Parenting. Who has time for that? Surely its up to the gov to dictate our childs upbringing. This has so far done wonders for our kids in school.
Researchers from the University of Oxford have suggested that, instead of rolling out internet filters, those who are concerned about what teenagers encounter online should spend some time helping their parents parent them. The research paper, "Internet Filtering Technology and Aversive Online Experiences in Adolescents", was …
"Parenting. Who has time for that? Surely its up to the gov to dictate our childs upbringing. This has so far done wonders for our kids in school."
On the one hand helicopter parents; on the other parents who expect schools, or the donation of regular IT equipment updates to replace parenting.
Government solution: Over-regulate state schools or leave private schools to do what they like, and rely on IT equipment to fix the resulting problems.
Pots and kettles.
Private schools are far from doing what they like.
We have exactly the same child protection and e-safety problems as any other school, plus a bunch of pushy parents threatening to remove funds all year round if their darlings don't pass standardised exams with top grades every time.
With the ISI etc. breathing down your neck as vehemently as Ofsted.
"Private schools are far from doing what they like."
Yes, sorry, terminological inexactitude. I was referring to the "free schools" who have been teaching fundamentalism and employing unqualified teachers, and the illegal private schools which are not being effectively dealt with despite, in some cases, not even teaching English. I spent 6 years teaching in an HMC school, I tend without thinking to make a distinction between Public (HMC) and private (everything else not part of the State system).
Having just found out what a goatse is, I'm reminded of the fact that internet filters wont stop people from seeing the goatse in real life either.
Anyway what do Oxford Uni know? They obviously dont have access to the same info GCHQ have, so is this an expertly flawed study by so called Experts?
I don't have any filter on my broadband connection at home, whilst my kids (eldest 9) could potentially run into naughty content they don't search for it. There was a time where malware (thnx roblox gone for good now) decided to pop up some undesirable content, my kid clicked it away and came and told me when it happened again.
It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content.
Waiting for the teenage years with some apprehension, god knows how I would respond to this in a few years time !!!! WISH ME LUCK !!!
"It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content."
This. Right here.
I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl. No photos in those days, just the best of imagination etc to work out what she looked liked - plus put in to context what was being said. i.e. "I walk in to your room without a bra on ( . Y . )".
Sister found out, and her being younger than me told my parents. They went nuclear on me, and looking back I can see why. I was young, had no real idea who I was talking to etc, and they just didn't want me in danger. My 13 year old self didn't know that though, and for as long as I was at home I was super careful when going on to different websites etc so I didn't get caught.
That's not the way to go about it, but when I knew my parents were that dead against me using the internet you had to lie to get on to it. We had dial up, and I needed to get permission to go on it. They'd ask me what I needed to do. "Homework" I'd say, and my dad would scoff and go "Yeah, sure I bet. What are you really doing?". You get the idea.
Fast forward 16 odd years, my girlfriend's sister is 14 and told her mom some lad was sending her photos of himself and she sent one of her bum. Her mom went mental, the sister wouldn't talk about it because she was ashamed of what happened. I told her mom what happened when my parents did the same thing - she didn't listen. So I spoke to the sister and I explained in real terms what lads of that age want and expect, but never at any time did anyone think less of a girl for not sending those photos back. She's a smart kid, and hormones get in the way of everything. We all know this.
Going nuclear at a child about something they're curious about or slip in to doing isn't going to disuade them from carrying on. They're turning in to adults, and if you're honest with yourself you know what you were like at that age. They're a generation that is new to everything that's in the world, and instead of using fear as a tactic to prevent harm you need to educate them on what can happen.
To finish my story, the girlfriends sister deleted snapchat when I showed her how people can take screenshots without the sender knowing. Whether that still works on Snapchat now I don't know, but it did back when this happened.
> I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl.
Rule 30: There are no girls on the internet. It was probably a bloke. Or a cop. lolol
> To finish my story, the girlfriends sister deleted snapchat when I showed her how people can take screenshots
Well yeah, hormones but also, kids don't process anything like an adult -or at least very little. They can't, their brains are still developing, especially young males they are not even on same planet some would argue.
Treating adolescents like smaller adults demonstrates a lack of empathy, if anyone has the answers i'm all ears, but shoehorning them into adult constructed pigeon holes is probably going to do more harm than good.
They are not fully grown yet, they will be, but as far as young folks are concerned they are always correct 10ft+ tall and bullet proof. This kind of behaviour should be expected i guess.
ib4 back in my day rants.
We can always do better looking after young people, and getting them ready for the future.
Just look at what religion has done to them.
You talk a compelling argument, I agree parents going ballistic is not the answer but thats their hormones, whilst also perhaps showing parents are actually viewing their kids as possessions, and are just treating them like a pet dog.
I see the reasons for using a filter, and a filter has its place, I also see the reasons for not having a filter, because of this simple fact: Would you like to educate them on the aspects of human behaviour virtually or for real in a chance encounter which could have increased life threatening risks?
Obviously there is a psychological risk to even virtual exposure like cyber bullying/sextortion/what have you, but there is a trace that exists which doesnt necessarily exist in the real world, beit the school playground, or around town, even though GCHQ would prefer to not admit this trace exists and is more detailed than you & most other people perhaps realise.
The reasons the Govt/GCHQ lie to you are for the same reasons, you lie to your kids about Santa Claus.
Think about it. Who can handle the truth when they have been lied to all these years, cognitive dissonance is very anger inducing?
From a law enforcement point of view which would you rather have? Some clues or no clues?
"I walk in to your room without a bra on ( . Y . )".
You're not going to get any action with a half-arsed pose like that. Put some effort into it, show that you can at least write decently.
Suricou approaches, and joins you upon the sofa - not to sit, but instead to fall over backwards over the arm and land forcefully sprawled across it with the cushions softening her landing. She shifts herself along until she can rest her head in your lap and look up towards you. Comfortable there, in that casual closeness. A little more shifting gets her feathers safely flattened, and her feet hanging over the end of the sofa with those long bird toes curled in the air. "Much better."
If you're going to do it, do it with pride.
"I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl."
as pointed out before, probably "a 45 year old unshaven fat guy in his underwear"
And I'd like to add a list of the best possible comebacks for teenagers (directed at clueless parents):
a) I'm doing my gynecology homework
b) I accidentally clicked on the wrong link
c) someone from Nigeria sent me this
d) I think I misspelled a word in my google search
e) it's just the way that web browsers work under Linux
f) I was told that Playboy doesn't do porn any more
g) I accidentally typed "4chan" and this is where I ended up
h) Facebook is a LOT worse
i) I was looking for information about [insert ethnic group] culture
j) someone said a word that sounded [insert foreign language here] and I wanted to know what it meant
k) I thought it was a web site about cartoons/Disney/Pokemon
I do have filters, but they are for time-wasting and viruses. Not for "naughty" content.
My primary worry as a parent is that they will spend the afternoon glued to GooTube or SilverGames instead of doing their homework.
The second is that they will drag a computer STD in.
Only the third is that they will see something inappropriate and in that case they will probably come and talk to me first.
Pretty sure el reg isn't a hotbed of SJW.
I'm just glad I grew up in pre-regulation era of the internet. Cruising though cyberspace, hacking phones and pwning noobs. Pointless talking to parents because they literally have no idea what the internet is.
Kids these days are a bunch of pansies.
Filtering is dumb - it's like putting all your porno movies in the bedroom cupboard. Sure the living room collection looks good but when the kids find the movies in the bedroom they will watch all of them and invite their friends over to see them.
Store the porno in the general collection and all they do is look at the box and go, "Ewww, that's gross"
It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content.
Absolutely right. And anyway, what I find hypocritical (if not downright disturbing) is the focus on blocking sexual content. I find violent content far more upsetting than sexual. After all, sex is a natural experience which aims to be pleasurable to all sides involved (if it doesn't we are talking violence again), whereas violence might be natural, but certainly doesn't aim at being pleasurable (unless some seriously deranged people are involved). I still would prefer talking about violent content (which could simply be news footage from war zones) with my kids than blocking it.
@Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Unfortunately, violence (and more generally degradation, humiliation and objectification) towards women is pretty much the norm for internet sex; pleasure doesn't really seem to enter into (not even for the men). If you're to be serious about blocking/discouraging violent content, or even just talking about it with your children, then (without being Grundy-ish) you'll de facto have to target internet sexual content.
"Unfortunately, violence (and more generally degradation, humiliation and objectification) towards women is pretty much the norm for internet sex; pleasure doesn't really seem to enter into (not even for the men)."
Porn is an industry built on niches and targeted appeal. No matter what your taste, there exists a site somewhere that will fill it. It is simply that violence and degradation are popular subjects, and so made in corresponding quantity. If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable.
If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable.
No doubt; but I don't see my 15 year old son doing that (should I urge him only to access tasteful, non-exploitative porn?) Anyway, my point is that an overwhelming majority of porn is degrading and humiliating towards women. If that's demand-driven - and I imagine it is - I guess that says something depressing about the male of the species.
The approach I take with my son is to stress that sex on the internet is (in general) nothing like sex in the real world - or certainly shouldn't be - insofar as it totally lacks a few ... um ... crucial aspects like love, joy, passion, fun and mutual respect. I might even suggest that he may want to get out there and talk to some real-life girls.
"Porn is an industry built on niches and targeted appeal. No matter what your taste, there exists a site somewhere that will fill it. It is simply that violence and degradation are popular subjects, and so made in corresponding quantity. If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable."
IOW, to quote a sleazy pimp in Transmetropolitan: "If it ain't kind of creepy and dirty and mysterious and forbidden, guys don't get off."
We don't either, we even had my daughter's iPad locked down.
One day my Missus walks in to find my 12 year old daughter immediately hiding something on the screen, a bit of arguing and I hear my wife literally screaming at our daughter 'cos she's followed some link to porn, sitting there watching it! Cue extraordinary family meeting where I have to act as arbiter to stop my wife deafening our daughter by screaming at her for what's she's done!
We've never covered anything up about sex or body parts, we had "the talk" with our daughter when she was 8 years old just in case her monthly's kicked off early. We openly discuss any medical issues at home, we've always encourage our daughter to discuss anything she wants with us. Still, but still she did what teenagers do and decided to find out for herself.
We discussed it, we said it's perfectly alright for people to watch porn, both men and women but that it's for people over 18 to watch as we could be in trouble if anyone finds out she watched it, the threat of having to go live with the Aunt she dislikes if Social Services got involved was enough to make her think seriously about doing it again.
So no matter what you do or don't do, kids will be kids!
Usually it's a bad idea to cast the world in black and white, but when it comes to 'acceptable' content in media, it might be helpful to stick to the question whether something is criminal or not. If it's criminal, then the police should go after the criminals. If it is merely unpleasant for the cultural sensitivities of some audiences (young / old, conservative / liberal, diverse ethnic groups, or the nudist neighbor upstairs), then those audiences should try to avoid this content -- and I don't think they'll need help from the government to do it.
I remember with great pleasure the look on the face of the US grad students when they first encountered topless sunbathers at the Blatterwiese. I am sure you can find the same embarrassed look on the face of many Arab refugees when they encounter the first short skirts. I assume most get beyond the shock and move on to a productive life.
"I remember with great pleasure the look on the face of the US grad students when they first encountered topless sunbathers at the Blatterwiese. I am sure you can find the same embarrassed look on the face of many Arab refugees when they encounter the first short skirts. I assume most get beyond the shock and move on to a productive life."
And if they DON'T? What if they go stark raving mad (or worse, religiously militant--or was that militantly religious)?
Just the other day my nippers saw a govt minister talking about "cyber strategies". I tried to protect them by lying that it was just a Dr Who mockumentary bit, but I couldn't head off the tears once they realized that this was truly how our Lords & Masters think and that this is the world they're inheriting
I suggest that perhaps the best answer would be to flood the Internet with good quality sex education. With explicit pictures. Teenagers are going to look for this stuff. Give them a chance of finding things that are informative and realistic. But this would involve a level of detachment and common sense rare in politicians.
"Dad! Were you and Mum so awkward when you first, you know..."
"ooooo yup! But probably just a bit less embarrassed, since we were definitely drunker than they are! So clumsier but cockier!"
"oh.... Man, imagine if my mates saw me looking so lame! I'd just die... Never going to film myself doing it..."
/me beams with pride that lesson so cheaply learnt
I do have a internet filter at home from Virgin Media and have configured Google so it does SafeSearch only, however, both can be bypassed in seconds. You can simply start an incognito window, go to Google Image Search and type in sex. The returned results are nothing spectacular, but enough to keep a teenager busy for hours. With a bit more effort the filter can be completely bypassed by simply using a Google DNS server. On the laptop I can lock this all down by revoking admin rights, however, on Android phones this can be simply achieved by installing an app. Also do not forget public WIFI, some of them are horrendously bad at filtering anything at all.
I think we should ban the clever people who have made cosmetic surgery acceptable for those who are psychologically inferior in mind about their looks, as all this surgery is just body harming by proxy, a profitable form of Munchausen syndrome. Yet all these boob jobs are forcing some men who like small breasted women as its indicative of fitness & running levels to search ever younger age groups if they havent been on the pill.
At what point do you start investing in your future other half?
Of course with all this spying, hacking and extortion, I can see why Israel would be one of the best hacking countries in the world, it would be wise to invest in innovative new methods to hunt for and target the next future Hitler.
Do laws keep you stupid in harms way by not being able to form your own opinions, arguably a form of education which shouldnt stop when you leave, school, college or uni?
... unless you have an IT staff that constantly monitors it and keeps on top of the filtering configuration.
Granted, the one I'm in charge of is at $work; it's partly to keep the amount of pink off the monitors, but also to block failbook and other social media sites from the masses to keep productivity at acceptable rates. Finally, it also acts as a reasonable malware blocker.
Ironicly, the one they put in charge of the nanny filter is the one who is opposed to censorship on almost a religious level; but I understand and accept the business's reasons for it.
"clear evidence for whether they are effective"
Evidence? Evidence before doing something? Are you out of your mind? The authorities have to be *seen* to be 'tackling' nonces and terrorists. It doesn't matter if what they do actually works.
Just to switch off the sarc for a sec, why the fuck isn't Dr Victoria the Minister for the Interwebs? Shit, why isn't Dr Victoria the Prime Minister? "It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."
You know, I can (barely) remember being a teenager, and I don't remember ever, ever, hoping to be 'protected' from the possibility of viewing smut.
Actively seeking it out in order to ogle now, that's quite another issue.
How long should we protect children from learning there is unpleasant stuff in the world? Their 30s? 40s? Hope they die without ever learning what those naughty things in their keks are able to do?
Oxford are saying that censorship doesnt work.. even though they are one of the worst offenders for censoring free speech on their campus?
When some people actually feel the need to study what society would generally consider to be plain out obvious. Worse yet: getting paid for it too.
What's next? Study which learns that forcefully forbidding your teenager kid to drink alcohol can very well drive them to do so behind your back. A lesson which the whole US has learned the hard way.
Who would have known all these things?
Reminds me of that "iBabe" scene in Movie 45. iBabe: an MP3 player which looks like a naked woman and to add insult to injury it has a high powered ventilator placed in a "certain private spot" resulting in obvious nasty issues. And the board of directors: "We could never have seen that coming, who would have known people would try to "mate" with an mp3 player?".
No shit sherlock :)
OK. Just make sure any filtering is clearly marked and the user can tell whose filter (who made it and who controls it) with contact details for who is responsible for its behaviour, with a duty on them to respond to any queries with exactly why it is filtered (under which Act, not just ministerial whim) and meaningful penalties for filtering stuff that should not be filtered.
why have you used the term Boffin to describe the source of this pile of "State the Bleedin Obvious" claptrap from a bunch of "Researchers"...
I was under the impression the term Boffin was reserved for proper white coat wearing shiny headed brainboxes who look down on rocket scientists...
"I was under the impression the term Boffin was reserved for proper white coat wearing shiny headed brainboxes who look down on rocket scientists"
I was under the impression that you aren't a boffin until a sergeant in REME or equivalent branches of other services has called you one. Its use is therefore restricted to the fields of science which come under the purview of these excellent ladies and gentlemen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019