Australian Nanny Net

[justin syder]

This also touches on another issue I think is hurting our country, the fact that some people think that if you cover your ears, shut your eyes and shout, "LALALALALALA" nothing can hurt you.

No one is talking about censorship of putting kids in a protective egg shell but clearly porography seen by a 10 yr old is far more harmful than political speech or news about suicide bombers because those two arent as graphic as porn is and you know that.

I think it would be best to let parents opt-in. That way this control isn't forced on everyone, and those who want it can have it. Make sure that ISPs have a notice about it in thier agreement and allocate some government funds for commercials telling parents what thier choices are.

IMO if your 10 year old is on the internet all the time you are already doing a poor job. By the time they are teenagers they have already seen pornography almost guaranteed, and viewing news sites and political interest and things like that won't harm them.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT RAISE YOUR CHILDREN AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DAMNED LAZY TO BE BOTHERED TO DO IT YOURSELF.

But if these lazy parents that we speek of, who don't really surpervise their children or properly raise them what makes you think they would take the effort to opt-in?

 

[zenkidori]

You fail to realize that the law would block not only pornography.

That is up to them, and frankly if they are such poor parents to begin with, they would be taken away into the care of the state where I am sure they can be protected from the evil internet.

 

[justin syder]

So what happens to those children with messed up or lazy parents?

How is going to look out for them? Then when they get into gangs or drop out of get pregnant early we wonder how that could have happened.

 

[ryosuke]

ryosuke, Would you want your child viewing some of that?

not if it was say 10...but i wouldn't put a 1? year old in front of an internet pc alone anyway...but at 15 one should be stable ernough...

you have to be careful not to be too overprotective, because you can really screw up by doing that, too...

what were you like at 15? couldn't you already think for yourself?
and why does pronography hurt a 10 year old?

So what happens to those children with messed up or lazy parents?

How is going to look out for them? Then when they get into gangs or drop out of get pregnant early we wonder how that could have happened.

do you think censorship of the internet would change them?
they have been messed up in the past and they will be messed up in the future...

 

[zenkidori]

So what happens to those children with messed up or lazy parents?

How is going to look out for them? Then when they get into gangs or drop out of get pregnant early we wonder how that could have happened.

kids were messed up LONG before even ARPANET, the internet does not corrupt kids or make them turn out any worse than a plain old negligent parent, and there are already programs for that. It's not the job of the government to kiddy-proof the world at the expense of everyone.

 

[fbc]

Let the parents opt-in to a restricted internet if they feel they can't control what their kids do and see.

fbc, That I disagree with, it makes the parent be pro-active in raising their children and the parents that weren't doing their job will continue to do so. Do you think that all parents will opt-in? Especially the ones that are already doing a terrible job, do you think this is something that crosses their minds? No. They aren't parenting and having them opt-in is the equivilant of saying, do your job. Nothing gets done.

Justin that's the worst agrument I've ever seen (and frankly your logic frightens me) - heaven forbid me make parents take some responsbility for raising their children. Parents should be pro-active, it's their responsibility - I, nor anyone else, should have to be restricted because of the actions of others.

Hey, some people can't seem to follow their religious teachings properly and are using them in the wrong way and committing terrible acts - I know, we'll just ban religion for everybody, that'll fix it...

We should be teaching people responsibility, not doing the job for them.

 

[justin syder]

I didn't say that the internet messes them up but how can we give those kids from lazy parents a better chance at not seeing what they shouldn't.

And to be honest I think I matured at around 19-20yrs old. I am still growing and maturing but in my teenage years I was immature and didnt have the opinions I now had. I didnt really think as indepedantly and I was Democratic and a bit Liberal.

I even thought that legalizing drugs would help society.

ryosuke, if you don't think that porn would harm a 10 year old look it up. Look up studies of children that are sexually active and the reasons why. If you doubt that it is harmful to children then I dont know what to tell you.

 

[justin syder]

Let the parents opt-in to a restricted internet if they feel they can't control what their kids do and see.

fbc, That I disagree with, it makes the parent be pro-active in raising their children and the parents that weren't doing their job will continue to do so. Do you think that all parents will opt-in? Especially the ones that are already doing a terrible job, do you think this is something that crosses their minds? No. They aren't parenting and having them opt-in is the equivilant of saying, do your job. Nothing gets done.

Justin that's the worst agrument I've ever seen (and frankly your logic frightens me) - heaven forbid me make parents take some responsbility for raising their children. Parents should be pro-active, it's their responsibility - I, nor anyone else, should have to be restricted because of the actions of others.

Hey, some people can't seem to follow their religious teachings properly and are using them in the wrong way and committing terrible acts - I know, we'll just ban religion for everybody, that'll fix it...

We should be teaching people responsibility, not doing the job for them.

I agree that we need to let parents do their job but I dont think a total ban on the internet is what Im advocating. I didnt read the article but Im sure it doesnt call for that or anything similar. The problem here is some ppl don't like to opt-in to see porn and would rather leave the internet available to children that have bad parents.

The problem that I mentioned is that if you have parents that let their kids do what they want and dont dicipline them how are you going to get them to opt-in? They aren't responsible to begin with and you expect them to all of a sudden opt-in to protect their own kids? That isnt going to happen so I would assume that some here don't care that some kids go unsupervised or poorly raised. They will grow up in our society and BE OUR PROBLEM sooner or later.

We should be teaching people responsibility, not doing the job for them.

And how do you do that. We send our kids to public schools and force them to go to get up to and atleast a high school education but if they cheat on tests or refuse to lear or get lousy grades and learn little there is not much we can do.

 

[fbc]

^ Sorry Justin, I'm never going to buy your argument - parents should be doing their job, simple as that. If society or the government takes steps like these then we're just legitimising their behaviour.

The problem with society right now is people not taking responsiblity for their actions - now I'm not saying I have all the answers as to how to remedy this, but I do know that having the government and society take over is not the answer.

 

[justin syder]

Sorry Justin, I'm never going to buy your argument - parents should be doing their job, simple as that. If society or the government takes steps like these then we're just legitimising their behaviour.

The problem with society right now is people not taking responsiblity for their actions - now I'm not saying I have all the answers as to how to remedy this, but I do know that having the government and society take over is not the answer.

I agree with you but the point Im making is what happens to the children with lazy parents. How do we look out for them? I agree totally with the parents doing what they need to do but what happens to the children, that is where this nanny net comes into play. How else will we help those that aren't in a good position?

 

[fbc]

^ You're right - we do have to do something for those children - however this proposal is not the way to do it.

 

[swek]

Why so complicated ? Just try to reach a agreement with the Australian ISP's to create child-friendly Internet connections and be done with it. Heck, you could even make it so that you get differtent user accounts One for daddy so that he can watch porn on the Internet and one for his son.

This fits rather nicely in our overprotective society though. Why burden the parents if you can force everybody to be part of the solution.

Oh and Justin. You do realize that you can justify _everything_ with your "But what about the bad parents ?" question.

I rather have a gouvernment that acts when the harm is done than one that tries to protect their children from everything and makes life more difficult for one in the process.

 

[fbc]

^

 

[justin syder]

The real problem here is that people have a problem with having to opt-in to get their goody porn.

That is the whole reason for rejecting this, not protecting children but protecting ones ability to get porn without a damn hurdle. Who cares about the children, some ppl need their porn.

I rather have a gouvernment that acts when the harm is done than one that tries to protect their children from everything and makes life more difficult for one in the process.

So you would rather see the negative effects of this than be troubled to opt-in for porn? That is like waiting to see if terrorists have and can execute a nuclear attack or dirty bomb before stopping them. :?

It could be applied on the basis that those customers who wish to access pornographic or other adult material could apply to do so.

This reform would be supported by parents and would have the effect of filtering out pornography at home and on public sites, with the onus being on adult users to apply for unrestricted access if they wish.

If someone could get an idea on the whole opt-in process that would greatly shed light.

Maybe if the opt-in process was a discreet and private as a strip club or buying porn of the net some of you guys wouldnt mind, right?

 

[fbc]

The real problem here is that people have a problem with having to opt-in to get their goody porn.

That is the whole reason for rejecting this, not protecting children but protecting ones ability to get porn without a damn hurdle. Who cares about the children, some ppl need their porn.

Dammit Justin that's not the point - the point is the government and society needs to find ways of getting people to take responsibility for their own actions, and imposing restrictions on the rest of society is not the way to go about it.

If you're going to bring up the terrorism angle - well hell these goons do these things in the name of their religion, so why not ban access to all religions and have an opt-in system that you have to apply to before you can worship?

 

[zenkidori]

The real problem here is that people have a problem with having to opt-in to get their goody porn.

Did you not even read the article or are you just using pornography because it's emotive? The filters would block porn, violent and "objectional" materiel. Why am I expected to sit at startbucks and browse a filtered network in which I can't see many news sites(violent), satirical comics(objectionable), political blogs(controversial, objectionable, possibly violent), entertaining sites, (all of thee above[yes this even applies to NON-porn sites]) just because some lazy ass dip shit parents can't police thier kid. some parents have no problem with thier kids reading many of the things that would be filtered(i am NOT talking about porn here). The government is supposed to provide safety, not raise children. It gives food stamps and welfare money if you can't afford food, takes them away if they are unfit parents, provides health care etc. It is NOT supposed to decide what your kid can and can't see, that is for the parents and the parents only. If parents are too lazy to check a box on thier ISP form, or call a number and ask they be filtered then that is entirely thier freedom. The government does not exist to provide a safety net for the lazy.

one step closer to the thought police.

 

[swek]

That is the whole reason for rejecting this, not protecting children but protecting ones ability to get porn without a damn hurdle. Who cares about the children, some ppl need their porn.

No, No and No. You just don't get it. I'll explain it to you though. No worries.

Okay, here's the scenario. Little Peter (10) has bad parents. They might not physicly harm him but they are never around so he's left to himself mostly. And when they're around they pay little attention to what he's doing. Thanks to the virtues of the nanny net he can watch no more porn on the Internet. Great isn't it ? But wait, what do we see there. Little Peter sits infront of the TV late at night and watches adult rated action movies. Arnold has a good time decapitating someone and after the credits roll he gives the Zombies in Doom 3 a hard time with the chainsaw.

As we can see thanks to the nanny net little Peter became a well adjusted adult. Or did he ? You see where this is going. The state can never prevent all those things. No matter what they try bad parenting will always be there so they might just leave it at that.

 

[///M]

The hell is wrong with porn anyway?

 

[justin syder]

I see now. I see what you guys are saying because it blocks it from everywhere even in public places.

I thought there was an outrage about having to opt-in for porn. :lol:

Look don't get me wrong, I am 100% for parents doing what they have to do, I dont want the gov't doing things that they need to do BUT we have to think about the kids that have parents that wont do anything regardless. That was my point, unless you educate them or get them to be parents which is a hard thing to do, they will continue to be lousy parents.

And no ///M, i have no objections to porn. I do suspect though that some guys should be getting layed and not wasting time d/l movies or pics instead.

 

[Firecat]

I thought there was an outrage about having to opt-in for porn. :lol:

Hey, when I type "blonde teen facial and swallow" into a search engine, that's me opting-in for porn :lol: