Senate Votes To Empower Parents As Censors 418
unlametheweak recommends an Ars Technica report that the US Senate has unanimously passed a bill requiring the FCC to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." "...the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government. It asks the FCC to focus the inquiry on blocking systems for a 'wide variety of distribution platforms,' including wireless and Internet, and an array of devices, including DVD players, set top boxes, and wireless applications."
Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Well its about time this issue becomes more widely recognized in government...
If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT.
If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.
"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).
Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc... NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation
"With over 500 channels and video streaming, parents could use a little help monitoring what their kids watch when they are not in the room,"
The amount of content will only grow, and it is too difficult to categorize and rate every piece of video & audio, especially highly-paid-for items like advertisements.
They are taking the blacklist approach, and as we all know, that will only work if you have the resources to maintain the list against all new and possible content.
Rather, they (parents -- NOT GOVERNMENT) should be taking the whitelist approach, which, given an infinite content set, is far more realistic to successfully maintain.
Yeah, that means taking time out of your day to ensure that your kids are only watching content that you deem appropriate for them (and this obviously should change with their age and maturity). That means not sitting your kid in front of the TV while you go persue your own hobbies or work (imagine that: sacrificing for the sake of your family). Most families are not in situations where the parents must work round-the-clock to provide *basic* supplies for their kids -- if the parents' excuse is they must work instead of parenting, then perhaps they need to cut down on their spending for the sake of their childrens' upbringing: a kid needs a good parent more than the latest clothing, a big TV, or yearly vacations.
This is probably not news to most people here, but far too many Americans are quick to call for government censorship of TV/radio/internet/videogames/etc, rather than simply investing their OWN TIME into raising their kids.
Now, of course, we should, as always, still remain vigilant and make sure that this newfangled "parent-empowered" censorship isn't simply a masquerade for actual forced censorship (read: government censorship)...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno...my parents had a VERY effective manner in dealing with this 'neverending spending cycle' you mention. It was the simple word, "no".
While I'd agree we have too much advertisement in general...just because it is advertised doesn't mean you have to buy it for yourself or your kid. That simple word "no", was quite effective when dealing with all sorts of issues during my upbringing.
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir, you ask FAR too much.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, you! Butt out. Don't tell me how to raise my kid! I know where my child is! Glued in front of the TV watching commercials, with some commercialized programming interspersed. When my child isn't watching TV, my child is playing massively disgusting, gross, anti-social, kill or be killed, rob or get robbed violent a** videogames. By neglecting my child, I am empowering my child to become a normal average American, who will hopefully grow up to build the next great video-sharing site and upload lots and
Re:You're kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of raising a bunch of ambitious, well-adjusted people, we've got a population with an undeserved sense of entitlement. We have to face it, the West (the USA in particular), has a population that shirks responsibility because they feel it's their right. Or something like that. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I agree with the GGP. I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been. My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them. Time and time again we've seen how greatly restricted children, and adults too, run a muck given the first opportunity. People complain of an immature adult population. I believe this is the result. Being a child at heart is wonderful. If you can still giggle at a fart joke when you're middle aged, good for you. But if you can't control your laughter when in court for your third DUI, you have a problem.
Let's not keep our children as children. Let's help them grow up. Help them make informed decisions instead of having to experiment behind closed doors, unsupervised by those who know better.
Re:You're kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
My other gripe is how we so feverishly protect our children. Hiding things from children doesn't help them. It hurts them.
One thing you need to understand is that children don't have the experience and coping mechanisms in place to handle all of the content you or I could. There are things that I could watch or read that I would find mildly upsetting that would give my children nightmares for weeks. This is because they don't have the same risk-assessment capabilities that I do, because they don't have the experience.
So yes, I do shield my children from things I think they can't handle yet. When I feel they have reached an age that they are mature enough to, I will gladly let them chose. Treating children as miniature adults, though, is just stupid.
Re:You're kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't believe TV, Radio, or the Internet should be sanitized to fit the morals of a few (or even many) as to what's appropriate for children. Who said these media (note: media = plural of medium) had to be kid friendly. A child might see/here this! So? That is a parent's responsibility. It always has been.
My immediate reaction was that you are completely wrong, but on reflection I think that you're partly wrong. The issue is lumping together an entire medium under one hat. I'll take the simplest one: television.
Television breaks down into two categories: free-to-air and pay-to-view. I think your position is perfectly reasonable for pay-to-view channels: if a parent chooses to purchase a channel with content he doesn't want his children seeing, it's his responsibility to ensure they don't see it.
Free-to-air,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that approach only works once children understand the value of money, which does not typically happen until they're 5-8 years old. The TV ads in cartoons are often targeting much younger children. Generally, the simple answer is no, especially in a store.
We were taught by our parents that the surest way to be told "no" was to ask for something. "Can I have that?" got a sharp reply of no, and continual asking or compaining got a smack on the ass. The response was even quicker if we tried to ask for something while in a store or if we tried to play the sympathy or public embarresment angle. We had to be especially good just to even go TO the toy section in a store, and Mom always used the candy free isle in the grocery store. We never got something by asking for it. Never.
We were TOLD when we had been good enough to get candy or a toy. Asking before that point delayed how long we'd have to wait to reach that goal. Something like "you've been good today, so after we're done shopping I'll buy you a treat." It worked.
My wife, a 3rd grade teacher, has a better method she uses in her classrooms that we started using with our kids: She gives her students little sticks with their names on them to keep at all times. Each time they do something wrong, or break a rule, they have to turn over one of their sticks. Each time they do something especially good, or just as a reward for effort, they can get one back. They start the day with 3 sticks, and if they end the day with the same number, they get a little card punched with a hole, plus an extra hole for each stick beyond 3 they ended up with. Their puched cards get traded in for a piece of candy (if they have enough holes at the end of the week) or can be stored up for bigger rewards. Less than 3 sticks, certain punishments happen consistent with school rules.
At home, we adapted this system slightly. The kids have the same 3 sticks rule, and get punches for the thrid and each additional stick they end the day with. We let them build up as many sticks as they can doing good things all day. We take a number of sticks away for doing various things bad. A lie saccrifies all sticks, as does agressive play with others (bullying or fighting). Arguing is 1 stick, but they keep loosing more as they continue to argue. Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick. Something big, like getting in trouble at school to a point that gets a note home, and they can loose not only sticks, but all their built up punches too... Telling the truth, especially when it's not good and might result in punishment, always earns them a stick (sometimes more).
Anything that happens at school can just as easily result in a loss of sticks. We make sure all the parents that may watch our kids for any reason, as well as family members, also know the same rules, and enforce them just the same. Failing to hand in homework, talking back to a teacher, etc, anything we hear about in a note home or in their weekly report goes towards their stick count. We ensure family and friends hold them to the same rules.
The kids have quickly adapted to 1: keeping their mouthes closed in stores and staying close to us while shopping. 2: they do not lie. 3: they do not start fights. Our older girl has been in one; she's in 2nd grade and kicked a 4th grader bully in the nuts hard enough to need medical attention, and after we heard why (he took her juice box from her, and when she first got a teacher involved and then confronted him, he pushed her, then she kicked him) she earned a stick for that plus another for having told the truth about it, and a 3rd for trying to get help first) 4: they understand the rewards for continual good behavior are better than that for incremental behavior. 5: they suffer dissapointment, sometimes big dissapointment, when they're bad and understand the efforts necessary to recoup a loss if that happens. 6: they don't talk back to us. (though the 2 year old loves t
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.
But, it's also important to teach kids about advertising -- they need to learn that advertisers LIE and will do anything to separate people from their money. (This is, unfortunately, even more true in kid's advertising than with adults.)
A few Christmases ago, I deliberately bought a crappy, but well-advertised, toy for each of my kids. We opened them up and compared them to what we saw on the TV commercials. I gave the kids the option to return the toys and get something else that I knew they would like.
There were two benefits: first, they look at advertisements with a lot more skepticism than their peers, and, second, if they get something they don't like, they're very willing to return it for something they do like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.
What really gets me are the parents who say "no" until the kid gets unbearably annoying about it, then say "yes". Somehow they don't realize that they're only training the kid that being loud and obnoxious will get them what they want.
Re:Positive Changes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Funny, I always got "Do you think money grows on trees?" which is a terribly strange question to ask a child with no concept of where money DOES come from. You eventually learn the correct answer is "no", but you still have no idea WHY the answer is "no".
Hang on, isn't American money still made of paper?
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. The physical representation of American money is made of cotton and linen. The money itself is made if hopes, dreams, speculation, and trust.
Re:Positive Changes (Score:4, Insightful)
aaaaand just a tinge of corruption :)
but yeah, mostly hope and that kind of stuff.
P.S.: cotton does grow on plants. linen... not so sure. wikipedia will have the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all plants are trees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really that threatened by the child that you need to use physical violence to cower them? That's the ONLY kind of real power you view parents as having?
I have no children of my own
I remember my brothers and I building a ramp in the street for our bikes. I also remember them telling me what I needed to do when jumping so I didn't end up with a face full of concrete. I also remember being to stubborn to listen to them.
You could say the face full of concrete made the lesson very clear.
I see physical discipline as an extension of the lesson taught to me that day by the pavement. Not the first resort but a very effective last one where the the lesson is imperative. If you need to spank a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait what?
You were spanked with a belt as a child, and by self admission "sure as hell wasn't" respectful or well behaved. Told off nuns, no respect for authority...
You have "never had to use physical discipline" with your daughter, and she's well behaved.
That's purely anecdotal evidence of course, but how on earth does that support the thesis that physical discipline leads to better behaviour in the long run?
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Interesting)
After getting Tivo, my kids didn't even know what to ask for last Christmas. It was great, because they asked for things they really wanted (and were good things for kids, IMO), as opposed to asking for what the TV told them to ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
A really positive move would be to ban all advertisements targeted at kids. It traps parents into a neverending spending cycle many can barely afford in the first place. Why should marketing experts be allowed direct their expertise in manipulation at the most vulnerable members of society.
Why allow those "vulnerable" members to watch any ad driven TV at all, or at least without running it through your nifty ad filtering MythTV setup or the like, or buying the DVD and ripping it to remove everything but the show?
Seems to work great for my kid, and saves me from at least a majority of the "I want that, can I have that?" series of questions that get the ever predictable "no" answer.
Some people need to seriously take another look at their parenting habits, and maybe remove the TV entirely from t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>licence-fee funded
Which costs about $400 per year. Pass. No thanks Comrade. Nyet. Let the corporations fund these items out of their own pocket (FCC rules require two hours per day for children's programming). I like my television to be FREE, and not be forced into an annual fee that I cannot afford to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities,
Did that really ever work? Something like the parent asking their kids to go play outside seems to be a cliché that most people lived through, parents today might have lived through both sides of those arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Did that really ever work?
Works for my kids:
Re: (Score:2)
While I certainly don't disagree with you on principles, this caught my eye:
Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).
24 hours in a day - 9 (sleep) - 5 "left over" = 10. Your kids spend 10+ hours a day at school? Hardcore. For me, Elementary/Middle school lasted from 8AM to 2PM (plus or minus) which is only 6 hours.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Umm....you're forgetting something:
9 Sleep + 5 "left over" + the 4 tv hours = 6
Looks like you and the GP actually agree :-)
Re: (Score:2)
s/+/-/
Whoops
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife and I have two kids, ages 5 years and 16 months. I work full time, my wife part time with help from the grandparents babysitting. I can guarantee you that we have lots more to do while our kids are watching TV than hobbies or work. Here's a short list:
I could go on. See anything there that a really little kid can help with? See anything that maybe would go a lot smoother if the kids were just still for a little while? Using TV just to stop the whirlwind for even a half-hour can be a godsend for us. We love to spend time with our kids playing with toys, doing art, or romping in the yard, but when we need to do something ourselves — or we just need a break — putting on an educational, age-appropriate TV show can be a useful tool.
Yeah, we're not perfect parents. But we aren't helicopters either, and we have other stuff we've got to take care of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See anything there that a really little kid can help with?
A 5 year old, yes. Our 5 year old can do his own laundry (requires front loader) washing and hanging out, get cereal, sandwiches and drink for himself and younger siblings. He also unpacks the dishwasher, but I wouldn't like to have him washing dishes in a sink unattended just yet. We decided to put up with some mess (of little kids doing things) for the purpose of getting them more independent earlier. Get them onto those chores with you if they can't do it themselves, there is no rule that your time with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We did this with our kids, and some friends didn't. It made extra work early on, because young kids really aren't that competent yet, but it pays off as they become so. Fast forward a number of years... Our kids have been getting their own breakfast and lunch for years, with no help from us past the early times. Theirs still count on Mom and Dad to do it for them. Our kids do their own chores around the house, and divvy up on family chores, though occasionally some prodding is needed. Theirs were just
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd agree with pretty much everything you've written, but I'd add one caveat regarding a situation that it doesn't appear you've considered: advertising.
I'll give you two examples, a sexual one (for the sex-averse prudish Americans) and a violent one (for the pantywaist Euros).
- A man is dragged from a car, protesting and in terror. He's made to kneel on the pavement, begging the unseen assailant "Don't, please, don't...please..." The muzzle of a pistol barrel is put to his temple and the screen crashes t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't like whats on TV, DON'T WATCH IT.
If you don't want your child watching it, DON'T RELY ON TV AS A BABYSITTER.
Here's better advice from some one that does sometimes use tv, computers, and video games a babysitter while I'm even at the house doing my own thing. Don't have cable or over the air TV. Just buy season DVDs of the stuff you remember watching when you grew up or that you vaguely think that is legit for your family to watch. The same applies to video games and computer crap. Now the only
Re:Positive Changes (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed.
Also just put the shows on at times where its expected to have children put properly to bed. For instance here in Copenhagen a local TV station is showing hardcore porno between 0 and 4:30 am; of course this has lead to some share of people shouting think of the children, but they got told to get bend, children are not supposed to be up at that time.
But then again we are pretty liberal with what we accept; only TV censoring I can think of is airing children oriented commercials during children shows (yes you are not allowed to show commercials for toys during programming targeted for children) and any commercials for gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if that local station was broad cast over the airwaves.
If the channel was a local cable channel, the FCC would have no say.
Re: (Score:2)
First, this is not government censoring TV. This is a tool that allows PARENTS to sensor TV. Each household can make the decision, not government.
I think the gp was aware of that, and seems to be saying that the proposals are better. I agree. What the government doesn't want my children to see -- or what powerful lobby groups try to pressure the government into stopping my children from seeing -- is highly unlikely to match what I think is appropriate for my kids to see. There is perhaps some content that it would be abusive to allow the children to see (girls & cups...) but beyond that surely it's down to parental responsibility, parents just ne
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Must be nice to not have to work and be able to spend 24 hrs a day with your kids, watching their every move. Unfortunately, many of us don't have that much free time.
I wonder how parents coped before the Internet came along?
I wasn't allowed a TV in my room until I reached a certain age. The idea of allowing a child to have unrestricted unsupervised Internet access I find insane - sure, I've nothing against if you want to do that, but don't go crying if the child then sees something you didn't want them to.
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sucks to be you. Maybe you should have thought about how difficult and time consuming parenting is before you had kids. But hey, why bother when the rest of us can do it for you, right?
Funny how you're too busy to be a responsible parent, yet you have enough time to whine about how hard it is on Slashdot.
Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're asking me to help you pay for it. Nobody is stopping you from buying a TV that blocks programming, but I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. IMO a Rolls Royce would make my life better, but if I want one I'm going to have to pay for it myself, without forcing you to help me.
The government exists to protect your rights, not make your life better.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a ploy to sell the locks and keys to the public so the public will have support for locks and keys. After the public has the locks-and-keys-infrastructure in their homes, all bets are off. First they put the trusted computing support into our computer chips and set top boxes, then they try to get us to install the software support in Vista and purchase the Digital TV set top boxes, only people don't go for it en masse like they hoped. Now they're trying to sell the utility of draconian control ov
Re: (Score:2)
It is generally worrying to see the FCC's role as content cop to continuing expanding into the internet. Because they tend to act at the behest of america's most panicky and ideological idiots, I don't trust their objectivity or judgment.
Good thing the FCC only affects America
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude. ("Libertarian" being shorthand for "I want that money I see deducted in taxes on my payslip.")
That's actually a fairly keen insight, and an attitude you see far too often on Slashdot. I think it comes largely from an adolescent audience on Slashdot. You'll get the same people complaining that a) parents suck because they don't spend every waking hour monitoring their children (and even if you do, you're probably blinking too much you lazy bastard), while at the same time every time a monitoring technology is mentioned that WOULD allow parents to easily keep an eye on their children and what they're doing, the same group yells bloody murder that Little Billy is being sheltered too much and that he'll never stand on his own. The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues and the parent will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of the story. It's as you mentioned: having children is a crime to them and they want to make damn sure that you're punished for it.
Although, you might want to ease up on the Libertarians ;). There are different things to like about that party. I don't really care too much about paying taxes (heck I work for the government so my paycheck comes from taxes), I just like the hands off approach. I'm a heathen and I like it. Government laws that say that I can't take drugs, that the stripper has to stand at least 6 feet away, or that says what I can and can't do on the Internet annoy me to no end. It's not so much the tax issue for me as I'd just prefer to have a government with a military that protects me from invasion and provides law enforcement to police the most basic of crimes (theft, rape, murder, etc) but otherwise butt the heck out of my life. ;)
Re:Positive Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
The common thread is that many of the complainers are simply emo teenagers who have parental issues and the parent will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of the story.
Remember that Slashdot is not a single consciousness with unified views on everything. Slashdot is a collections of diverse individuals, each with their own opinions on many topics, including parenting. There are likely a few with "parental issues", but for the most part I think what you're seeing is a lack of consensus, not individual inconsistency.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Truer words have never been spoken here...
Re:Positive Changes (Score:4, Insightful)
Or do you come from the class of people that analogize having kids with crime and parenting is the sentence? Because as far as I can tell that's a particularly odious "libertarian" attitude.
Seriously, WTF? I'm pretty libertarian, but love having kids. I spent a good part of yesterday playing the part of the "tickle monster" and being swarmed by giggling kids. I think your description is much better suited to liberal soccer moms who are chained to their children by fear that something bad will happen to them.
doesn't sound too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:doesn't sound too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Yabbut.... Any such system will be 'voluntary' - meaning each station/studio/whatever will be able to describe the latest murder-sex-mayhem sitcom as "wholesome family entertainment".
I'm with all the posters who just turn the TV off. Better yet, cut off the cable and spend time with your kids.
And yes, I have kids, and no, we don't use TV as a babysitter. Kids will find things to do if you provide them the opportunity to do so.
I cringe at the social messages in the commercials, even for kids' shows. The ads for the girls' toys on the 'tween shows are pretty shocking for me.... 11 year old girls, in tight clothing, miniskirts, full makeup and hair, dressed like they're ready to go man-shopping, playing at being 'executives'....
Mythtv is great. Next raise I get I'm cutting off live TV altogether and banishing commercials entirely.
All this is a long way to say that parents already are empowered to control what their kids watch. Get rid of cable, turn the TV off, and give them books, toys, blocks, crayons, whatever.
If parents demand it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as parents are footing their own damned costs for this, and the rest of us don't have it foisted on us, I agree with that. Having the entire TV and internet infrastructure set up to do this is stupid.
Cheers
Return of the clipper chip (Score:2, Informative)
This is to get people to accept more control under the guise of "protecting the kids".
Once the control has saturated the various markets and has become accepted by the people as normal, the government will take over.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah Australia is going nuts at the moment trying to implement internet filters. Nevermind that IE has had parental control since IE4, and Vista has that built in. Presumably there are similar solutions on other OS's.
How many damn levels of filtering does there have to be between a man and his porno? I mean, FFS, will the situation be that I have to call the National, State and City Filtering Authorities and register for a two hour unblock on my IP a couple of days in advance every time I want to fap?
Gentle
Re:Return of the clipper chip (Score:5, Insightful)
(Offtopic rant alert!)
Why?
It's often contended here that the government will change the fabric of society and oppress us the first chance they get, but I don't hear too many rational reasons why they would, and plenty rational reasons why they wouldn't. For example, I was not under the impression that modern politicians had the requisite courage to bring any real change to anything significant. If there really is some significant number of politicians out there in the current system who would risk it all to give themselves more power, how come there aren't more politicians who are risking it all to make tough, potentially unpopular decisions? So far, the stereotype of the cowardly, poll-driven politician has rung far truer than the power-hungry conspiring type. Not that a single politician who fits that description would be able to do much in his short time in his position.
Another point is that creating and maintaining a society is difficult, expensive, risky, and they are often unstable to boot. Doubly so for a country rooted in democracy, and government bending over backwards for popular opinion. Most people with basic intelligence can figure out that such a venture is stupid, and that the timeline would probably exceed their own life anyway. I understand that you see this as a possible lowering of that barrier, but, if think about it, it's not exactly oppression they'd be accustoming to, it would be surveillance. The slippery slope isn't even going in the right direction.
Anyway, in conclusion, your fears are IMHO somewhere between laughable and irrational. Nothing personal though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when has the government EVER done anything that didn't grow out of control ?
By definition you should mistrust your government.
Parents are already in control. (Score:3, Informative)
Its called spending time with your kids. Turning off the tv/etc when they get into something you don't approve.
We don't need a technological answer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With the economy in the shitter and both parents needing to work, it's increasingly hard for you to turn off the TV when you're not there.
That being said, there are plenty of devices out there (anything with a V-Chip in it, cable boxes, cable-company DVRs, TiVo, media center PCs, DVD players, video game consoles) that can do much of this already. While I'm sure other DVRs have this functionality, I know for a fact that TiVo has a feature called KidZone [youtube.com] where the parent can set ratings guidelines as well as
Re:Parents are already in control. (Score:4, Insightful)
Very true and quite insightful. I would also add that if parents are in control it's not called censorship and they are not censors. They are parents. Censorship applies to when Government engages in decided what can and cannot be seen/heard in the media.
Re:Parents are already in control. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good post.
As a parent, I'm appalled at how many parents let their kids walk all over them. I'm not surprised; so many people reach maturity without having been given the tools to be "mature," that it's nearly impossible to discipline their own kids when they have them.
On my son's soccer team, the coaches son yells at him, jumps on him, throws temper tantrums... guess who gets to play whatever position he wants for the entire game (unless he's tired and wants to come out)?
At an after school meeting, my son's teacher's son hit his mother... slapped her face, and she did nothing. Granted, she was at school, it seems like you can get the death penalty for discipling a child on school grounds these days, but good lord!
My kids seem like the only ones who get the recommended amount of sleep... it's very difficult; they have friends who are going to bed at 10:00 and 11:00 at night and getting up for school at 7:00. At nine years old, they're supposed to be getting 10 to 11 hours of sleep. Sleep deprivation is linked with ADD and many other behavioral problems.
And as far as TV and internet go, let's just say we start by having to earn time to watch TV or "play" on the computer.
My kids also have to earn their money to buy things like video games and other toys... books are the only things they get for "free."
It's really NOT rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
If only more parents followed a few of those simple ideas.
But you can bet that the first company which comes out with a childcarer bot to allow parents to pay even less attention to their kids will make a fortune.... wiat... TV already got there.
Of course you'll see it going too far in the other direction as well. 17 year olds with a 9 o clock bedtime are hilarious and of course some parents take "dicipline" to a scary place where you wonder if you should be calling child services.
Re: (Score:2)
And I think you're an idiot for considering what I do "unreasonably strict," but then that's why you post as an AC. In fact, my kids are taught to stand up for themselves even if it means they will get in trouble with the strict rules they have at school, but then you wouldn't know that and it's great just make assumptions about something you know nothing about it.
Would that mean... (Score:2, Funny)
Would that mean that in the US you would finally be able to see on national television what we here in the Netherlands have been able to see since the 60s (if we want to): naked people?
Four hours is ok if it's the right channels (Score:2)
Discovery channel
Science channel
Cooking channel
Golf Channel
Re: (Score:2)
I loved Discovery channel when I was a kid, watched it all the time.
No though I switch it on and all I see most evenings is "Biggest monster trucks ever" or the millionth re run of "crimescene detectives"
You left out.. (Score:2)
National Geographic
Animal Planet
History International
Military Channel
BBC America
and of course
The Weather Channel
Re: (Score:2)
Animal planet? Are you insane? They show animals fucking! :P
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Parents already enabled ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents are already 'enabled' as censors over their children. It's called looking at what they are doing and watching, and preventing them from watching the stuff they disagree with.
Asking the FCC to impose a technical mandate on every piece of communications technology to allow parents to individually censor every thing according to rules is asinine. Because we're all going to end up paying through the nose for our TV and ISPs and consumer electronics which have this stuff in it.
Sadly, parents seem to expect that someone will come up with a technical solution to all of their ills. I think it would be both expensive and ill-advised to try to get this stuff built into all of the technology around us.
This is the worst sort of mandate, because, once again, we look at implementing mechanisms of censorship which will be in place for all of us -- all in the name of the children. Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it.
Cheers
Just don't have a TV. Easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not inclined to not have a television --- I like F1, and watch Doctor Who --- but there's a single TV
Re: (Score:2)
While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children.
As a Dr Who fan, ask yourself if you would have like if every occasion in which that show (which, we'll all agree to consider not supposed to be watched by young children) depicted the british government or crown in unflatering way (at least half a dozen times
Re: (Score:2)
While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children.
While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic regarding the parent topic, which is tools for parents to control the viewing of theit children, not giving power to "central authority."
Re: (Score:2)
From the original post: "Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it."
To wich it was reply sothing on the line of "censorship not a problem, since I don't watch TV".
I was just pointing that, despite its qualities and its being generally ontopic for the whole discussion, that reply was in no way a valid reply to the original post's concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite how you
THis is kind of what parents do (Score:5, Insightful)
For the internet the same is true. It is much better to give parent control of what and when the child can access certain content rather than limit content to that which is appropriate for a 12 year old. This is not censorship in the conventional sense as the content is available. A motivated child can leave the house and gain acess. Rather this is a little thing called parenting, which many around here might say is something way under practiced.
One thinks that this is only a problem for two groups. First, teenagers who either do not have a means to get out of the house of out of school, for instance rural or homeschool kids, to unfiltered computers. Second, adults who live in the parents basements and do not pay rent or pay for their own phone/cable and computer. Otherwise, such technologies are merely part of rearing a child.
Censorship at VirginMedia (Score:2)
Virgin media have a censorship control page on their online user account management site. It seems to allow parents/guardians to block various websites that included:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Freeloader.com, LEGO, Tweenies
Expresso education, sonicselector, music choice
newsplayer.com, napster, vidzone, metaboli.com, Photobox
Premium Games from virgin media
I can understand the music and image downloads sites being blocked, but
Encyclopedia Brittanica and Expresso education?
Re: (Score:2)
does congress watch TV? (Score:4, Interesting)
not that it matters to congress, but doesn't the V-Chip already block everything?
Isn't every TV, game console, and DVD player already shipping with a V-Chip?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't that mean that the FCC can start to reduce censorship on TV since every parent could do the censorship if they wanted to do it (but only 12% use it)?
What technologies are available to any adult? (Score:4, Interesting)
A new feature (Score:3, Funny)
I recently discovered that there was a really cool filtering tool that came on all my game consoles, dvd players, televisions, computers, and music players. It is a button that says "on". When pressed, the filter activates then the picture and sound stop. I thought it was new, but it has only been relabeled. Previously this feature had been marked as a "O" or a "I" on a giant toggle.
As a parent (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Limited TV - Rabbit Ears only or pre-selected DVDs. Yes, we say "no" to many programs. When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.
2. ClarkConnect [clarkconnect.com] - proxy, firewall, ad blocker, content filter, anti-virus, spam blocker, for the house. Any connection to my wireless or wired LAN has this protection. The time on the computer is limited and monitored.
3. We have not abdicated authority to our children. They are children, we are the parents. The responsibility for raising them and what they take in is with us, not them.
Re: (Score:2)
We have implemented the following...
1. Limited TV - Rabbit Ears only or pre-selected DVDs. Yes, we say "no" to many programs. When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.
2. ClarkConnect [clarkconnect.com] - proxy, firewall, ad blocker, content filter, anti-virus, spam blocker, for the house. Any connection to my wireless or wired LAN has this protection. The time on the computer is limited and monitored.
3. We have not abdicated authority to our children. They are children, we are the parents. The responsibility for raising them and what they take in is with us, not them.
That all sounds reasonable and mature. More parents should follow most of those guidelines.
However, might you state why you don't want to switch to Digital? It's honest curiosity and not an insult.
It's just a box per TV that costs maybe $30, and from your posts it doesn't sound like you have many TVs. You'll still be on bunny ears and thus limited to CBS/NBS/Fox/CW/etc.
It's one thing if you didn't allow any TV in the first place (I know people that did that) but why go from limited TV to no digital? Unl
Re: (Score:2)
When TV goes digital, oh well - we will not switch.
You do realize that going digital does not mean free cable.. all it means is the same stuff, plus a few extra channels of old stuff.. and you can get the converter box rebate from the government and do it for free.. (almost free, probably need to buy another antennae)
Because we all know... (Score:5, Informative)
Worried About My Kid (Score:2)
I'm not that worried about what my kids (5 years and 16 months) watch because my wife and I supervise them. The oldest knows that he is not to touch the TV (or the remote) without our permission. When he does turn on the TV, he's interested only in watching Noggin, Playhouse Disney (both kids' networks) or sometimes channel 11 (which broadcasts kids shows in the morning here). Actually, it's the younger one I'm worried about. He grabs the remote, presses buttons, and invariably lands on Penthouse, Howar
Objectionable (Score:3, Insightful)
This can only come from the parents. Personally I find FoxNews objectionable as its absolute slanted trash, other parents think its education for their kids. Personally I find the god channels objectionable for their "send money for redemption" pitches and homophobic and other outbursts, other parents find this stuff uplifting and important that their kids should watch.
Kids shouldn't be left in front of the TV with the remote. It really isn't difficult and TV should be a minimum thing, a treat, not the basic right that is in every kids' room.
Pefect Solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship? Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad it doesn't happen in schools or government (Score:3, Interesting)
Things like the gay marriage debate put church and state on a collision course, setting up the state with its own particular belief system even to the persecution of those who want to worship their own way. Far from being able to exercise religious freedoms, those with differing opinions are being labeled hate criminals.
Eh...It's a start, anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it's good to see our government stepping back and saying "enough!" when it comes to being forced into the roll of babysitter, it still encourages the idea that child-rearing should be convenient for the parents. Only now, this would at least place some responsibility on the parents to act when the child is doing something undesirable.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of technology like the "V-Chip". It's one thing to put a child-proof lock on medications or guns, but seriously... a child-proof lock on a TV?
With such technologies getting much more common, I wonder how long until we start seeing "reverse thought crime" laws. (Basically anything that entices a child's thought process to stray outside a parent's preferred baseline.)
Right now, many of pissed off at our government for secretly tracking our everyday activity through all sorts of technological measures. Yet, we're more than happy to use similar measures on our own kids to make things easier for ourselves. In reality, what we're doing is breeding future generations to be tolerant of a world that constantly monitors your every move.
How about instead of using technology as a leash, give the child the chance to choose to make a bad decision and then catch them in the act to scare the shit out of them? Under such a system of continual cat and mouse style games, you're child should either become much more trust-worthy or, at least, much better at deception (if you're going to lie, do it well...). Either path they take will help them adapt to life as they get older.
Re:They're parents (Score:4, Funny)
Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Force them to hand over encryption keys?
Waterboarding?
Obviously these parental powers need to be enshrined in law.
Re:They're parents (Score:5, Funny)
Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Isn't that called grounding? And, considering some kids' reaction to showers, one would think they were being waterboarded ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They're parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...they're making a law where parents can control what their kids watch?
Since when is this new?? Since when did we need a law on this?
Ok, we didn't have the internet out when I grew up, but, we did have TV, and my parents were quite effective WAY back then before laws like this...in censoring what I could watch. First, they were home when I was home in the evenings (imagine this, we actually had a meal called dinner together, and it was home cooked, and yes, my Mom worked too), and they knew what was on the TV. At a young age, I had a bedtime...I remember having to go to bed at 8pm then 9pm when younger.
Even past that, they would say what I could and could not watch. I didn't get my own TV in my room till I was a teenager, and deemed old enough to start making more of my own decisions, etc.
Wow...you know, the more I talk about things like this...it IS truly amazing that people of my generation actually made it to adulthood, what with all the lack of laws like this, electronic parental monitoring, and lack of cell phones. Geez, I won't even get into the fact that we were actually tossed outside to play when the weather was nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is this new?? Since when did we need a law on this?
The voted to do research in how to provide technical solutions to limit access to parent-designated content. As you said, the parents already have the right to say what can be watched.
4 hour ads?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about the ability to block ANY advertisement? If they came out with a chip that could detect and BLOCK any commercial the way a V-Chip can block shows rated TV-MA, I would fully support it.
I don't consumer products based on broadcast advertising anyway. I consume based on word-of-mouth, past experiences with brands, and products having the specs that I desire...