16 Minimum Age Limit for Acessing the Internet?
SeanHunter
Posts: 1,374 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The ITN news is currently screaming about children being abused because of the Internet.
It turns out, it's the kids themselves (under 16s) who are posting nude or provocative pics of themselves online. Of course, the main concern is that this will "attract paedophiles" (duh!), but it begs the question - why do kids think it's OK to do this?
Children's charities love to blame anyone and everyone for everything that goes wrong in our society involving children, but at the heart of this story is the fact that (before the paedos even know about it) kids are taking and uploading dirty pictures of themselves.
The news story seems to suggest that this would be OK if it were one 13 year old sending a nude pic to another 13 year old.
Has the world gone mad? When I was 13 the greatest potential embarrassment was having a jazz mag hidden away in the bedroom and praying that mum wouldn't find it (mums find everything). Now it seems it would be acceptable to take a pic of my privates, upload them to the PC and then send them to various people I amy or may not know through Facebook.
Either this is wrong or it isn't. If it isn't wrong, if it's just something we need to expect kids to do these days, then there's no point getting all riled up about paedophiles. If it is wrong, then what on earth can we really do about it? The Polaroid camera was probably the first bit of technology that brought us here, and now with digital cameras it was only a matter of time before some boy shoved one down his pants to broadcast his tackle to the waiting Internet.
Must be a real dilemma if you've got kids - do you let them use the Internet, knowing what the Internet contains, and then blame the Internet when they look at something unsuitable? Similarly, do you let them send explicit pictures to other kids, thinking that that's OK, but then explode when one of the pics ends up on the screen of an adult?
I have no idea. When I was a young teen, the only glimpse you got into the real dirtiness of the big wide world was the occasional late night film on Channel 4. I can't imagine growing up with unrestricted access to all the filth of the Internet.
But then or now, I'm pretty sure that if my mum, dad, or sisters had ever found a "private" pic of me on my digital camera, phone or PC, I would have hoped the ground would have opened and swallowed me up. In fact, I'd have dug a hole, got in it, and pulled the dirt down on top of me.
It turns out, it's the kids themselves (under 16s) who are posting nude or provocative pics of themselves online. Of course, the main concern is that this will "attract paedophiles" (duh!), but it begs the question - why do kids think it's OK to do this?
Children's charities love to blame anyone and everyone for everything that goes wrong in our society involving children, but at the heart of this story is the fact that (before the paedos even know about it) kids are taking and uploading dirty pictures of themselves.
The news story seems to suggest that this would be OK if it were one 13 year old sending a nude pic to another 13 year old.
Has the world gone mad? When I was 13 the greatest potential embarrassment was having a jazz mag hidden away in the bedroom and praying that mum wouldn't find it (mums find everything). Now it seems it would be acceptable to take a pic of my privates, upload them to the PC and then send them to various people I amy or may not know through Facebook.
Either this is wrong or it isn't. If it isn't wrong, if it's just something we need to expect kids to do these days, then there's no point getting all riled up about paedophiles. If it is wrong, then what on earth can we really do about it? The Polaroid camera was probably the first bit of technology that brought us here, and now with digital cameras it was only a matter of time before some boy shoved one down his pants to broadcast his tackle to the waiting Internet.
Must be a real dilemma if you've got kids - do you let them use the Internet, knowing what the Internet contains, and then blame the Internet when they look at something unsuitable? Similarly, do you let them send explicit pictures to other kids, thinking that that's OK, but then explode when one of the pics ends up on the screen of an adult?
I have no idea. When I was a young teen, the only glimpse you got into the real dirtiness of the big wide world was the occasional late night film on Channel 4. I can't imagine growing up with unrestricted access to all the filth of the Internet.
But then or now, I'm pretty sure that if my mum, dad, or sisters had ever found a "private" pic of me on my digital camera, phone or PC, I would have hoped the ground would have opened and swallowed me up. In fact, I'd have dug a hole, got in it, and pulled the dirt down on top of me.
0
Comments
Totally agree, many of them know what their doing anyway!
Its also the parents responsibility to check what their kids are doing.
They have been told about the dangers, if they refuse to listen then that's their look out. in my book anyone who goes looking for trouble will find it.
There is no point in concerning yourself with this bullshit.
don't blaim the tools, blaim the tool user.
That'll be all the schools grinding to a halt then.
What you describe OP is sort of like the I will give you a quick peep or I'll show you mine if you show me yours scenario but put on far bigger stage!!!! and a more open one.
Stopping children going on the net won't stop it I'm afraid. They will just lie about their age
Also as The Donk says........Schools will grind to a halt.......the internet is a fantastic tool for us.:o
No doubt the report will be about the minority but the minority will give cause to very great concern and that is totally justified. I'm always of the opinion that you cannot control individuals no matter what age.
Where is the dilemma?
My brother has an 13 year old son. They have parental control on it. They don't let him use the PC in his room only in the lounge. He can only use it at set times of the day. They do random checks of the history after he uses it. If the history is deleted then he doesn't use the internet for at least2 weeks.
There are no messengers installed on the machine and no cam either He isn't allowed to use social network sites. If he tries they will be blocked. He isn't allowed web based email accounts such as Yahoo or Hotmail. Again if he tries to set them up then they will get blocked. Chat rooms are banned.
His emails Outlook Express account isn't password protected. They won't read his emails unless he gives them a reason too.
My brother and his wife doesn't have any dilemma at all with the internet because they are the adult and he is the kid and that means things are done their way.
So if he wanted to talk to his friends on-line, he wouldn't be able to?
I think parental controls are great, and parents monitoring what their kids are doing is great. However, kids talking to their school friends shouldn't be a problem, should it?
Just have a policy of only approving people you know to your contact lists on messengers or whatever?
Nope. That are what telephones are for.
My brother and his OH say and I agree with them, that younger people are losing the ability to have proper conversations and interact with each other. Put two people together and their social skills are deteriorating. A lot of that is down to communicating via the messengers and texts. I've heard people actually say O-M-G! rather than Oh My God! Are we really getting to the point where people just spell at each other instead of say words now?
I've been on the bus and heard kids say as they are getting off it "I'll facebook you." If they are your friend I would assume you have their phone number. Why not call and talk to them? Basically you are saying I like you a lot but I can't be arsed to spend time talking to you.
My brother says to him. if you want to chat with them then chat. If you have something to say to them then say it. I'm pretty much the same way. I have an three text rule. You get three replies then I stop. If it needs four replies then it's an conversation so just call me and talk to me. I'm not going to mess around typing out a conversation.
Totally agree. I was the same age when I started using the net but I was computer savvy and knew better than to post pics of myself on the net or use chatrooms or anything. I mostly looked up stuff related to computing, TV and music and the odd news site. That was before I discovered Youtube and DS though.
This type of complaint is as old as the hills and personally I don't agree. I've seen no evidence that the ability of people to hold face to face conversations has diminished, and if anything social networking has actually increased the amount of social interactions that people make. What you are describing is simply the evolution of language and remote communication driven by changes in technology. Why use the phone instead of Facebook? Because it's traditional? If you use facebook chat or MSN you still have to spend time communicating, only you can do it at the same time as doing other things online and communicate with several people at once. I expect that people complained about the dawn of telecommunications destroying the art of letter writing. Why make an unthoughtful phone call rather than a finely crafted letter? Because people can't be arsed to spend time writing one?
As for abbreviating phrases, so what? The whole point of language is to facilitate communication and it can be argued that it is benificial for language to be more succinct rather than verbose as it enables a greater speed of communication. It make no difference if someone says "Oh my God", "OMG", or simply makes a series of high pitched beeps, as long as the meaning is understood. I can never understand why some people seem to view language as a static artefact that must be preserved in a fixed state, rather than a living thing that changes to fit the times. Is it that the younger generation's social skills are deteriorating, or is it simply that the world is changing yet some people (typically older ones) refuse to adapt past their own youth and therefore find it harder to understand the young?
You'd save more lives by, say, banning all under 16s from crossing the road without supervision. Not saying they should do that. It's equally nannying and unworkable.
Never going to happen as you can get contract phones with free internet from the age of 18 & I can't see the mobile networks increasing the age of contracts.
Besides if we keep them wrapped up in cottonwool with all this nannying then they are only going to find other ways of accessing it.
Think about it we have under age
Smoking
Drinking
Intercourse
Put a age restriction on a little thing like the internet, isn't going to stop them.
Great post.
That's what's wrong with the internet. Lack of parental controls.
Your brother and his wife have the right idea for which I applaud them.
3 PCs
3 Laptops
10 Mobile Phones
2 Ipod Touches
2 other internet enabled MP3 players
1 DSi
1 PS3
2 360s
1 Wii
2 PSPs
I own 9 of these, but I only use the internet on 3 of them, so I'm not even going out of my way to find internet ready devices, it's just that companies nowadays slap internet connectivity into everything they can possibly put it into. I mean if someone had told me 10 years ago I would be browsing the internet on my latest Nintendo handheld or a mobile phone I would not have believed them.
My point is even the whole 'check the family PC' advice is out of date now. And the reason is that nothing happens in a vacuum. We're constantly striving to make the internet more accessible, and we are, but we make it more accessible to 'everyone'.
I'm not actually proposing any solution to this I guess, I'll leave that for greater minds... I guess I'm just trying to knock down the idea that it can be solved easily with our 5 years out-of-date 'keep the family PC in the living room' advice. Nowdays when I leave the house I put 2 internet connected PCs and a camera in my pocket (my phone and Ipod touch) without even an afterthought. I can't really begrudge befuddled tech-shy parents from being able to keep up with this stuff; even as a reasonably in-the-know 28 year old I'm starting to loose track of the plethora of ways you can hook up nowadays. And it's only going to become increasing accessible, which is not in itself a bad thing, but again it makes it harder to control accessiblitly.
All the net has done, is to give a far broader canvas in which these kids can flaunt themselves.
Thats for posh kids!....
We had to use the bike sheds at school, or lump it.:D
You could use the same argument and switch it. Why use Facebook instead of the phone? Because it's the latest fashionable way to communicate? Before Facebook everyone was talking via MySpace. Before that it was using Messengers like MSN, Yahoo and ICQ. As you say it's evolution but it doesn't mean it's any better it's just one way of doing it.
My brother has no problems with him sending emails. He can send as many as he wants. One of the differences with emails is you don't tend to write so much crap giving pointless updates about what you are doing at that moment.
One of the reasons that he doesn't want him using netwrking sites is because the amount of time that will be spent on the computer because of them. His son does things and he doesn't want him to start to spend less and less time doing things because he's on the computer on online networking sites. Make an real social network that means meeting up with people and actually do something together. Go for a coffee or a pint when he's older. Go to the cinema together then chat. Go swimming then chat. Actually have proper contact with people. I look I have 576 friends and I actually know 5 of them.
Yes social network sites are ways of communicating but they aren't an substitute for proper socialising. They are glorified penpals. If you have kids and you didnt have an computer and they spent hours and hours writing to pen pals by pen and paper I bet you would be telling them to go out and play. Go out and do something.
It's important because when you start to use abbreviations and modern slang you slowly begin you use it as the norm.
Because all my Nephews were pulled up about it none of them have grown up inserting the words such as "right" "you know" "like" "yeah" and "you know what I mean" randomly into sentences. Strangely they are all getting on and have better jobs than their friends that do slip these words and phrases into their sentences.
It isn't a case of older people finding it harder to adapt to the younger people. It's more that they know how to communicate and interact better. For a start they listen to what is being said much more and often they don't interrupt and talk over each other. They also are able to have an conversation and not suddenly give up with an "whatever!" when an person has an different opinion of point of view.
Quite often an older person's way of saying "Whatever" is in action not words. We won't bother trying to talk with you, we won't bother giving you jobs or giving you promotions. I don't care how clever you are and how many qualifications you may have. If communicating with you is going to be hard work and/or a bit of a chore I won't bother.
It wouldn't have made any difference because there wasn't home computers or computers in school when I was a kid so I wouldn't have access to it. I would still have grown up an idiot regardless.
Well we managed alright without the internet at school :rolleyes: I'm only in my twenties btw.