• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

Skeptical Greg said:
Sarcasm or not, I realize limiting a child's internet access is a daunting task, but it's a start, and better than doing nothing and expecting the government to do it for you.
Click to expand...
Not sarcasm. But now I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. Did you just mean that parents should take responsibility for their children, but you wanted to take the long way around?
 
I'm saying they should take control of their children's access to the internet. I don't understand why that is confusing.

I understand that it would be mostly limited to when the parent has direct access to the child and their devices, but determining they are going out of bounds in your absence would be a reason to provide consequences at home. We used to call it punishment.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
I'm saying they should take control of their children's access to the internet. I don't understand why that is confusing.
Click to expand...
Because you were trying to sneak up on it via vague rhetorical questions, wasting time instead of just being clear from the start.

Skeptical Greg said:
I understand that it would be mostly limited to when the parent has direct access to the child and their devices, but determining they are going out of bounds in your absence would be a reason to provide consequences at home. We used to call it punishment.
Click to expand...
This is a remarkably anarcho-libertarian stance.

Nobody wants to be in the position of having to punish their child, for putting themselves in harm's way. If there are laws or regulations that would mitigate this risk, and make the community safer for unattended or disobedient children, we should consider enacting those laws or regulations. Not dismiss them because proximal parenting should be adequate, and the harm to a child is the parent's fault if it isn't.
 
i agree and it’s also notable that this isn’t really parents protecting their children from being exposed to bad individuals, but rather shielding them from the harmful effects of billion dollar companies specifically targeting them with well researched marketing tactics. and that goes beyond porn, gambling, addictive games, advertising, etc.

i think that’s a lot to ask out of parents and then to say well the government has no duty or responsibility in that area at all with what parents are up against.
 
theprestige said:
Because you were trying to sneak up on it via vague rhetorical questions, wasting time instead of just being clear from the start.
Click to expand...
I don't think I have been vague at any point in this discussion, but maybe that comes from my own understanding what I have in mind, but failing to communicate it in a way that is understandable to others.

How can you be more clear than to say " limit your children's access to the internet" ?
 
Darat said:
Then could you restate it as I do not know what point you were making.
Click to expand...
I said nothing that wasn't in my words. Specifically, none of my words were "grooming" or "groomed" or any conjugation of that verb whatsoever, and none of them referred to children being online. I suggest you read them again.
 
Poem said:
If you have no idea then averring that UK isn't tolerating children seeing porn isn't saying much. It seems that VPNs are easily available.

OFCOM spokesperson reported by The Independent:
People should be aware that children and adults who use a VPN to bypass age checks will not benefit from the wider protections offered by our online safety rules.
Click to expand...
The UK can only exercise control on what happens in the UK. One of your earlier criticism was that kids could come across porn when on the internet, the OSA prevents that.
 
Darat said:
The UK can only exercise control on what happens in the UK. One of your earlier criticism was that kids could come across porn when on the internet, the OSA prevents that.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the OSA is not preventing kids from using a VPN to access porn.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I'm saying they should take control of their children's access to the internet. I don't understand why that is confusing.

I understand that it would be mostly limited to when the parent has direct access to the child and their devices, but determining they are going out of bounds in your absence would be a reason to provide consequences at home. We used to call it punishmen
Click to expand...

dirtywick said:
i agree and it’s also notable that this isn’t really parents protecting their children from being exposed to bad individuals, but rather shielding them from the harmful effects of billion dollar companies specifically targeting them with well researched marketing tactics. and that goes beyond porn, gambling, addictive games, advertising, etc.

i think that’s a lot to ask out of parents and then to say well the government has no duty or responsibility in that area at all with what parents are up against.
Click to expand...
Look at what I posted from the Reuters' report, Facebook was unequivocally saying in writing it was okay that it was sexually grooming kids aged 13 and over. If an individual adult was to do what Facebook said it was okay for it to do they could be facing lengthy prison sentences. That should have been front-page news, as it is I bet most people will remain totally ignorant of that fact. I only came across it because I've become very interested in AI.

I do not think I could argue that a parent was not being diligent in looking after their kid if they had set up their over 13 year old an account on Facebook. They could have tried to make it very secure and private given the tools Facebook reluctantly has put in place to deal with such matters, they could have had good conversations with their kid about not accepting invites etc. from strangers, the kid could have understood this and the kid could have been diligent about this, and then Facebook wants to chat with the kid, the kid could even have gone to their parent with that invite and asked "Is this OK?", the parent could have looked into it and because it was Facebook they wouldn't have thought it would be anything illegal, and then 2 months down the line Facebook is sexually grooming the kid. I am absolutely certain that even if a parent had looked through all the T&C's, read all the privacy "policies" they would never have been informed by Facebook that its internal handbooks said talking to a 13 year about wanting to go to bed with them is OK.

Parents, even the most diligent can fall foul of bad actors, that isn't the parents' fault, that is the fault of the bad actors.
 
arthwollipot said:
I said nothing that wasn't in my words. Specifically, none of my words were "grooming" or "groomed" or any conjugation of that verb whatsoever, and none of them referred to children being online. I suggest you read them again.
Click to expand...
Like I said given the flow of the discussion to that point that is how I interpreted your post.
 
arthwollipot said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The claim before - that kids could just come across porn in their everyday internet use - was extremely dubious anyway, the OSA has now pretty much stopped even the possibility of that. It's akin to gun control in the UK, it is very difficult to get hold of guns to use in a crime, but when you are looking at a population of over 60 it does happen but that doesn't mean gun control doesn't work.

As ever in these types of issues perfect is the enemy of the good. Nothing in practice will be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put in place good controls.
 
Darat said:
Yes it does. The claim before - that kids could just come across porn in their everyday internet use - was extremely dubious anyway, the OSA has now pretty much stopped even the possibility of that.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't. "Accidentally running across porn" isn't even something that routinely happens. Have you ever accidentally encountered porn in your routine internet activity? I haven't - not since the 90s which is where old white parliamentarians still think the internet is. Nobody "surfs the web" any more. Kids look for porn because they're kids and they're curious, and they're even more curious about the things that are forbidden, and you know that. This is why the parents/guardians have to have a serious conversation with them about sex and sexuality as soon as it is practical to do so.

Darat said:
It's akin to gun control in the UK, it is very difficult to get hold of guns to use in a crime, but when you are looking at a population of over 60 it does happen but that doesn't mean gun control doesn't work.
Click to expand...
That's not a good analogy. There isn't a VPN for gun control.

Darat said:
As ever in these types of issues perfect is the enemy of the good. Nothing in practice will be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put in place good controls.
Click to expand...
All this is doing is putting extra steps in the way. This will be enough to deter some, sure, but children can be extremely resourceful and if they really want to get at the porn, they will. A better analogy is that you lock the front door of your house, but if a burglar really wants to get into your house in particular, they will break a window. The lock on your front door only deters casual, opportunistic burglars.

If the existence of porn, what it is and what it is not, and the existence of predators and how to recognise them - if these things are in the open, known, and understood, then kids won't have to go behind their parents' backs. Ignorance and secrecy are dangerous. Knowledge is power.

Meanwhile, the OSA is also providing an unnecessary and unwanted barrier to adults, for whom porn is completely legal.
 
Darat said:
I can't, that's why I asked you to try to communicate your point again. If you don't wish a discussion that is up to you.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you put words in my mouth that I never said. Read my words. Don't read your assumptions.

Specifically, I said this:
arthwollipot said:
This is an issue that should be between the kids and their parents/guardians, not an issue for the government. Talking to children about sex and sexual content on the internet should be done as soon as they are able to understand it, which will vary depending on the child.
Click to expand...
I did not say anything - not a single thing - about grooming, and more importantly, I was not specifically replying to your post which immediately preceded it. If I had been replying to anything specific that you said, I would have quoted you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom