Modern fallacy we've allowed. Internet was for adult, not twisted 'safe for children'

[ghost_of_bluebiyou]

The internet was made for adults, not children.
The internet was made and developed by adults for adult experimentation.

A modern fallacy... to "make the internet safe for children".

The ludicrousness of the statement begs another... to "make bars/taverns safe for children".

Children should not be in bars/taverns*they were not made for children. Children should not be on the internet* it was not made for them. They should be outside playing with neighbors/friends... Good God, let's return to real humanity.

Children were never the primary intended users of the internet.
In complete freedom, sexual issues, including pornography, will dominate the internet as they dominate adult human nature.

We cannot progress as humans without this freedom. In it's infancy, the concept was 'freedom of the press', now, it has properly expanded to 'freedom of expression'.

If we have a reluctance of exposing children to free speech and sexuality... then WE need to agree the internet is an adult medium and it is the responsibility of (rightfully) control obsessed parents to prevent their children from obtaining unrestricted access to the internet. Also implied here is the understood subsequent teacher/classroom controlled internet - a teacher may use the internet to help with lessons in the locally (socially) approved way.

Children should be restricted from the internet... unless parental approval for ALL the internet occurs (a good lesson in freedom, but potentially shocking lesson in the importance/prevalence of human sexuality to young children).

Underage usage of the internet should be allowed under the most restrictive, controlled circumstances... because people want to restrict/control what their children see. Put the responsibility on them, not on free speech.

We've put the cart before the horse on this one.

Otherwise all internet is eventually doomed, free speech is doomed, eventually to the lowest worldly standard definition of 'children safe'. A child 'could' hack the code and get in and see sexuality (and free speech), therefore the site can not be allowed to exist, thus free speech quelled under the guise of 'child safe'.

Note to parents. If your child accesses the internet to find porn (just like us boys used to 'find' our fathers Playboy or Penthouse in a closet or under a mattress), then... what they are doing... regardless of your feelings and 'laws'... is what they want to do and more or less natural development. If they see porn and are not interested... they won't care... If they see porn and they're shocked... then, they (if healthy) will come to you and ask...

Sexuality is an integral part of humanity, and eventually part of the learning curve for children.

You give your child a cell phone, fine. You encumber all the problems also.

Give your child a modern internet access, and you give them access to all of humanity. Don't ask humanity to change for your child's development.

It is in the interest of totalitarian societies/mentalities to restrict everyone's internet freedom under any pretense, especially to make it 'child safe' (not to mention anti-revolutionary in modern China - even though China's 'revolution' is older than most of the people alive - thus perpetual revolution, similar to the perpetual war model in the west).

*It is not the internet that needs to be controlled/restricted... it is children that need to be controlled/restricted.

End note: in no way do I endorse adult sexual contact/exploitation of a child.
My concern is free speech/development for the future world.

I would very much like to hear Fran's and Void's opinion on the subject (my posit) first.

[void()]

Children do need to learn of sexuality, in a naturalistic and holistic
way that involves the parents acting as guides. This is not saying the
child experiences loss of virginity with the parent along for the
ride.

It is saying the parent should offer sound, rational advice, knowledge
and then allow the child to question. The child then ought to be free
in their expression of sexuality, the same as being free in expression
of a religion.

I think children ought to be granted access to the teachings of all
religions. Adults should not interfere with a child's choice of
religion, sexuality. The parents may act as guides only, again only
offering knowledge, facts.

Then, parents need a child to choose a religion of their own free
choice at the age of eighteen. Let us just agree universally the age
of adulthood is eighteen, legalize drugs, allow drinking at eighteen,
voting, the right to take up military duty.

I think Lycurgus had a very fine system in Sparta, being Spartacus
though, I would. :)

In applicable regards to the Internet, again children need parental
guiding. Do not prohibit children from knowledge, yet do not allow access
to knowledge without access to wisdom. It is without wisdom we are made
bicamerel minded fools, children or adult.

[Annika L]

Blue, I LOVE this!! You've said here some things that have been rattling around in the back of my brain, but I've come nowhere close to formulating clearly enough to express it. I think all of this is pretty much dead on. I particularly like the comparison to bars and taverns. There are bars and taverns that *are* child-safe, and those are wonderful places, too. I think we need to increase the capacity of websites to be self-contained, so they can be child-friendly...and possibly increase the capacity of browsers to be child-safe (so there's a setting so you can't just get absolutely anywhere on the web using a toolbar or entering a URL), but restricting what can be on the internet is an extremely ill-conceived solution to a problem that rightfully rests with parents, not government.

[darkeyes]

It is true.. the internet was devised by adults for adults.. cant deny it for a minute.. but kids shouldn't have access to it? Well, writing was developed by adults for adults.. but as with writing, the net has been developed for kids to use.. and so it should have been. It is one of the greatest mind stretching education tools we have for children.. a lot of pap an all.. but many books are pap... many attitudes of adults are pap... the scope of internet content is breathtaking and as a learning aid is probably unsurpassed. For that reason alone is sufficient reason to allow children access to the net. We cannot deny children knowledge... we do not deny them books.. we cannot deny them the net. Of course many children use the net too much and for the wrong reasons. Kids listened to the Radio too much 70 years ago. the TV 50 and 40 years ago and even more recently... they should have been out playing.. so went the cry with every technological advance that was ever developed which children enjoy.. they enjoyed them because from those advances they learned.. and children are like sponges.. they soak up knowledge... often the wrong knowledge but that isn't their fault entirely..

Kids are less active now than when I was young and they tell me that compared to when my parents were young so was my generation less active, but as much as anything previous generations bear responsibility for that... either because of what was fed to the young minds or because over the last few decades and more kids have been denied street play.. public parks are far more restrictive places than when I was a 10 yo, school playing fields have been sold off, sports and games no longer played in many schools and at a much reduced level than was once the case. The young are denied play as much as they prefer to sit having fun on the Wii, Xbox or net... when the young play, adults shudder and try to put a stop to it in one of many different ways. Children seem no longer to be trusted to play by themselves.. either in the street, in parks, in the home or on line... they have to be up to no good.. parents have always done what they believe is best for their child and pointed the way to what they should read... it is their responsibility to do that when it comes to the net.. and yet big brother nanny state as it has been doing for the last half century and more removes more parks, puts up more no ball game signs, stops more street play, films they can and cannot see, and now insists on censoring what children can and cannot see and do on the net.

It may have been developed as an adult tool, just as writing and books were, but as with books and writing, (and many bars for that matter, Blue), it has been substantially tailored for the young and so it should have been. In the interests of health and fitness, sure kids should be out playing more than they are.. but equally they have to have a regular access to the net for educational and recreational purposes.. and as they grow this will increasingly become sexual.. how they do that is for parents to decide not the state. It is for parents to decide what access to grant and what not. Many parent's don't, but their negligence should not be the cause of responsible parents and their children being able to use the net constructively as age appropriate either for themselves or their children's well being and education.. ad in time children themsleves will as they have always done take out of their parents hands even that right and mostly long before they reach the age of maturity.. the state has no right to censor for in censoring the young it is defacto attempting to censor everyone in imposing its own subjective standards and opinions on the population at large. The decision what a child gets to see on TV, read in a book or magazine or what he or she does on the net is not the place of government to decide, but for parents or guardian who should use their authority with a lightness of touch, not one which is draconian. The state is fond of draconian... parents should guide, advise, aid, not dictate.. the state dictates .. which is a good reason for the state to be kept out of morality and things net...

[Annika L]

Fran, I don't *think* Blue was advocating that kids should never have internet access of any kind. I think she was advocating against giving them (as a culture) free and open access...thereby increasing the impetus to make it more kid-friendly/appropriate in general.

Yes, books were created originally by and for adults...but we don't give our children completely free access to books either. When I was young and wanted to learn things I thought I shouldn't, I generally went to either the dictionary or the encyclopedia. Yeah, there were entries about things like menstruation or pornography or prostitution (though nothing about sexuality or hate groups in those days)...but the entries only gave me enough information that I was able to put together a reasonable question to my parents (and let me be explicit that there was nothing I *couldn't* ask my parents about; but I was an introverted child and sensitive about asking about certain topics without having the slightest clue what I was asking about). The dictionary entry for pornography, for instance, did not contain a link to actual pictures or erotica (that at that age I *would* have found disturbing); the encyclopedia entry for prostitution did not have links to escort services, etc.

As I said above, I think there should be web sites designed for kids (of various ages) to use, just as there should be pubs, etc. that are child-friendly. There are and should be web sites that cater to youth struggling with sexuality issues (though this one isn't and shouldn't be one of them). But when we started making books for kids, and giving kids access to books, we didn't talk about (or even start to think about) restricting what adults were able to put in books. We just made intelligent choices about what books were appropriate for children.

[void()]

The state is fond of draconian... parents should guide, advise, aid, not dictate.. the state dictates .. which is a good reason for the state to be kept out of morality and things net...

Much concur with you and Anika both. Disagree with you on keeping the state
out of morality. In so far as we could possibly alter the state to become based upon
meritocracy, then once a meritous state, let state have a 100% inherientence tax.

Allow state to deem religion or philosphy dangerous for the community based upon
merit and the diletical of course. Encourage all to vote based upon their merit of
experience. For example, general physicians could vote that Pyhsician A is worthy
by merit to earn a ten percent wage increase this month/year.

Or people may vote that mining coal is execessively dangerous impacting people,
the environment. Look at Sweeden's use of waste to energy plan for a more
applicable means of producing energy. Give people whom do work in the field
of creating energy the vote according to their merit, to choose how energy
is produced or distributed to communities, industries.

Grant a meritous state to act as a parent, guide, mentor the same as we desire
parents of children to do. Do not allow the government to become draconian, only
meritous and continually evolving. Good example? Star Trek's government.


I think we need to increase the capacity of websites to be self-contained, so they can be child-friendly...and possibly increase the capacity of browsers to be child-safe (so there's a setting so you can't just get absolutely anywhere on the web using a toolbar or entering a URL), but restricting what can be on the internet is an extremely ill-conceived solution to a problem that rightfully rests with parents, not government.

Any search engine may produce results guiding parents to filtering software. The trick lay in
getting parents to enact upon that. I blame toasters as much as blaming religions based on
Abraham for the lack of parental interest, for as much good as the blaming does.

[void()]

The dictionary entry for pornography, for instance, did not contain a link to actual pictures or erotica (that at that age I *would* have found disturbing); the encyclopedia entry for prostitution did not have links to escort services, etc.

<SARCASM>Ha! Fine I will admit cuacasin privilige. *chuckles* My dictonaries did have porn images, movies linked to their definitions. The encyclopedias did link to escort services. *ROFLMAO*</SARCASM>

In truth, do recall when these were not found on the web / Internet. And no, the paper based books do not link to obscenities. But yes, I learn much from having access to the world networked together, hopefully the world and universe does as well. Though, often now, I find answers to difficult questions by delving more inwards.

[Annika L]

<SARCASM>My dictonaries did have porn images, movies linked to their definitions. The encyclopedias did link to escort services. *ROFLMAO*</SARCASM>


Yes, dear...but you are but young. *wink*

[void()]

Yes, dear...but you are but young. *wink* Reminded this morning of being 41 yrs young. Serves me right trying to pick on a sister-in-law who just had a birthday. Need a spare lady? Take my wife, please. Bah, the curses of just being me. *chuckling*

[darkeyes]

Fran, I don't *think* Blue was advocating that kids should never have internet access of any kind. I think she was advocating against giving them (as a culture) free and open access...thereby increasing the impetus to make it more kid-friendly/appropriate in general.

Yes, books were created originally by and for adults...but we don't give our children completely free access to books either. When I was young and wanted to learn things I thought I shouldn't, I generally went to either the dictionary or the encyclopedia. Yeah, there were entries about things like menstruation or pornography or prostitution (though nothing about sexuality or hate groups in those days)...but the entries only gave me enough information that I was able to put together a reasonable question to my parents (and let me be explicit that there was nothing I *couldn't* ask my parents about; but I was an introverted child and sensitive about asking about certain topics without having the slightest clue what I was asking about). The dictionary entry for pornography, for instance, did not contain a link to actual pictures or erotica (that at that age I *would* have found disturbing); the encyclopedia entry for prostitution did not have links to escort services, etc.

As I said above, I think there should be web sites designed for kids (of various ages) to use, just as there should be pubs, etc. that are child-friendly. There are and should be web sites that cater to youth struggling with sexuality issues (though this one isn't and shouldn't be one of them). But when we started making books for kids, and giving kids access to books, we didn't talk about (or even start to think about) restricting what adults were able to put in books. We just made intelligent choices about what books were appropriate for children.
I know Blue isnt advocating that.. but with his initial statement peeps cud b forgiven for thinking that she??.. he?? (give us a clue, blue) was.. I put me own slant on things as I invariably do.. regarding books.. governments have banned books completely.. even on occasion kids books.. but more often (as it should be) it is the good sense (or bad sometimes) of parents what kids are allowed to read... gone (in the UK at least) are the days when the Lord Chancellor decided what was printed in this country.. and while government will always try and stifle freedom of speech and the written word (even in the US where it is constitutionally guaranteed) it is left to parents what a child will be allowed to read and at what age,. the net should be no different even allowing for the fact that it will have infinitely more resources than any ordinary household will have in books and vastly more dangerous content.

Whether net or literature, the young will find it and read it... whether media or porn they will find it and watch it and as parents it is our job to guide them and advise them to be able to do so should they wish at an appropriate time in their life in as healthy a manner as possible.. not to condemn or ban but to enable them to view or read and to make up their own mind. An appropriate time will be different for every child.. each child matures differently and at varying rates and every parent thinks differently about every child... but age related arbitrary bans or restrictions.. age related censorship... arbitrary ages of consent don't work ( and I am talking of consent to absorb knowledge and comparing it to the difficulty of imposing arbitrary ages of consent for the young to have sex which work at best haphazardly if at all)... and so we have to leave it to the good sense of parents (and I do accept many parents don't have good sense.. but most I would argue, do.. a very controversial claim in this day and age when governments try to regulate everything because the population cant be trusted....)

It is our job to help the young through life and educate (not indoctrinate) them how to read, not what to read... and to analyse and intellectualise.. how to learn, not what to learn (outside of any formal education)... the net should be no different from educating them about radio or telly.. or film or books... Government should not get involved cos everytime it does somehow they bollox it and the young ( and most every one else) suffer and are starved of what they need to grow and mature... wisdom and knowledge.. and so they go of the rails frustrated, disenfranchised, not trusted, considered irresponsible because government and many, not all, adults do not treat them with sufficient seriousness and respect for them to be allowed access to knowledge very often until long after they are ready to absorb it and utilise it...

I agree with u regarding the web.. and sites for children... I agree with blue also.. but my libertarian (a concept of the left far more than ever it is of the right as anyone outside of the US knows) instinct does not allow me the luxury of trying to impose repression and knowledge starvation on the young ad infinitum and as an arbitrary age related block. We store up a great deal of shit for the young and for our societies in general if that is what we do.. history shows that... present day restrictions on young learning in much of the US and to a lesser extent the UK shows that also. As does the mess that exists now and has done historically for so many of the young, and for so many of their parents because of that intellectual starvation in the past and the imposition of government dictate on what they can read and what they can view and what they can know.

[darkeyes]

...and for light relief and soz to mess up thread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplmwFAuXiE Just for the luffly Blue... all I can c is this.. eitha she wos born 35 years too early or I wos 35 years 2 late... always meant to for Blue in another life.. b4 he/she /they became ghostie I mean:love87:... :impleased

[void()]

I know Blue isnt advocating that.. but with his initial statement peeps cud b forgiven for thinking that she??.. he?? (give us a clue, blue) was.. I put me own slant on things as I invariably do.. regarding books.. governments have banned books completely.. even on occasion kids books.. but more often (as it should be) it is the good sense (or bad sometimes) of parents what kids are allowed to read... gone (in the UK at least) are the days when the Lord Chancellor decided what was printed in this country.. and while government will always try and stifle freedom of speech and the written word (even in the US where it is constitutionally guaranteed) it is left to parents what a child will be allowed to read and at what age,. the net should be no different even allowing for the fact that it will have infinitely more resources than any ordinary household will have in books and vastly more dangerous content. Whether net or literature, the young will find it and read it... whether media or porn they will find it and watch it and as parents it is our job to guide them and advise them to be able to do so should they wish at an appropriate time in their life in as healthy a manner as possible.. not to condemn or ban but to enable them to view or read and to make up their own mind. An appropriate time will be different for every child.. each child matures differently and at varying rates and every parent thinks differently about every child... but age related arbitrary bans or restrictions.. age related censorship... arbitrary ages of consent don't work ( and I am talking of consent to absorb knowledge and comparing it to the difficulty of imposing arbitrary ages of consent for the young to have sex which work at best haphazardly if at all)... and so we have to leave it to the good sense of parents (and I do accept many parents don't have good sense.. but most I would argue, do.. a very controversial claim in this day and age when governments try to regulate everything because the population cant be trusted....) It is our job to help the young through life and educate (not indoctrinate) them how to read, not what to read... and to analyse and intellectualise.. how to learn, not what to learn (outside of any formal education)... the net should be no different from educating them about radio or telly.. or film or books... Government should not get involved cos everytime it does somehow they bollox it and the young ( and most every one else) suffer and are starved of what they need to grow and mature... wisdom and knowledge.. and so they go of the rails frustrated, disenfranchised, not trusted, considered irresponsible because government and many, not all, adults do not treat them with sufficient seriousness and respect for them to be allowed access to knowledge very often until long after they are ready to absorb it and utilise it... I agree with u regarding the web.. and sites for children... I agree with blue also.. but my libertarian (a concept of the left far more than ever it is of the right as anyone outside of the US knows) instinct does not allow me the luxury of trying to impose repression and knowledge starvation on the young ad infinitum and as an arbitrary age related block. We store up a great deal of shit for the young and for our societies in general if that is what we do.. history shows that... present day restrictions on young learning in much of the US and to a lesser extent the UK shows that also. As does the mess that exists now and has done historically for so many of the young, and for so many of their parents because of that intellectual starvation in the past and the imposition of government dictate on what they can read and what they can view and what they can know. Think I comprehend what you're driving at. Will try summarizing it clearly. If I'm off the mark, beat me with a feather. ;) Free speech means just that, free speech for all regardless of the message put across. For example on some of the darknet currently there seems a bit of a skirmish over CP or Child Porn. A rather large and vocal group seeks to rid the world of cp, thinking it in the best intrest of all. Granted, I do not condone cp, do not knowingly partake of it and have no desire to. That noted, I visit realms of the dark net which contain aspects of cp either links to it, or little one off pictures with further links. I prefer the first over the second, rather not see it at all. Still I don't mind seeing textual links to what is clearly going to be cp. It's called being tolerant and honoring free speech. Merely because I do not partake does not mean I have right to forbid or stop others from partaking. My moral compass may be based upon logic which is far removed from theirs, or vice versa. The ultimate question found resides in, "who am I to judge?" I am allowed only to control myself. You don't like it? Ignore it. Think it's illegal for good and just reasons? Sure, report it to authorities. Me i'll just go on about my business. I'm here looking up stuff regarding philosophy, math, building hovercaft, sneaky thermite reciepes, ways to build permanet magnet generators, means to access MARS sat (military communications sattalites), news regarding buds whom might be in odd places which they may or may not be authorized to be, new info on Gerson methods, ways to cheaply build houses, info on stolen or otherwise shady goods such as music, movies. I have plenty of different things to stay busy with. I don't do cp, others might, um er oookay. *shrugs and goes on* Point being, internet / web is a tool. It should remain neutral in my opinion. If you're a parent, be a fucking parent, guide your children. Do not bind your children but guide them as mentors, grant them to think for themselves. If a parent, don't bitch to Big Brother to fuck w/ cp or drugs, or different religions, or nations ... be a fucking parent! Sorry for my fucking french but it's a point worth fucking expressing. Sorry boss Drew, know you like a G rating in public. But it is a valid point I feel strongly about. At any given this is an adult themed site, if there can't be fucking at it, then what's the point to the fucking site? ;) :)) :D

[void()]

Grr ... the bloody site is scrunching paragraphs together in posts. It gone hinky. Maybe I oughtora fuck the webmaster, then it'd get all unfucked.

[darkeyes]

U just about have it Voidie.. *sends txts 2 kids advising them of unsavoury lingo on .com and 2 b nice lickle girls and wotch cbeebies wich is generally far more intellectually stimulating..*

Being a parent Voidie... doing me job!!!:tongue::love87:

[void()]

U just about have it Voidie.. *sends txts 2 kids advising them of unsavoury lingo on .com and 2 b nice lickle girls and wotch cbeebies wich is generally far more intellectually stimulating..* Being a parent Voidie... doing me job!!!:tongue::love87: Hehehe :)

[ghost_of_bluebiyou]

No Fran,
it's me.
Big (old and getting fat) motorcycle riding guy in leather.
I just needed some time to... address previous behavioral tendencies.
LOL, but during my time of bad behavior, I DID have someone trying to kill me on a regular basis all those years, which while agitating, does not automatically allow me to go unhinged abusive with someone who disagrees with me on this forum.

The gist of my posit in this thread (and you and Void -Annika also did well in subsequent exploration) was...
The 'absolute' necessity of free expression, given this new tool of 'internet' faces an eventual, virtual (virtual as in next best thing - not intending pun of internet/gaming) death in this medium (internet) through litigation and the slippery slope of 'child safe'. While I can see the obvious benefit of a child learning with internet tools, I see this as secondary to (and high potential as an eroding factor, just like terrorism to) the principle of 'free expression'.

In the 18th century, intellectual groups (the Freemasons to a great extent I understand) developed principles upon which the great American experiment were based:



Freedom of the individual. Freedom of speech (press), movement, associations,

secondarily,

Government improvement (to allow for these freedoms); Separation of church and state, thus robbing the state of being above criticism/mandatory compliance.
Although the 'communist' (actually socialist) states no longer require religion (indeed as USSR and China have demonstrated for the last century) to be right, all the time, regardless of logic or circumstance. These socialist states had become religions of themselves. Indeed the 'perpetual war state' (wonderfully described and predicted by the movie "Brazil") still exists in China ("counterrevolutionary" even though the revolution was over for decades) and ironically United States. Rather like old Egyptian societies, Roman societies... Ceasar was God... cannot be questioned...
Now government would have to run through moral hoops (bill of rights/constitution), rather than the previous system of serfdom.


Ahh... time for bed...


Blue