let parents decide if kids smoke dope, etc, when my friend with 4 daughters looked at me and said,
"I hear you, but when you become a parent, and your kids become teens, you will be thankful for any help from the government in this area".
I know now what he meant....
up to 30k [wikispeedia.org]
Re:Or parents... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not too long ago my house gained an eleven year old. Before that I just rolled my eyes and said "Parents need to just keep track of what the kids are watching"
I don't want to see things censored, but I welcome voluntary attempts to make the colossal task of monitoring easier for parents.
Times have changed (Score:4, Insightful)
Is "profane" language really such a concern anymore? Every I know who is under 40 tends to swear quite freely... having kids turns them into a hypocrite about the subject or what?
These concerns have always struck me as very unsophisticated... a belief in magical "bad" words seems pretty backward even by general religious standards... and if you're not religious, than what possible justification is used for the belief in "bad" words? Tradition?
Re:Or parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't restrict anything. They made recommendations. They are doing what a government is supposed to do. If they didn't, you wouldn't have safety in the workplace, safety in toys, safety against harmful chemicals, etc.
Re:Times have changed (Score:2, Insightful)
Alternately, everyone you know who is under 40 is a dick.
What's polite and what isn't doesn't make sense, for the most part. It just is. Magical "bad" words are there to let people know that you not only don't care for someone/thing, but you despise it.
Regulatory group calls for more regulation (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine that, a group that regulates content calls for stricter regulation of content on a new medium.
I guess they are just as into job security as the rest of us.
No such thing as bad words. (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship of thoughts and language of any kind is a bad thing. If you censor a word or call it bad, it will just be replaced by an innuendo or another innocent word will acquire its meaning. Language is like the internet, it too views censorship as damage and routes around it.
Re:Or parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't restrict anything yet.
There, I fixed it for you.
Re:Or parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I do have a kid.
Re:Or parents... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Or parents... (Score:1, Insightful)
While I agree, I also think that virtual communities can be good for kids so I want my daughter to participate in some that are appropriate. Having some of the features they discussed in ones geared towards kids and explicitly marking them so parents know they are more likely to be appropriate (it won't be perfect; but neither is the real world) is a useful tool to parents.
My daughter's mom bought her a laptop, and one of the first things I did was to put a general filter banning internet access. This way she can play music from my itunes share, print to my laser printer etc but in general can't get online. I made a couple of exceptions to the rules for sites that I expect to be safe for kids. Sure they could get hacked, but anything she could see online she could see in the real world; its about trying to limit the things they aren't ready for so that they get exposed slowly, have a chance to talk about it and process it, and return to their "normal" state. Other sites she can either request that I approve them and I'll do some research or we visit them together. I see no difference in how I should treat virtual worlds; these guidelines would be useful in a more child friendly virtual world. Especially since I frequently have to do things like change the 1 year old's diaper or check to see what trouble the four year old is getting into (he's too smart for his own good in terms of getting into trouble). These three of them and only one of me, so at times they have to be slightly unsupervised; honestly, I think that's a good thing, its gives them a chance to make choices and to learn that there are consequences to choices. My daughter's last school had a goal of children making the rules, making hte consequences, and teaching children that breaking them have consequences (and EXPLICITLY NOT of making the children obeye the rules but rather learn they must accept consequences). I think in the big pictures, that's the right path to take; at times, we all break the rules (and some times for VERY good reasons).
Why do I get the feeling (Score:1, Insightful)
that most people who agree with this sentiment don't have a problem with the government making their health care / lifestyle choices for them? "I don't want to be an adult, but you damn sure better be one!"
Besides, this is easier said than done when we live in a world where Obama's Safe Schools czar is giving fisting advice to 14-year olds and when I can't even check out of a grocery store without seeing at least 5 magazine / tabloid headlines about the latest celebrity sex news. Face it - the best a parent can do is try to explain the context of the f'ed-up world we live in where immediate and unrestrained sexual gratification is the supreme goal, and where people no longer are humiliated by debasing themselves to animal-like levels.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:4, Insightful)
One could argue that lack of experience in dealing with life's 'ugly' side leads to people having unrealistic expectations of what to expect in their life from friends, partners, and family. It can lead to poor decisions when choosing a partner, choosing to have kids, or choosing to even get married. These poor decisions in turn can lead to horribly broken homes, full of grief, misery, or just general lack of "life", which are terrible places for kids to grow up, kids who will continue on developing their own issues from growing in those homes, continuing the cycle.
One of this country's (US) biggest problems has always been the refusal to even acknowledge half of these problems and examine alternative lifestyles with an open mind. I don't mean just gay/lesbian couples either. I mean a couple who may choose to not have kids, a couple who may live together but refuse marriage, a couple who has an open relationship, having multiple 'friends with benefits'. All of these and more exist out there and work for other people, but if you dare make the mistake of admitting in public that you don't want to be married forever and have 2.5 kids, wooh buddy, something must be wrong with you!
The more exposure, and even better parental guided exposure, to life that a person (not just a kid) can have, the better. Yes, your 6 year old does not need to know the ins and out's of your divorce, but they do not need to remain ignorant forever. Maturing as a person is experiencing life and understanding more then you did when younger. If you are not experiencing and learning, you aren't growing, and you aren't maturing.
Re:Who needs terrorists... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it would be the same. The baby boomers who are running things act exactly like children.
Arguments based on who is in the better clique, not on the real issues or ways to solve problems or whether or not the government should try to solve certain problems in the first place. Their attempts to solve problems are based upon only a very superficial look at the problem and solution.
They succumb easily to bribes. They only consider their specific situation--one of the "solutions" for healthcare was to lower the medicare age to 55? That only helps baby boomers and no one else. In fact, the majority of people who are unable to get health insurace for themselves are under 30. Look at these figures [hhs.gov]. The percentage of uninsured poor is 21% for the ages 25-34 (the highest), and only 7% for ages 55-64. How does decreasing the medicare age to 55 help the healthcare crisis?
They act like a bunch of immature spoiled bastards who have no consideration for society in general. WTF? Mod me offtopic if you want, but my point is we have a total failure of leadership in the United States. These absurd regulation talks about the internet are just a small distraction from it.
They are just legislating things for their specific preferences, and most baby boomers don't run any game servers or web sites, so they don't care if your freedom to do such things are taken away. That is why we have these issues. Because they are in control and they don't give a shit about anyone else. In a non-tyrannical government, the leaders would act in ways which are considerate of everyone, but this is not what we have here.
As a parent of a 7 year old .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see a lot of truth in many of the comments posted here.
I know one of the problem I continually face is in trying to let my kid "go out in the real world and BE a kid". Personally, I'm a big proponent of what Penn & Teller were trying to say in one of their episodes of "Bullshit" .... that the world is NOT more dangerous for kids today than it was in previous generations. In fact, statistically, it's more probable that your kid will randomly be struck by lightning than become a victim of a predator, while playing outside. But my own beliefs and opinions don't dictate what the rest of the community believes either.
As one example, my girlfriend's 3 year old wanted to play outside, a few weeks ago. We live on a dead-end street, where there are at least 4 other families around with young kids. In fact, the people next-door to us have a 3 year old who loves playing with her 3 year old. So she let her go play, since my daughter and her 6 year old son were already playing outside anyway. Seems reasonable enough, right?
Well, not more than 10 minutes later, I get a frantic knocking on my front door. One of the neighbors a few houses down was basically demanding I run out and get her kid, because she was standing outside, on the sidewalk, in front of his house, with no other kids around! When I went to get her, she looked a bit puzzled, and didn't even want to come back in. She was simply standing around because she WANTED to, and was in no danger I could see. (Apparently, the 6 and 7 year olds decided to play in a neighbor's back yard, and didn't want her to go with them since she was "too young" to play whatever they were playing.)
This isn't the first time I've dealt with this sort of thing, either. On several previous occasions, my kid was outside playing, only to be taken by the hand, by an angry parent, and led up to my doorstep. Basically, they tried to tell me I was being irresponsible, because I let my kid play outside and their kid(s) had to go in for dinner, or because they were leaving to go someplace, or what-not. It never occurred to them it might actually be OK for my daughter to walk up and down our street and find her own way back home, when she wanted to come home!
This is in a low-crime, middle-class suburb, mind you .... I do find it interesting that when I used to live in a rougher, lower-income part of town, I *never* saw these issues. Whether it was because parents were too busy to be bothered with hovering over their kids constantly, or because they just had more common sense and less fear of the "real world", I don't know? But kids of all ages played outside, both during the day and even after dark, on a street that WASN'T dead-end and had no sidewalks -- and everyone got along just fine.
Re:Or parents... (Score:4, Insightful)
But how does one delineate the reduced risk from the reduced opportunity? At least where children are concerned...
Re:Or parents... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, no, kids aren't stupid. Kids are ignorant a lot of the time, but they aren't stupid. Your average 10-year-old is absorbing information like a sponge. The trouble is that they may not be absorbing the information you want them to absorb.
Now, here's the real trick, though: if you look at what information kids pay really close attention to, it's what the adults around them our doing. If you want a kid to act a certain way, act in that way around the kid and before you know it they will have picked it up. On the flip side, if you start acting like you don't want them to act, they will pick that up and copy you. It's monkey-see, monkey-do.
And while other adults do have some influence on kids, the adults with the most influence are mom, dad, and their teachers. Even if they don't admit it, even teenagers will pay close attention to what their parents do. They have more influence than anyone the kid sees on TV or on teh Interwebs.
Re:Or parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No such thing as bad words. (Score:3, Insightful)
Preach it, brother. I have done the same with my kids. Further, we've had many conversations around the notion that the religious factions in the US have made talk of sex 'dirty' when it really is simply a natural, pleasurable act that unfortunately can also have some unfortunate side effects (STD, pregnancy, heartbreak). I've told them that I don't particularly think porn is anything that unusually evil, and I don't spend a single minute worrying about them finding some 'bad' place on the internet. As a result, we're able to be pretty open about it, they don't seem to be hung about it, and thus far, at 14 and 17, we've had no issues.
A couple of generations ago, people learned about sex by seeing it in the barnyard, or by hearing their parents across the room before we were all well enough off to have separate bedrooms. It's only in recent years that people have been able to pretend that sex doesn't happen.
Re:Or parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
You could quietly kill the dirty infidels.
You could forbid your kid from ever seeing, visiting, or speaking to the dirty infidels.
Or you could acknowledge that what you want your kid to learn and not learn is pretty much limited by the fact that the kid's world is a lot bigger than just you.
If you give your kids a decent moral foundation, sufficient self-esteem as a buffer against peer pressure, and enough critical thinking skills to decide things for themselves, maybe your kids will make decisions on their own akin to what you'd decide for them.
(I assume we're not talking pre-schoolers here. In that case you have much more direct control.)
Signed,
idontgno, proud parent of 3 adult children (who, as far as I know, haven't become axe murderers, drug fiends, or IRS agents.)
Re:Or parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't. You teach them to use their brain, and they handle the rest.
Re:craziness (Score:3, Insightful)
Games are good for your eyesight [newscientist.com], social [slashdot.org] life [gamedaily.com], physical health [newscientist.com], learning [gamepolitics.com], stress [gigaom.com], language skills [thejournal.com] and economy [canada.com], among other things.
Oh, and gaming addiction is mostly bunk [bbc.co.uk].