Most Parents Allow Unsupervised Internet Access To Children At Age 8 198
colinneagle writes "The timing for this study is interesting, given the arrests of two teenagers believed to have bullied a 12-year-old classmate until she committed suicide, but Microsoft found that 94% of parents said they allow their kids unsupervised access to at least one device or online service like email or social networks. The average age at which most children are allowed access to at least one online service, such as email or social media, was 8 years old, while 40% allow children under the age of 7 to access a computer unsupervised."
Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... (Score:4, Informative)
My 11 yr old completed Portal last night and moved onto Portal 2. The only 'supervision' was that I required her to finish Portal 1 first.
Learning to type and write is boring. Chatting to friends, blogging, showing off online are all fun. The same basic skills are learnt, only the latter is much, much more efficient.
Let them explore. Talk to them. Keep an eye out for trouble. This is no different to raising a child in earlier times.
Re:And in "real-life"... (Score:4, Informative)
I give you the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [penny-arcade.com]
People (kids too) are more likely to be fucking barbarians when they're behind a computer and have a little pseudonymity, when someone can't reach over and punch them in the nose for going too far.
And as the AC noted, pedos.
Re:Yup, I'm one of those parents... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I'm a security designer. So I look at the browsing history and if I can find stuff she's been looking at that she might be embarrassed about, then I have the 'talk' with her to explain how to cover her tracks when using a computer and how to understand the many ways a computer can be used by someone to spy on you.
These are important modern lessons to learn.
Re:Bad Idea, (Score:0, Informative)
On average, 113 youth less than 20 years of age die annually from farm-related injuries (1995 -2002), with most of these deaths occurring to youth 16-19 years of age (34%).
Of the leading sources of fatal injuries to youth, 23% percent involved machinery (including tractors), 19% involved motor vehicles (including ATVs), and 16% were due to drowning.
Injuries
Every day, about 243 agricultural workers suffer a lost-work-time injury. Five percent of these injuries result in permanent impairment.
In 2009, an estimated 16,100 youth were injured on farms; 3,400 of these injuries were due to farm work.
Just because you did it, or you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it. In other words, your example might be a great example of what NOT to do.
Re:If that's true, Most parents are NUTS! (Score:5, Informative)
Before you judge my response below, be aware that I'm actually the kind of parent who strongly believes in teaching kids to do things by themselves, eventually leading to unsupervised activities after guided exploration. By the time a kid is 4 or 5, he/she can be prepared to do all sorts of "dangerous" "adult" tasks, with proper education and training. In years past -- and still in many other countries -- 5-year-old kids can probably cook on a hot stove or in an oven (if not manage an open fire), use sharp knives for cooking and other repetitive tasks, etc.
But kids who learn to do these things are able to because they've been taught how to know what is safe and unsafe.
It is the Internet, not real life, they cannot actually get hurt, decapitated, or disabled while using it.
The internet may be a "virtual place," but that doesn't mean that interactions on the internet can't lead to real-life interactions (and even potentially dangerous ones).
The internet may be a "virtual place," but that doesn't mean that encounters there couldn't cause real-life emotional or psychological damage to young people who don't have the frame of reference that adults have.
That is why the Internet is such a great place for children to explore unfettered. Little Jonny can wonder off alone and learn about the word and himself, and you do not actually have to worry about them being eaten by a wolf or breaking their leg like our parents/grandparents used to, when learning about the worded entailed large amounts of real danger and life threatening situations.
The "wolves" and "broken legs" can still appear in different forms, from creepy guys who "groom" kids and young teens in inappropriate interactions (perhaps coaxing them into real-world "encounters") to cyberbullying scenarios that can drive a kid to depression or even suicide. In case you haven't noticed, people tend to be meaner on the internet -- not having to say or do nasty things to someone's face often makes it easier. How many people who lay on the horn in their car? How many of those same people would start randomly screaming at somebody who was walking too slowly in front of them?
The "virtual" space of the internet allows more abstract interactions -- often more extreme and unusual than in real life -- some of which children and young people may need guidance to navigate.
As far as I am concerned, knowingly filtering a child's knowledge, and retarding their ability to learn, is nothing sort of child abuse.
Filtering knowledge and retarding abilities to learn are different from providing guidance or creating reasonable restrictions when a child cannot be continuously monitored. I agree with you that the GP's approach can sound rather extreme. I personally think an ideal solution involves parents providing direct guidance and supervised exploration, rather than background monitoring and surveillance.
On the other hand, I don't see a huge amount of difference in the GP's behavior from a parent who puts up a fence around the yard so the 2-year-old doesn't go wandering into the street. Having a fence to keep the kid from wandering away in the few seconds a parent may be distracted by something else is a reasonable restriction. And it doesn't mean that the parent can't also have the gate open at times, teach the child to look both ways, teach the child never to run after balls into the street until he/she is older, etc.
The place I disagree with the GP is the sense of constant surveillance. Kids need to have "safe places" to explore on their own. There are places on the internet that is possible, just like there are places in the backyard that are safe for a 2-year-old. A better solution would allow a kid to wander about in those safe places without being worried about parental surveillance.
However, the entire internet is NOT always a safe place. It's incredibly naive to act like it is.
Re:Bad Idea, (Score:3, Informative)
That is *your* real life. Others of us didn't become drug dealers.
Re:Bad Idea, (Score:3, Informative)
All those number are missing some really important context.
How many kids in total are working/living on farms.
If the number is, say, 20,000, then your numbers should cause outrage.
If the number is, say, 20,000,000, then probably not.
As well, useful context would compare deaths/100,000 for kids on farms vs kids not on farms. Same with injuries.
I wouldn't be surprised if the death rate were lower on farms, but the injury rate might be higher.