Yahoo Closes Chat Rooms to Anyone Under 18 680
Talaria writes "Yahoo has announced that they are closing all of their chat rooms to anyone under eighteen, following an agreement with New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer, who began investigating the Yahoo! chat situation earlier this year, said "We need to be vigilant to protect our children.""
Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also if you make using a condom a sinful act, teens will stop having sex.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Brilliant.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a political solution to a problem that would be better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...
But then again that problem exists in society as a whole (see also: Video Games, Television etc.) so maybe the solution is not so easy.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
I have been saying this same thing for a long time. I only hope that some day I see a Slashdot article that reads "Parent Jailed for not knowing what their child is doing"
The solution is "easy", even if it is a bit authoritarian. Mandatory sterilization.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Another good one is to keep note of chat logs and start introducing quotes from them into normal conversation. They won't say anything just in case you don't know, but the look on their face is priceless.
Needless to say, my kids have the shit scared out of them every time they're looking at something they shouldn't be. Ah, the joys of being a parent that can code in the internet age
Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll be quite liberal with the cabinet positions for early supporters, if you know what I mean...
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. It's the idiot masses that keep the wheels of society turning. They're the ones doing all the work that puts food on your table. The soeciety would collapse without them. On the other hand, people who think thems
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I know! Let's play Eugenics! It's a wonderful game - you invent a reality in which people like you are the best, and condemn every other group to dwindle to nothing based on your invented criteria of fitness.
Freaking Nazi. Musings like yours fleshed out into action plans have caused some of the worst atrocities in history. It disturbs me to see so much of this on Slashdot. Is it just teen angst, or something more sinister?
(By the way, I didn't lose because I brought up Hitler. Godwin won [wikipedia.org] because you forced his hand.)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you go off about the nazis - what about the bloody US? How are they so different?
From http://www.hnn.us/articles/1551.html [www.hnn.us]
Following are the remarks Mr. Platt made to the California senate judiciary committee, June 24, 2003, regarding senate resolution no. 20 - relative to eugenics.
Since the spring 2002, state governments in Virginia, Oregon, and South Carolina, have published statements of apology to tens of thousands of patients, mostly poor women, who were sterilized against their will in state hospitals between the 1900s and 1960s. In March 2003, Governor Davis and Attorney General Lockyer added their regrets for the injustices committed in the name of "race betterment." Now, the California Senate is considering a resolution, authored by Senator Dede Alpert (D-San Diego), which "expresses profound regret over the state's past role in the eugenics movement" and "urges every citizen of the state to become familiar with the history of the eugenics movement, in the hope that a more educated and tolerant populace will reject any similar abhorrent pseudoscientific movement should it arise in the future."
In 1924, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, with eugenicists for the first time playing a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from Eastern and Southern Europe. [2] This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to fifteen percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new Act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool. Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the USA and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.
Or from wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics [wikipedia.org]:
Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those they thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963 when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A favorable report on the results of the sterilizations in California, by far the most sterilizing state, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II they justified the mass-sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.(emphasis mine)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
[...] better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...
Just the other day I gave my little Johnny a Troll (-1) for posting to a 25 year old woman from Texas. Not that I have anything against Texas, mind you, I just feel that Johnny could do better. She wasn't that hot.
Only by taking an active roll in our kids's lives can this kind of treachery be stopped.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right..
IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children', it is about Yahoo protecting itself. In the end, the benefits of allowing children to use the chat room did not exceed the risk or liability. Some online services may not specifically restrict by age but they do require a credit card for verification and/or payment. Just tonight, I had to use my CC to allow my
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. I sure as hell wouldn't provide Yahoo with the information required to legally prove I'm an adult. Imagine if every web-site not trying to run afoul of these kinds of things demanded real, verifiable proof of identity and age (credit history, biometrics
This seems like a political solution to a problem that would be better handled by actual parents moderating chat rooms and moderating their children...
Well, kids can get access to the web all over the place, and IM is pretty ubiquitous. It's probably damned near impossible for parents to actually police what their children are doing with every computer they get near. Hell, they've had "boss keys" in games for years, I'm sure my nephew could out-fox my brother on the computer.
Unfortunately, as I said, I really do worry about how such things will affect the rest of the netizens. Cause as soon as people figure out teens won't have any compunction about lying to Yahoo about their age, someone will start legislating ID requirements for everyone on line to prove age.
And then we can start to get really paranoid about what's next, because every site will already have all of your information dutifully logged and tied to your activities.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Interesting)
This Spitzer idiot will actually tell people that he "kept their children safe" and believe it or not, there will be tons of other idiots that will think it is true : (
There are a lot of funny things like this in the USA. At 17, I was able to sign up for the US Marine Corps. At 18, I was allowed to enter the US Marine Coprs. I went in in 1991, during that whole Gulf War thingy. The funny thing to me (now at the age of 32) is that I was allowed by the US federal govt. to sign my life over to them to possible fight and die for my country at _only_ 18, yet I was not old enough to buy and drink a beer! I guess uncle Sam really knows what is best for us.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, it's not just about discipline. How many parents bother to sit down with the kid and discuss how some people might be trying to pry private information out over chat, or watch for a half hour when they first start and point out examples of other chatters who might be 43 year old guys just pretending to be 15 year old girls? Teach the kids how to fight back against some of the perils out there first - it lets them know you care, AND it warns them anonimity isn't perfect, and there are some ways to trace them if they abuse the system.
Course, my only child is a girl. Boys are probably a whole nother problem.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. I know everyone goes gaga and turns their brain off when someone mentions children and "online-predators" but this does not change the facts that:
By the way, I say this as the father of a small child, so don't think for even a microsecond that I don't care about the wellbeing of children. I just don't care for wrongheded paranoia, that's all. There's no reason you need to sit with your child at the computer the entire time. You should however, in my opinion have an idea what the child is doing and sometimes discuss it with the child.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Funny)
40/M/NYC: UR RITE! ASL 17/M/NYC
Why should chatrooms be moderated? I don't know.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah- 'cause technical skills and understanding are directly related to social skills and understanding.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know, how about face to face with people their own age where they can learn such things as manners, etiquette, constructive dialog, the fact that "teh" is not a word. Not to mention that one kid can't say something disrespectful, disparaging, or derogatory about another without immediately being smacked in the face like we used to do in the good ol' days.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a value assumption on your behalf. Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise. Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.
People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has served a purpose throughout history. To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence, because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of human history. Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status and ones resources. These are important things in a social species such as humans. Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Interesting)
One's appraisal of history is a series of value judgments of a series of value judgements. To believe otherwise is most definitely stupid.
> Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise.
> Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as
> humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate > behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.
Well we're trying to put some of that behind us now, you know, the throwing of shit and hanging from trees by our tails. In all seriousness, apes are largely better behaved than we are. They argue, they beat their chests, they don't usually start laying into each other. And they don't kill each other. They do have orgies though. Maybe that's the secret.
In most species of animal, if any violence between competing males does occur, it is a recognised loss of status on someone's part that prevents further violence.
> People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has
> served a purpose throughout history.
The violence of self-defence is arguably justified. I believe it is, others don't.
Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of king and country, for the empire, the fatherland, the glorious republic, so some power-hungry visionary fool can have more lives to play with. I don't readily see the justification in that.
> To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence,
> because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of
> human history.
Some of us are promoting the ideas of progress, evolution, civilisation: let's push things forward. Enough with your atavistic recourse to murder.
> Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the
> resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status
I think there are laws against this sort of attitude and with good reason. And "most importantly [...] loss of status"
> and ones resources.
That too is arguably justified, although less so than self-defence. I'm also going to advocate the slaughter of animals to serve my need for all sorts of delicious meat products, but I don't think I'd bother to try to justify it.
> These are important things in a social species such as humans.
Important to those who, like dogs, need to know their place in the order. And I'm guessing most us on slashdot would be somewhere near the bottom.
> Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think
> that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.
See top.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Funny)
Such a tired cliche, and totally without basis in fact too. Just ask Tojo, or Hitler, or Napoleon, or Stalin, or the former residents of ancient Carthage whether violence ever solved anything.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if your kid hangs out with other kids, he will start saying "Please" and "Thank You", use the small fork for his salad and put the napkin on his lamp, plus have conversations about current events AND speak proper English with improved grammar?
I agree that face to face interaction teachs them that actions have consequences, like getting popped in the mouth for talking trash, but they can also try out some stuff they saw on Jackass or Crank Yankers.
The internet doesn't screw up kids, apothetic parents do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Informative)
"Under the agreement, one of the nation's leading internet service providers, Yahoo!, has removed and barred the posting of user-created chat rooms with names that promoted sex between minors and adults"
No, not all chatrooms... No, not all minors...
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Informative)
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, I have a better idea...
WHY DON'T GROWNUPS JUST FUCK GROWNUPS?
Sheesh.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey buddy, I think you missed the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
Cheers
Stor
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that this actually accounts for the majority of child molestors last I heard. Meaning, of course, that the parents are two of the most dangerous people in a child's life, and that's not even counting the absolutely limitless access they have to a child to fuck it up in other ways.
Maybe if parents would actually do a good job raising kids they could trust, and who trusted them, they'd not need all these use
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not arguing that the Internet doesn't have its predators, nor am I saying that children shouldn't be protected. But this solution is rather like locking them up until they're 21. And it is based upon hysteria, just like the belief
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, when I heard that story about that one chick from MySpace my reaction was that the only reason this story was semi-national news was because it had a "The Internet" angle. Older weirdos killing teenage girls isn't something new that requires the interent.
And as long as we're on the MySpace chick... she'd apparently met the guy several times in meatspace. It wasn't: "Hi! It's nice to meet you for the FIRST TIME! What are you going to do with those trash bags and rope? TEE HEE!" She had a chance to figure out that this guy wasn't quite right... the internet is no more at fault than any other place where people can get to know other people.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:4, Funny)
How dare anyone be uncomfortable in social situations! The nerve!
Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. [...] Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?
I'd say it's pathetic to hook-up with a "total roll of the dice" whether you meet them online or at club while doing stuff with your friends.
And I don't know about you, but there's a fair bit of overla
Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
There goes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There goes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There goes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There goes (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't think your child has enough common sense to avoid meeting random internet strangers (come on, you get the "don't talk to strangers" lecture when you're old enough to walk) and you don't feel you can properly parent your children to the point that you aren't worried about them making such ridiculous choices, then simply don't allow your child to have internet access.
Seriously, what the hell is up with parents these days? "It's so hard to keep my child from watching bad stuff on television" -- don't let them watch television. "My child runs up a huge cell phone bill that I have to pay" -- don't buy your kid a cellphone. "My child can't be trusted not to get drunk and drive their car wrecklessly" -- don't allow your kids to drive.
I mean... come ON... People have been raising children for eons with every-changing technology and societal structures. There's nothing special that makes the current generation of parents' job so fucking impossible above and beyond every other generation in the history of humanity. This just illustrates the biological problem of nature making people want to marry and reproduce based on the symmetrical qualities of the face, size of tits and width of child-bearing hips rather than common sense and intellect.
Re:There goes (Score:5, Interesting)
Your answer, don't let them have internet access, is not much of a solution either. I think that parent can make a pretty good argument that technology/computers/internet are all going to be substantial factors in their children's lives, and exposing them to the technology has a lot of potential benefits. Of course there are also potential downsides, but here's a parent that's trying to navigate through these, and is grateful for any help they can get.
And I don't know where the rest of your argument came from. The parent poster said nothing about cellphone bills or drunk driving, you're just ranting to try and make your points seem more valid I guess. You're right that people have been raising children for eons. So what? Through those eons, I have no doubt that there were plenty of dumb or naive kids that made lots of stupid choices and had to face unpleasant consequences. I don't think the past offers us any easy solutions that we're just conveniently ignoring. People lived for eons without electricity too, I don't see what make the current generation so special that they deserve to have electric lights and refridgeration.
Locking children into boxes and not giving them any privileges or responsibilities is not a good way to prepare them for the real world. So your solution doesn't work. Letting a kid run free throughout the world usually isn't very successful either. You've obviously observed that. Maybe the correct solution is somewhere in the middle, where a parent tries to balance freedom and limits to allow their children to grow in a safer manner. That seems like a pretty tough task, and I don't think it's a bad thing for parents to appreciate support and help from the community.
Re:There goes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There goes (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
Whew! The perfect solution! (Score:5, Funny)
Way to go Yahoo/Spitzer!
And so that stops us how? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And so that stops us how? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And so that stops us how? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And so that stops us how? (Score:3, Funny)
irony.
Ban Phones (Score:4, Insightful)
This will help a lot (Score:5, Funny)
In other news. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news. . . (Score:3, Funny)
the end (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly you didn't catch fark a few days ago, as something similar occurred.
Woman Ticketed For Sitting On Park Bench With No Kids [wfmynews2.com]
"New York, NY -- It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.
The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child....The city parks department said the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule"
Fragging children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly. I also agree with Yahoo's decision here. Although now the defense of... "Yahoo doesn't allow underage people from chatting, so I thought he/she was at least 18!
Re:Fragging children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fragging children. (Score:5, Funny)
Dad, is that you?
Re:Fragging children. (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo and other organizations are blocking out the group with the most potential to make damaging comments bad enough that the forums can get sued. And if you have seen some of the other public forums, teenagers are absolutely out of control.
And no, politicans are not blocking video game violence for kids. They are doing it for their own political agenda.
Re:Fragging children. (Score:3, Insightful)
Genders next... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, communism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Difference being, my father taught me to fight, my mother to avoid problems such as getting in cars with strangers... thus, when I left my home, dad knew other kids would come to complain that I beat the fuck out of them (yep, and I was the little guy) and mom knew that he wouldn't "rightfully punish me" (he'd ask, "why, so he can learn that defending himself is wrong?")
Sadly in the fine USA, justice is a forgotten term, and "consequences" are only monetary... many a time a good punch in the face would teach far more than a lawsuit. Many people who are OH so biblical forgot the old adage about sparing the rod.... Parents are sparing EVERYTHING from their kids, starting with the proverbial rod and ending with the very real absence of involvement of any kind.
Fuck the system, when I decide to have kids, they will be raised right... it worked for me, worked for my brother, worked for my father who weathered several wars in the military and only ended up getting hurt being run over by a drunk driver (yeah, go fucking figure, eh?) It also worked for several dozen of my former friends from childhood, all of whom grew up, grew up well, and are extremely self reliant... not something very common in the USA where everyone expects to get approval from the system before moving on. Fuck it all. Live life like its yours, because it is. Too many want to have it lived for them... and Bush, Cheney, Gates, the supreme court and company will be glad to do it for you, since you pay them every time they make a decision for you.
I say, fuckem all... I'll live my life the way I want to, I will abide by the honor code **I** impose upon myself, and when someone trespasses against me, without it being a mistake... well, I defend myself and I don't need a gun to break their arm in three different places if that is what it comes down to
~D
in your mind (Score:3, Insightful)
you could tell me it's important that we be sex positive for children, that prudish attitudes about sex creates psychological problems
i hear you, loud and clear
but then tell me with a straight face it's perfectly reasonable that there be no safeguards preventing 8 year old missy from going on over to that scat site
am i talking about stealing peoples rights under a false guise? am i?
are you a paranoid schizophrenic?
or, just possibly, no way! gosh! gasp
Re:in your mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Use filtering software on your computer, use the V-chip on your
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Please provide evidence that this is so. I don't mean nattering about MTV and video games; I mean actual hard evidence that children are more likely now to be molested, abducted, abused, etc. than in the pre-cell-phone, pre-internet era.
I doubt you can. And I doubt anyone else can either.
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verification issues aside, I think it's high time we adopted the "but your kids don't belong here" approach to more shit, and not just the fucking internet.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a parental responsibility to have the talk about the bad men, etc.
They can't verify someone's age.
Neither is desirable, imo. The best is always to educate, so that children learn about these dangers, not to ban them from those places totally or to fall into the other extreme, to ban adults from saying things which might be deemed inappropriate for childr
Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING (Score:4, Informative)
Again, minors are still allowed on Yahoo. However, Yahoo is clamping down on certain chatrooms that do not have honorable intentions.
Re:Title and Summary are *GROSSLY* MISLEADING (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because of this agreement, Yahoo chat rooms are a safer place today," said Jon Bruning, Nebraska's attorney general, in a statement.
Yahoo agreed to develop education materials promoting the safe use of chat rooms, restrict Yahoo Chat to users 18 and older and remove the Teen category.
If they got it wrong, then Reuters got it wrong too.
Sorry dude, summary is essentially correct. (Score:5, Informative)
"Why did Yahoo! remove the ability for users under 18 to access Yahoo! Chat and remove the "Teen" category in Yahoo! Chat? We are removing the Teen category and making Yahoo! Chat available to users 18 or older in order to improve the user experience and compliance with our Terms of Service."
My reading of this is that Yahoo! accounts set up by minors will not (at this time) be able to access Yahoo! Chat at all. Keep in mind that Yahoo! has a great many more properties than their Chat so minors will still have access to other areas. However, a minor can still use their parent's account (which seems to be allowed according to the rules [yahoo.com]) or conceivably lie about their age (which would certainly constitute a breach of contract). Either might absolve Yahoo! of liability, which is certainly all they're concerned about.
Some questions (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Why does New York law affect users all over the world?
3. Who cares? As I said, there are many other chat networks. Kids will simply use another chat program or another network. What does this change, really? (Unless Yahoo believes their chat network is much more vile and filled with adult things than any other network?)
4. Why? I mean, how does preventing kids from going to chat rooms protect them? Sure, they won't be fooled by some pervert in a chat room who tricks them... but they can still be fooled/affected by emails, web pages, and lots of things online. (Besides which, web-based chat-rooms exist...) It's been said on slashdot many times before, but it should be more about parents monitoring their children, and teaching them proper surfing habits, rather than trying to lock down and sanitize the net (which is an impossible task anyway).
5. Why 18? It's great that Yahoo is taking measures to protect children... removing a "bad" chatrooms promptly seems fair enough. However I don't understand why they are cutting off at 18... Protecting very young children (who again should be monitored by their parents to a certain extent) is great, but I think a 15 year old can handle him/herself in a chat-room. There is no reason to prevent them from having an online place to discuss. I don't think you need the same level of adult responsibility to chat online as you need for voting, drinking alcohol, driving a car, etc... yet they are placing the threshold at the same level!
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Various Responses (Score:5, Funny)
(a) Eliot Spitze : Heh Heh Heh. Man, I look like a hero, even though I don't give a damn to those kids who parents should know better.
(b) New York State Parents : Rah rah rah! Our children are safe from sexual predators!
(c) Yahoo! : Heh Heh Heh. As though as we can even try to stop childen from U18 from getting in.
(d) Under 18 Kids: Doh, everyone know you have to pretend to be over 18 to hit on anybody anyway.
(e) Over 18 Perverts : Doh, now I have to *really* try to believe those U18 kids online are simply pretending to be Over 18.
(f) Everyone else : Groan.
Who is this protecting? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who is this protecting? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't see how (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see how (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have. This woman [go.com] was fined $1000 and faces up to 90 days in jail for sitting on a park bench where there was a small sign that said she must be accompanied by a child.
Absurd.
Right now in California if you are caught streaking you are marked as a sex offender for life. This Puritanical hysteria over kids and sex is absolutely ridiculous. Kids do not need to be protected from every goddamne
Yep here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
I apologize for being a bit too political here but I'm growing increasingly tired of this Liberal psuedo Religious Republican fear mongering that has gripped America. These preditors exist because they know the following.
1. Mommy and Daddy are too busy going to Politcal Fund Raisors, Drinking beer on the back porch or attending bible thump sessions to attend to their children.
2. The state has told the parents over and over. Shut up we are better at children than you are. Screw, give birth and turn them over to us, and the state hasn't a clue how to protect them.
3. If parents do get involved in monitoring their children and caring for them and the state finds out. BIG trouble. (You slapped your childs hand and made it cry!..... Child abuse charges will follow.)
4. The more laws and "protections" the state envokes the easier it becomes to get around the sytem.
5. If you have enough money and donate wisely, you can do as you will.
Now this carp. Wow. Now we are fully admitting to our children that we as adults aren't capable of doing anything to protect them or guide them. No wonder so few of them trust us. On this thought I'll remind so many of you what happened in Romania. The goverment forced it's people to give up child care to the state. Now, most of those children are HIV positive and or dead. Get on the Clue train America, We won't protect our children by hiding the world from them, The only way to protect them is to show them the full extent of the danger then give them the tools and the knowledge on how to deal with it.
My 3 year old a while back was approached by a gentlemen as I watched. The gentlemen (an arthritic grandfather type, I sensed no danger but watched) started to speak to him and he said "Do I know you?" The gentlemen replied "No" and my son said. "Then I can't talk to you till you talk to my daddy first." (btw he got a big hug and a small candy for his actions) The words where his, but the idea of not talking to strangers unless mommy or daddy ok it was a tool I gave him to deal with the world.
People, Tell the government to go abuse itself. You are not dumb and incompitent like they keep telling you, that you are. You are capable of making decisions and dealing with your children. Despite the fact that you voted for these parisites on the teats of the political whore.
Re:Yep here we go again (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but you have your fact very very wrong. First, most of the "institutionalized" children are 18+ years now, and there is little anybody can do to help them without their consent. Faith was very unfair with them and very few of them managed to get a normal life. However seems that the leaders have learned from their previous mistakes, and abandoned children are now either addopted or given to families for care, together with a monthly sum of money.
However this has nothing to do with yet another problem: that of children with AIDS or HIV positive. They usually have families that are caring for them (until their situation becomes very bad, at least). Their problem is usualy caused by the prejudice of the other people. It is hard for them to study in public schools because the parents of the other children will react.
There is almost no relation between the two problems, and I don't see how this could be given as an example of a goverment that forced it's people to give up child care to the state. Maybe you could explain more. (Yes, I was born in Romania)
Microsoft's MSN IM day (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an earlier report about Yahoo and MSN merges IMs [slashdot.org]
And here's a story about a nobody talking smack [slashdot.org] about Linux IM clients.
Both topics are chock full of MSN IM astro-turfing goodness. Check it out. Looks like the start of a marketing campaign for MSN Messenger 7.
aw crap.... (Score:5, Funny)
A Parent's Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Chatting is a way of life for kids these days. That may not be good, personally we restrict our son's activities in this regard, but many parents just see it as an alternative to hanging out at the mall. Surely a kid is safer at home, right?
Blaming parents, especially when you aren't one, for not being aware of all this, is an easy out, but not a productive one. The providers of chat rooms DO share a responsibility for safety. Yes, age restrictions can be bypassed, but it will help. Not all kids are liars. And, for good or ill, Spitzer is very good at increasing awareness of wrongdoing, in many areas. That increased awareness will also help.
It's sad to see those who profess to be freedom loving libertarians here get upset over chat room restrictions, and in the same paragraph advocate sterilization or "parent ability tests".
Re:A Parent's Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
The government is already big enough. Let the parents do the parenting. Can't hack it? Don't bear children.
Read the fine print - Yahoo! confirmed it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So basically.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Foolproof adult test? (Score:5, Funny)
Which income tax form did you file last year?
(a) 1040
(b) 1040EZ
(c) 1040A
(d) Cowboy Neal
Re:i want to ask it again (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, what defines adult content?
What about a national geographic-style site that would include topless women from some tribe in africa?
What about a site selling underwear? For example, you can see bush on this amazon ad: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
What about webcam sites where people are free to be as nude or not-nude as they like?
What about informative sites teaching kids about their own body? (clitical, jackinworld, etc)
What about non comercial personal pages that include nudes (Be they self nudes, or "my wild vacation pictures", or whatever).
The gray area is huge. But again, more importantly, who can mandate such a requirement? Why would someone want to host their site in a banned by many
The better proposal is a
Even if you could block a
Re:Slashdot Title != Actual Story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. They're going to require the user to enter their date of birth. Everyone knows that American schoolchildren won't be able to figure out the math.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than ask them for ID, I would ask the, uh, obvious 13-14 year olds "are you 18 or older?" The answer was invariably yes. Then I'd ask them people their birth year. A surprising number of them got it wrong. I tol