Tuesday 21 October 2008

Children and the WWW

Hi All,

"Three out of four children have seen images on the internet that disturbed them, an NSPCC poll suggests." This is how the BBC news story begins. So it is how I will start mine. It goes on to say that these figures are taken from a poll of visitors to there there4me.com website, which caters for 12-16 year olds.

Ok, yes fine, there are lots of images out there that can disturb children. What got me were these quotes from Zoe Hilton, who is the "policy advisor" for the NSPCC. I shall deal with them individually.

"Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling across upsetting or even dangerous pictures and films such as adult sex scenes, violent dog fights, people self-harming and children being assaulted."

Children are always a few steps\clicks\hops\limps away from all the above all the time. With the exception of "violent dog fights" (as opposed to the non-violent type?). Where in the hell did that come from? But anyway. Any child between the ages of 12 and 16 who has stayed up beyond 9pm has probably already seen all of the above. Even some 12 rated films have these scenes in, so why pick on the internet? Can also someone explain to me what a dangerous picture is? Is it one with really sharp edges? Or one you can fall off quite easily?

Ms Hilton said that ..."every child should be using a computer with child protection software."

It's traditionally called a parent.

"High-security parental controls installed in their computers would help shield them. "

Do we really need another bunch of controls forced upon us, to teach us what is right and wrong?

"Currently computer manufacturers and retailers leave it to parents to find and install software that filters out material unsuitable for children...."

Since when has it been their responsibility? When I buy a PC I don't want to be asked if I have kids so they know what software to put on. Or, why the hell should I have more bloaty ad-ware that will go out of date in 12 months and that I have to renew or whatever?

When I was in high school, I remember quite vividly being shown images of the holocaust, seeing all these people in trenches, dead bodies being rolled into the pit and then covered in lime, people being shot, lined up in bloodied tattered clothes against a wall. I also remember seeing sex scenes in various programs on telly and films. Dog fights is a hard one I admit (unless they mean Spitfire vs. ME109), but then I have never seen one of those videos, and I have been on the internet for a long time. I reckon if I looked for it I'd find it, but I'd have to look for it.

The kids need to be taught to be "web-wise". I have never seen a video or image that I haven't expected to see. I am a true googleite too, and their safe search is fairly good. I don't understand what these kids have been looking for in order to get hardcore porn, self-harm and children being assaulted. In fact....

Hey, this is a thought, what if the children now are so obsessed with finding help that they are now looking for it. They are going to Google and typing "sex advice" or "I self harm please help me" or "I am being abused, help" all 3 I imagine would throw up these images and videos they don't like, and then they finally get to "there4you.com" and sure enough the ones that need help have found abusive stuff on the internet.

I have kids, young kids admittedly, and I have always supervised them on the internet, and they do well. They shall become web-wise. Also if they have a problem they are secure in themselves so they can come and talk to me about whatever, they don't need some webby, self appointed, self regulating, nationalised, pointless group of childless do-gooders helping them. What we actually need are parental classes to help the minority of parents bring up their children. You don't need software for that. In fact its a bad idea. "The software let it through, the software blocks badness, so this must be good"

Ok, last quote:

"I've seen violent images I didn't search for. I was freaked out."
I'd be freaked out too, if google came up with matches and I hadn't typed anything in.

Be careful what you search for, you might just get it.

Thanks for reading.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The internet is the antithesis to the nannystate - it comes as no surprise that a stuck up rape victim with an axe to grind would find something else to blame other than bad parenting.

Children are being subjected to more situations that would have appalled our forebears. It desensitises them.
So?
My concern would be whether material would put them in danger of becoming a cynic too early, and if they lost their wonder and awe of life's beautiful moments.

If it just made them stronger then fuckit, saves you having to trot out the birds and the bees story, or explain that 'shivving' people is a bad thing, mmmkay?

Of course there's a huge difference between your kid accidently spotting a russian porn site, and you taking them dogging. People who have the voice to get an article on the BBC website should realise that access to the internet does not mean they're doing the latter!

What's the name of that turn of phrase where you link two points and imply that because A is true, therefore so is B?

-Yao

Anonymous said...

This is clearly a bigger threat to your childs innocence.

Besides, the moment she fires the recoil will rip her arm off at the shoulder.