Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Brandi Jasmine" To: webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 06:52:42 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: TWG: Re: Net Censorship Priority: normal Sender: owner-webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Brandi Jasmine" Status: >In the first place, the people who buy these programs have NO say over >what is being blocked - Not in the case of Emmisary, a browser with a built-in customizable blocking feature and it is my understanding that you can enter your own lists in some of these programs. Regardless, you have the right to NOT use them. > bureaucrats deciding on behalf of parents and kids to allow some software > company in California to decide what values kids are and aren't allowed to > be exposed to. I'd hardly call that an exercise of individual freedom. It's no different from a librarian deciding which books to buy or not to buy - a choice they make EVERY DAY without any uproar. Right now the Usenet feeds are so huge that it may be financially impossible for some sites to continue a full feed. Even with top-of-the-line equipment it's a daily struggle for ISPs to keep ahead of the flow. The bulk of the material coming though is wares (pirated commercial software) and hard-core porn. A librarian is justified IMHO in deciding not to carry this stuff. It's expensive. And there is an even simpler solution to the controversy, one MANY companies and libraries have chosen: don't offer Internet access at all. Is that what you want to see happen? And you have the right to purchase and offer your children unfiltered access if you want to. No-one's stopping you. > They can't be. That's the whole idea. They're designed for people who would > rather shell out $49 for a bandaid solution than have to spend some time > supervising their own children, discussing values and social problems with > them, and general acting like a real parent. They allow parents to use the Their choices are none of our damned business! Just like OUR choices are none of theirs! > Right now, some of the filtering programs block any site that > contains the words "fascism" or "racism", presumably on grounds that they > don't want kids to view white supremacist stuff, but what if a student is > trying to research a paper on World War II, or the civil rights movement in > the 60s? Then she can go home to her mom's unfiltered access or to the book stacks. Like she did before the computer came to the library. And her mother can write to the filtering company and complain - all of the sites I looked at tonight had a section to report sites that parents felt should NOT be blocked. I presume that if enough parents speak out, there will be some changes made. We had a problem very similar to this on a BBS I was on some years ago - the Sysop deleted all usenet groups with the word "sex" in them - and ended up with an uproar because the group alt.support.sex.abuse was missing - he had to come up with another solution because of consumer pressure (and it did not take much). Cybersitter claims it has the ability to look at how the phrase is used "in context" (http://www.solidoak.com/cysitter.htm). Cyberpatrol offers users the ability to choose what categories they wish to block. > more than they need to, simply because no software program, no matter how > sophisticated, can look at a web site with the level of discernment that a > human being can. Parents who are worried about their kids being exposed to All of these programs lists are decided mainly by committee, by reporting from customers, not by arbitrary lists - go to http://web.idirect.com/~risc/kids.html and visit each of the sites. You will find they each have a link to report or remove sites. Not ideal to my way of thinking (I'd want control of my OWN list), but not entirely arbitrary, either. > bad ideas would be a lot better off spending more time talking with their > kids about why they think those ideas are bad and less money on > technological quick-fixes. And they are NOT going to do that, and while you have a duty to speak out you have no right to enforce your ideals (your moral judgements, really) on other parents. How many single mothers have time to sit next to the computer for half the night? > To me, cutting kids off from information that could save their lives or > their sanity crosses the line. And it disturbs me how many of the There is no information of the life or sanity saving variety that cannot be found in dozens of offline places I can think of. If the information truly IS that critical, and a parent has crossed the line in denying that information, then to paraphrase, that family has problems that no *website* is going to solve. > blue-ribbon folks have happily supported filtering software as a means of > getting the moralists off their backs - and onto the backs of someone even > more vulnerable. It seems to me as if a lot of people don't care if kids > are denied access to information they might really need, just as long as > nobody interferes with *their* right to look at naughty pictures. Adults' > pleasure seems to take a higher priority than kids' safety. (I'm not > suggesting *you* think that way, Brandi; I know you don't. But it's an > attitude I've seen a lot of around...) Some might characterize your position that way. > I don't think I am an extremist, in fact. On a scale where 0 is Jerry > Falwell and 10 is Larry Flynt, I'm probably no higher than, say, a 7.5 or > thereabouts. There are some things *I* don't want to see, and if I had > kids, then yes, there would be some things I didn't want them to see > either. But I wouldn't count on a cheesy little piece of software made by a > company whose motivations and values I know next to nothing about to make > my parenting choices for me. I wouldn't either - but I am in no position to sit in judgement of a parent who wants that tool and feels some comfort in it. You have a point that it engenders a sense of false security - and it's good you speak out about that. Dammit, I don't know a net.savvy kid who could not easily figure out a way around ALL of these filters given time (I'll install my own browser in a hidden directory, DUH, Mom!). I just think your position is counter-productive to your stated goals. And the motivations and values of these companies are all too clear. They want to make a buck exploiting peoples fears. There is no mystery to that. > I would think that a 10-year-old who would *want* to look at pictures like > that - or a 13-year-old whowants to build a pipe bomb, to use one of > NetNanny's favourite examples - has problems that no software package is > going to solve. Again, filtering software is not a substitute for > repsonsible parenting. No-one has said that it is - and neither is it a scourge of censorship that will ruin the net. No-one is saying it is perfect and can't be improved. It is only a stumbling first step in addressing a social concern that we've struggled with for many years in other forms long, long before the Internet ever came to be. Brandi -- Brandi Jasmine -- Freelance Writer, Illustrator, Consultant Visit: http://web.idirect.com/~bjasmine/