owlmoose | at it again

For once, i am agreeing with the views of the american government. Tell me this; Setting aside the potential dangers of places like MySpace, what is wrong with children not being allowed access to these types of social networking sites in public libraries and schools? You go to school to learn and use the computers for RESEARCH purposes, NOT socialising with people over the internet, i can't begin to count the number of times people in my year, when i was at school, used the computers for talking to others when they should have been working. You go to public libraries to read and borrow books and use the computers available for research etc, not talking to other people. You can always tell when someone is talking to another on the internet because now and again they will start laughing because their friend said something funny. Very annoying.

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, especially regarding computers in school classrooms. But I strongly disagree that Congress has the right to force this on every public library and school. That's my main objection. Why not trust school administrators and librarians to set their own access and use policies? I don't see that this is so far removed from the government saying that a library can't have books on a particular subject.

But it's not about the proper use of public facilities. They may pay lip service to that, but it's not the reason for this law. This is a bald attempt to curry favor with parents who are petrified of MySpace because of its supposed "dangers". And that tickes me off, too, this irritatingly simplistic knee-jerk reaction to new technology.

Well, perhaps a half-way measure should be met- have such laws forced on schools for said reasons to the benefit of a child's education, but have it so that public libraries can continue to set their own rules, I think that sounds like the best compromise.

I don't see that this is so far removed from the government saying that a library can't have books on a particular subject.

I think it is; Libraries are meant to have books in them, not computers. If books are removed from a library it is no longer a library, if the computers are removed, it is still a library.

Are you saying that places like MySpace pose no danger to children at all? The topic of MySpace and what it is used for has been the subject of conversation on Bakermedia.com, one of my common haunts, particularly the subject of young females posing in very few, if any clothes at all and one such example was brought up, of an amply endowed 15 year old, let me say that again, 15 year old girl, posing in not much more than her underwear.
The worrying thing is that she is not alone in her use of MySpace, there must be hundreds of underage girls using the site to post this kind of thing, now what pervert/paedophile in his (or even her) right mind would pass up that kind of opportunity to get their hands on some fresh prey?
Now I know that most of these girls are old enough to know what they're doing, and the ruthless side of me says they should get what they deserve for being so stupid, but, most of them do this because they believe posing nude/semi-nude photos of themselves is acceptable, this legislation, grind your gears as it may, might also get some kids to realise that it's not acceptable.
I know it shouldn't be up to the government to get kids to stop doing these kinds of things, the parents and teachers should be, but it's not possible to keep your eyes on all the children at once, especially in the classroom, and we all know what children are like, they'll do the opposite of what parents and teachers tell them to do. If however they have the law and its consequences hanging above them, doing these types of things will be less appealing.

I know that, yes this is a clear attempt to curry the favours of parents in America, but when you say it like that, suddenly it seems like you're venting your frustration not for reasons of morality or because you feel that our freedoms are being infringed, but simply because the party you don't support is getting support.

Those of us who have lived through this madness over here are very wary when we hear the wail "It's for the cheeldreen!" emerge from the banshee throats of our elected officials. That almost always means "If I don't go along with this latest infringment on the rights of the more intelligent and less superstitious, I won't get to stay in office with all the lovely perks."

Perhaps many parents are so indifferent or inadequate that their children do stupid and dangerous things. However, society as a whole should not be restricted so as to make the world suitable for those under the age of comprehension to the detriment of those of us who are capable of choosing our own entertainments etc.

I do not know how it is in the UK, but those who govern us here in the States are not to be trusted. Their judgment is almost always swayed by fear and a loathing of returning to private life where they would have to work for their sustenance instead of being spoon-fed by a gaggle of lobbyists and venal clergypersons.

We don't seem to have that same problem over here, we have a different one, in this case we hear 'Its for the ethnic minorities' think of how child protection has gone crazy over there, and translate that into how political correctness has gone over here- Mad. Bonkers.

Perhaps many parents are so indifferent or inadequate that their children do stupid and dangerous things

Allow my ruthless side to take over here and say 'I agree'

However, society as a whole should not be restricted so as to make the world suitable for those under the age of comprehension to the detriment of those of us who are capable of choosing our own entertainments etc.

Well as I said, perhaps the compromise of leaving libraries (where the public should be allowed to use computers freely) alone but maintaining the school part of the policy, because a school is not a public place, that way everyone wins, the parents get protection, and the public keeps their freedom.

We have a slightly different problem over here. In our case, like yours, our governing party is not to be trusted, however whilst you feel that the opposition (I assume to be the Democrats) is worthy of your trust, our opposition is not. We live in a country with a national conundrum. Labour have no trust or credibility anymore, the Tories are weak and frankly there's something about David Cameron (spell?) that I find very unsettling, and the liberal democrats have neither the experience of leading the country, nor do I like what they have done to the roads in my area (our local council is Lib Dem)
I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on British politics but because of the three major labour blunders- Prescott's affair with his secretary, Charles Clarke's blundering over the release of violent immigrants from prison, and to cap off, he said he had no idea where they were, and finally Patricia Hewitt's bizarre claim that the NHS is having its best year ever, only to be booed hissed and mocked by the many nursing staff and doctors who attended that particular speech, she is now something of a joke around here. But the consequences of this has been that the recent local elections have been disastrous for labour, they've lost more than 300 council seats and the Tories gained a significant number, but, most worryingly are the number of seats won by the British National Party I don't know exact figures but they won some key constituencies for both labour and the Tories. This is what it has come to people are so fed up with the three main parties that they are turning to the extremists to turn up the pressure. I read and saw on the news a man standing for the BNP, talking to a black woman and she was actually going to vote for them! This is how bad it is here, Ikon. The very people who the BNP want thrown out of the country are voting for them! It is madness.

The Democrats aren't that much better, really. They have the potential to be, but they haven't acted on it in years, preferring to complain and cringe and do nothing. Highly frustrating.

Furi, there is a lot I'd like to respond to in your other comment but I don't have time to go in-depth right now and a quick answer wouldn't do either your points or my feelings about them justice, so for now I will leave it at "what Ikon said" and come back with a more thorough response later. I do want to mention, though, that computers and the Internet have become an integral part of libraries in the last decade or so and you could no more remove them than you could remove all the books. In fact, in some kinds of libraries it might almost be worse.

In re libraries - have you heard the comment of one columnist (whose name has escaped me) on
Beloved Leader dreaming that his Pres. Library will be a 'think tank' where the opinions of de Toqueville will be studied? "This will be the emptiest 200 million dollar library in the world." That summed it up nicely, I thought.

So when it comes to the election, what do you do? Do you not vote at all or vote for the Dems? It's very tempting over here not to vote at all.

First, regarding politics. The original law, the one that imposed content filters on schools and libraries in the first place, was signed by Bill Clinton and I was if anything angrier over that one. Same thing with the Communications Decency Act and its descendants. So it's not about which party is in power -- Democrats do this kind of thing too, and it makes me just as crazy.

Now, the MySpace issue. I've done some research on this, both because I am interested in the evolution of the 'Net and because I work with college students, and it seems to me that it boils down to teenagers behaving irresponsibly. Are there ways that MySpace (and LJ, and other online communities) could do more to discourage kids from putting up their personal information? Probably, but teens will always find ways to rebel and use poor judgement. The more controls you put in their way the more effort they will put into defeating them. I don't think cutting them off is the answer, because that just makes it ever-more tempting forbidden fruit. Far better to *educate* them -- explain to them *why* it's a bad idea to post half-naked photos and then give out your real name and real-world contact information.

We seem to both live in countries where the main parties do not really satisfy either of us and i am surprised that it was Clinton who started this up. I can understand your exasperation.

This is all very true and educating them better is another weapon that should be more effectively used to counter this behaviour. However it is not just natural rebeliousness that makes children do this. Because of their inexperience in life and the fact that they haven't 'seen it all' and 'been there, done that' they are natural skeptics to what adults say, some children just have to see it to believe it and some of them will not rest, despite the dangers, until they have seen 'it'. This is probably the most difficult aspect of child behaviour for adults to address.

You work with college students you say? What do you...? Oh wait, i'm guessing the answer is in your user pic :-D Is that Rachel Weis from 'The Mummy'?

Oh wait, i'm guessing the answer is in your user pic

Got it in one. ;) So you see why I might have strong feeling about this issue... although I work for a private college and so it would never apply to me; it's a philosophical thing. Yes, that is Rachel Weisz, and "I... am a librarian" is quoted from "The Mummy". Unfortunately the picture is from a different scene, I could never find a decent screenshot of that bit.

Regarding your other question, because of the two-party system, I do vote for Democrats simply because the alternative is worse. If we had a parlimentary system I would be more likely to vote for third-party candidates but as it is I don't feel like I can risk it.

Yes, i can understand why you do.

I loved that film, and the mummy returns. Rachel's brother John was so funny.

I would say having more than two parties is better as you can get more variety, but then i look at the multi party system we have over here and i think 'oh, shit...' *rolls eyes*
*sigh* these are trying times for sensible people Owlmoose, and there seems to be no quick solution. It is tempting to go somewhere far from 'civilisation' and shut off this crazy world.

I was not sure if you had seen this. The Wall Street Journal/Harris poll has Beloved Leader's poll numbers at 29% approval. I am finding it hard to breathe. Can he really be going down like this?

Anything is possible but I have had that thought before (she says cynically). We'll see.

But no, I had not heard that. And it's certainly not *bad* news!

at it again

no subject

no subject

no subject

I

Re: I

Re: I

I

Re: I

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I

Re: I