Internet Not Really Dangerous For Kids After All

Thomas M Hughes writes "We're all familiar with the claim that it's horribly dangerous to allow our children on to the Internet. It's long been believed that the moment a child logs on to the Internet, he will experience a flood of inappropriate sexual advances. Turns out this isn't an accurate representation of reality at all. A high-profile task force representing 49 state attorneys general was organized to find a solution to the problem of online sexual solicitation. But instead the panel has issued a report (due to be released tomorrow) claiming that 'Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons.' The report concluded that 'the problem of child-on-child bullying, both online and offline, poses a far more serious challenge than the sexual solicitation of minors by adults.' Turns out the danger to our children was all just media hype and parental anxiety." Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.

*plop* (mind blown)

But.. who are we going to have to think of now?

Re:*plop* (mind blown)

Quick, Smithers, massage my brain. I'm trying to think.

Re:*plop* (mind blown)

The elderly. Seriously, everything is either about the children or the elderly. Anyone between the ages of say 20 and 60 you're on your own.

Unfortunately...

they will never know, given that this study is online.

Reminds me of a Southpark episode...

This just in.. It is in fact a child's parents who are most likely to abduct them! Best throw the kids out on the street for their own safety.

No more reality cheques please

What's next? Next thing you know they'll find out it's actually pretty hard to come by child porn, that it's not that easy to build a bomb off Internet instructions or that a "skilled hacker" cannot just infiltrate anything and do anything by typing onto his keyboard for 20 seconds.

Please, don't take our societal innocence away by destroying our misconceptions and delusions about the Internet.

Re:No more reality cheques please

Internet? What's that?

Surely you mean the Global Child Rape Terror-Tubes, right?

Japanese Subways

I've seen 8 year olds riding Tokyo's subway system solo. The instant any of them show any signs of confusion or distress -- and that's very rare, since their parents teach them how to ride -- any number of genuinely helpful adults (plural) in the vicinity come to their rescue. This is all perfectly normal, and it's entirely within the physical world. Everyone is safe.

The Internet is not even physical. There's always a wire (or wireless connection) separating its participants. Simply combine the Internet with a parent or responsible adult and it's safer (psychologically) than even the Tokyo Metro. (And it's always physically safer.) If government simply concentrated on promoting and supporting good parenting, that'd solve myriad problems. [How about starting by allowing all qualified parent(s), including same-sex parents, to adopt?] The Internet is not a parent any more than a subway car or glass of milk is, so it's ridiculous that any government would try to make the Internet a parent.

Re:Japanese Subways

it's ridiculous that any government would try to make the Internet a parent.

Actually, I like the idea. The net is full of fun things your parents will never know about. It's also an excercise in critical thinking. Of course, it's easier to point at the bad things and ban everything.

Also, filtering information is one of the most useful skills a child can learn this millennium.

Re:Japanese Subways

Speaking as an ugly lug of a male American, I can say, and I'm probably speaking for a few others, that if there was a random kid in distress in a public, my top priority would be to put a safe distance between myself and the area the kid is in. Exceptions might be made for situations as extreme as obviously being abducted at gun or knife point. Other than that I dare not risk the cops-and-lawyer-on-conference-call-speed-dial response enough parents have.

The poetic injustice of the whole situation is that in their mindless quest to protect their kids from everything they've actually made it more dangerous for their kids. The only random people likely to willingly interact with their kid are "the bad people" because the non-bad people don't want to get slapped with being a pedophile/molester/deviant. Sort of like the moron out west who is suing someone who tried to rescue them from a possibly life threatening situation. I help you, you sue me, my life is ruined, you live happily ever after. I don't help you, you die, I live. Great precedent to establish.

Mod Up!

I know of many men who have complained about the same thing: they dare not intervene when a child is in trouble or threatened, for fear that they will be mistaken for the cause of the trouble.

It is very sad that our society has come to this, and there is no doubt whatever that it is the fault of the women. I don't mind saying that: I deal with stupid bitches every day.

Re:Mod Up!

I'm not prepared to let your half of the species take all the credit for that one - there's more than enough men fearmongering the same issue. The thing is really caused by the media and politicians beating it up far out of proportion - while it's absolutely horrible that it does happen, the instances of child molestation by a stranger are statistically extremely rare, and there are really much more likely things to be worrying about (like the general decline in altruism for fear of this sort of bullshit). Unfortunately, though, these types of stories make great news articles (because everyone's in agreement) and shortly thereafter great bandwagons for politicians to jump on (see the previous reason), so that's what people's attention is focused on. It was a wise (wo)man that said that one of humanity's greatest foes is an inability to really comprehend statistics.

Re:Japanese Subways

It's really too bad that you're that afraid. That society has somehow put so much fear in you that you're afraid of helping a child.

In all likelihood any child who has lost her or his parents is far more scared than you.

If you ever find yourself reconsider the "I don't help children because it puts me at risk" policy, here's some pointers that might make it a little less frightening for you:

1. Respect the child's personal space. You don't have to touch the child, just stand back a few feet and ask if everything is all right, or if they know where their parents are. Where did they last see their parents?

2. Get someone else involved. Ask another stranger if they've seen the child's parents. It doesn't matter whether you think the other stranger may have actually seen the parents. The point is that you're no longer a strange, single guy talking to a kid. Now you're a strange, single guy and someone else. If it makes you feel better, try asking a cute, elderly woman for help. Grandma probably won't hurt you. And she might have better ideas on comforting the child too.

3. If nobody else is immediately around, ask the child to stay where they are while you go look for help. Assure the child that you won't go out of their sight, and that you'll keep an eye on them to make sure they're okay too.

4. There's probably someone who works at the place you found the lost child who can help. Find someone official. A store employee, a security guard.

5. If the child starts to yell at you to stay away or pulls a gun or dirty needle or something, just keep going. Leave the child alone but you should still let someone else know that a child is in distress.

The point is to use some common sense. Don't threaten the child by invading their space. Don't try to be inconspicuous. Drawing attention to the situation is the exact opposite effect that anyone dangerous to children would want. Why would someone who wants to kidnap a child draw attention to them self that way?

I've helped a few lost kids find their parents. It usually doesn't take very long as parents are generally eager to find their children once lost. And every single time the parents expressed genuine gratitude.

Richard Blumenthal needs a new job

My kids have been on the internet since a age of 2 (each).

Yes, the browser was pointed to Disney or Sesame Street, but they learned to go where they wanted to go. My oldest had the lock Netscape, but around 5yr I came one day found she had found away to URL prompt. So from that day forward I have left the browsers unlocked. My youngest first words would to the effect of "mom-dot-see-oh-em'.

Yes, I check on kids usage via firewall logs from time to time, but find nothing wrong. I even enter their rooms to see what they are doing (but VNC is easier).

My wife while telling about the birds and bees, also give the kids on-line lessons as well. Showing what happens when you mis-type some kids site names and showing how to get out of the mistake.

It is up to us to raise our kids.

It is up the Richard Blumenthals of the world to find a new job and let us raise our kids!

Fear is a tool of control

Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.

Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.

The Internet is not a Baby Sitter

The Internet isn't a baby sitter any more than videos/DVDs. Responsible parents should monitor their children's media consumption and teach them about being critical, separating fantasy from reality etc.

My kids are too small to use a computer for now, but once they become big enough I'm not going to just let them browse at their leisure. I'm going to monitor them by first being there with them, and once it seems they are OK on their own I'm going to be in the same room. Only much later will I allow them to browse on their own, and even them I'm going to reserve the rights to monitor their logs.

Parents should get a grip and deal with the fact that getting kids involves parenting and responsibility. Not just media. I'm responsible for seeing to it that they exercise enough, eat healthily, brush their teeth, go to bed in time... That's the way it works.

Huh?!?!

machine full of adware that pops up each minute trying to sell him viagra or one night stand services

But... But... I thought that WAS Windows?! ;)

Re:Equally Misleading

Hmmm... I've yet to get the shit beat out of me on the internet, but have gotten my ass kicked at a playground a couple times.

Which is more dangerous?

Re:Equally Misleading

Hmmm... I've yet to get the shit beat out of me on the internet, but have gotten my ass kicked at a playground a couple times.
Which is more dangerous?

The playground bully who finds you on Facebook.

Re:Equally Misleading

Bruises heal without any effort, and as a kid it's usually within days. Emotional scars can last a lifetime.

What utter nonsense. And I suppose you don't think you get emotional scarring from having the crap kicked out of you by a playground bully?

Re:Equally Misleading

Obligatory bullying ref:

Big, Bad Bully [psychologytoday.com]

Excellent article on the phenomenon of bullying. Gave me a lot of insight into the dynamic.

Re:Equally Misleading

Good article... shows the mentality of the Psychologists/Social workers though, something like this:

Two social workers were walking through a rough part of the city in the evening. They heard moans and muted cries for help from a back lane.

Upon investigation, they found a semi-conscious man in a pool of blood. "Help me, I've been mugged and viciously beaten" he pleaded.

The two social workers turned and walked away. One remarked to her colleague: "You know the person that did this really needs help."

Re:The internet is safe for children?

But for every group of people who try to act good around young children on the internet, there will be 100 more groups willing to link them to 4chan.

I think most kids figure out in about 2 minutes on the internet not to click on random links. The ones that don't, deserve what they get.

Experience is the best teacher.

Those aren't even safe

for adults.

But seriously sights of nudity and sex will not destroy a child. Parental abuse on the other hand...

I saw porn at age 8 due to discovering a friend's older brother's cache, and I am not a rapist nor would I ever hurt anybody...in fact, the porn was not that interesting until I hit puberty.

All it did was make me realize how much of the world was being hidden from me by adults, and it got me to read some childbirth books in the library to confirm the rumours.

So my theory is beating your children will make them rapists, not porn, because violence is taught best by action and those with bitter hearts will have less mercy.

Re:The internet is safe for children?

I for one, welcome our underage Counter Strike playing overlords.