The Future of the kids.us Internet Domain 50
MxReb0 writes "The National Telecommunications and Information Administration will host a half-day forum, entitled 'The kids.us Internet Domain:
Developing a Safe Place on the Internet for Children.' kids.us is a new direction of the www, overseen by the Department of Commerce and now offering registration. The forum will address the current state of the kids.us domain and future content and applications for the space. Will only allowing .kids.us sites be the new direction for a kid-safe internet?"
Well about this.... (Score:1)
Is that why this is a YRO, cause your filtered...
Re:Well about this.... (Score:1, Interesting)
And yes, the idea here is that the registrars would be required to check content on a regular basis, and they could cancel the account of anybody that hosts inappropriate material on the domain, a la what nic.cx did to goatse (which was well within their rights)
All's Well (Score:1)
Re:All's Well (Score:1)
Re:Department of Commerce? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but how exactly is a domain overseen by the Department of Commerce, a taxpayer funded government institution "getting the kids into capitalism"? If anything, this is reinforcing the socialist/communist argument of the state as the great protector and provider.
For the record, I'm an unabashed capitalist. I'd much rather see a private company register the domain and sell access to those who are concerned about such
Re:Department of Commerce? (Score:1)
Re:Department of Commerce? (Score:2)
And there's the best part of unbridaled capitalism, IMO. If you want to control how something is run, buy it. Whether by yourself or with a bunch of like minded people, buy the thing, and manage it the way you see fit. On the other hand, if you don't own something, have no interest in ownin
Filtering (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that the .kids.us thing works out, I think that would be a part of it. It seems to me that the prudent thing to do for filtering companies would be to filter against a blacklist for .kids.us sites, and a whitelist for all other sites. The other option would be to use filtering technology (and a blacklist of course) to filter out normal (non .kids.us) sites, and then allow all .kids.us sites (possibly subject to a blacklist).
Either way, it will be interesting to see the problems this comes across (in sites that shouldn't be there getting there) and if it fails or not.
Please! Please! (Score:3, Funny)
Thank goodness (Score:2, Insightful)
Filtering? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it looks like the sites are hand-picked by someone. I don't trust them to select enough of the right sites to allow kids to make informed decisions about things like religion, politics, etc (and yes, I think kids are capable of making these decisions if we allow it).
Re:Filtering? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we let kids be kids? I don't think (potentially) controversial information needs to be in a kids' domain.
If a kid needs to research something of a more mature nature, they can ask their parent(s) to use the full Internet (and the parent(s) can supervise the use).
That isn't censoring
Re:Filtering? (Score:2)
A kid shouldn't grow up in a physically sterile world, because this prevents them from developing antibodies that keep them healthy in adulthood. In the same way, they shouldn't grow up in a mentally sterile world, because that prevents them from developing thinking skills that l
Re:Filtering? (Score:1)
Re:Filtering? (Score:2)
Re:Filtering? (Score:1)
That would be because the ".kids.us" influence family purchases to the tune of $500 billion/year.
Moral: Don't be fooled by greedybusinesses.kids.us.
Get it quick (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Get it quick (Score:2)
Kids.us domains are $100 per year! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Kids.us domains are $100 per year! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it becomes more clear why the U.S. Dept. of Commerce is backing this: "kids.us" will be shorthand for "kids.advertised.to.by.us.corporations".
$100 is nothing for a company, but it's a bit steep for individuals or even not-for-profit sites.
So we will see "disney.kids.us" and "mattel.barbie.kids.us" and "sugary.breakfast.cereals.kids.us", but not "teach.yourself.origami.kids.us." or even "intractive.math.kids.us".
Eventually, a few non-profit sites will gets grants to set themselves up in the kids.us TLD, as fig-leaf to "prove" it's not purely for corporations.
Then you'll see astro-turfing groups funded by corporations and fronted by "Parents'" and "Christian" organizations agitate to restrict most library and public school machines to the "kids.us" TLD -- and a lot of schools (libraries tend to be a bit more thoughtful) will do this just to make life easier for lazy computer admins and controversy-fearing school system bureaucrats.
And then lazy parents will spend $59.95 on software filters that restrict home browsing to "kids.us".
Pretty soon, many homes and most schools and libraries will be locked down, and kids locked into, an internet that presents only approved corporate beliefs and, of course, massive amounts of advertising -- traditional and "product placement" -- directed at the captive audience of kids.
Then any site that desires to have kids as at audience at all will have to get a "kids.us" domain, and submit to the periodic governmental review of content that entails. Unpopular minority viewpoints will of course not be allowed "kids.us" domains: gays, minority religions, neo-Nazis, sex education, pro-gun, pro-abortion, all will be kept out "for the good of the children".
Even "disturbing" sites, like those with pictures of Nazi atrocities at death camps (not to mention the less terrible but still terrible U.S. atrocities at Abu Ghraib), or those discussing banned books will have to be toned down, made more bland and "life affirming". Just as pornography on the net is regulated by the "community standards" of the most restrictive communities, the Dept. of Commerce will come under pressure to apply Podunk's standards to the entire "kids.us" TLD.
Just as "[f]our members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) called for the rejection of [The Diary of Anne Frank] because it is a "real downer" [forbiddenlibrary.com], school boards in Alabama, Tennessee and rural Pennsylvania will lobby the Dept. of Commerce censors to exclude web sites about Anne Frank or evolution or gay rights or Wicca. A careful blandness and a spurious "balance of opinions" will reign, just as it does in U.S. high school textbooks, the publishers of which must cater to the large and largely conservative Texas State Schoolboard's opinions: "evolution is an unproven theory, and many believe that an Intellgent Designer created mankind".
Since inclusion in the "kids.us" TLD will be voluntary, it will be claimed that government review of content isn't censorship, but sites will learn to self-censor to avoid attracting the government censors' attention. As more and more sites get involved in "kids.us", it will become taken for granted that government review of site content is normal and even good. Sites that don't submit to governmental content review will be marginalized and tainted by association: "if there is nothing bad on that site, how come they won't let the government check for it?" the typical parent or school principal will ask.
Effectively, "kids.us" will become a means for corporations to advertise to children, another place where dissenting opinions are tidied up and swept under the rug "for the children", a vehicle for producing another generation of safely bland and unopinionated consumers.
Re:Kids.us domains are $100 per year! (Score:1)
I don't want to stick my son into a huge vat of kidvertising; thats probably worse than him accidentally seeing pr0n.
Re:Kids.us domains are $100 per year! (Score:2)
I don't understand this. Why would they be lazy parents if they want to restrict their children's computer usage to a safe domain? Do you think children should be browsing porn sites and getting into instant messaging sessions with pedophiles? Or are you a quack that thinks you should be watching over your child's shoulder 24/7 like a net nazi? If you don't let them explore on their own (without a conf
Re:Kids.us domains are $100 per year! (Score:3)
Just remember that 'children' means (typically) 10 and under. This is not *censorship* BTW. It's setting up a domain where anything that would probably be a "G" rating in the movies or shown on Cartoon Network (before 11PM) will be. Gawd, don't be so friggin sensitive.
Lets Make This Look Like it is Successful (Score:2)
must be said... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what I am saying is: this didn't/doesnt work with TV (though that is debatable I guess) and it wont work with the internet. You can't rely on ratings or screenings to do the job of a good parent.
The internet is an amazing thing for kids. It opens them to the whole world, and that can be both a scary and enlightening place. You can learn about anything you want on the internet, and it's even more accessable than a library. Kids should not be quickly banned from this tool. The internet is information, and kids must be exposed to it, BUT kids must have parents to put it in context.
I am very bias of course. I have always been given 100% access to the internet since I was 8. I never looked at pornography (I honestly never felt the need), and although I looked at different hate sites,etc, I only did it to get a view of the other side (I disagree with them, if you need reassuring). Im still rather young, but I can't imagine what my life would be like if my parents didn't let me have unaltered access to the internet. For one, I found a hobby I love, and I am never afraid to learn something new. If someone is discussing something I know nothing about, I simply do some reading on it.
Sorry to be offtopic, but I've had this on my mind for a while. Letting me have access to the internet as a little kid was probably a risky thing for my parents to do, but I grew up (IMO) ethical and more sensitive than most (I still cant stand the site of violence, even though I see it plenty (cant escape it)). I guess I assume if I turned out fine (better in fact!), than most kids will, and that's naive (also elitist, but hell, I'm a member of slashdot
Re:must be said... (Score:2)
He's named contra sutra [wikipedia.org] ("The Kama Sutra is an Indian sacred text on sex") and yet he doesn't look at porn.
Only on Slashdot does it get as nerdy as that.
Re:must be said... (Score:2)
Okay my turn. Your name has 'or' in it so obviously your name is moron since moron also has 'or' in it.
Re:must be said... (Score:1)
Safe place????? (Score:3, Insightful)
There *IS* a difference.
As per beforewisdom (729725)'s sig:
Fast Food: Corporate America in your body
Television: Corporate America in your mind.
Need to add:
kid.us: Corporate America in your spawned ones.
Kids safe until hacked (Score:3, Interesting)
The Atlanta Bee reports today that Kidland, the largest online kids resources website was hacked by two russian crackers and thousands of kids saw the most obscene and female-objectifying porn imaginable for thirty minutes while site adiministrators tried to restore normal service. Unable to do so, they shut the site down. It should be noted that the domain, kidland.kids.us, was specifically designed to provide an area on the internet safe for children.
In other news, Paris Hilton claims she has nothing to do with the release of her adult video "Paris does Paris"
Where this may be interesting (Score:2)
I for one want to see what happens with seach engines directed specifically at kids.us. It should be in
Useful, but not very (Score:3)
This could be useful for parents who want to give their children access to the internet but who don't have time to supervise their surfing too closely (ie. they are in the house and aware of the child's presence in their room which is usually enough to ensure their physical well-being.) They could limit the child to .kids.us domains until they can sit down and supervise surfing directly which is about the only sure-fire way to keep them safe on the 'net at large
However there are sites that kids should have access to but which it may be irresponsible to let them have unrestricted access to. I'm thinking specifically of Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. As a wiki it can never guarantee that all content will be suitable, but as an encyclopedia it could be an invaluable source of learning for kids.
Therefore it's not enough that parents just restrict their kids to .kids.us at all times, but it could be useful to allow the kids more online time when the parents can't supervise too closely.
Thank goodness ... (Score:2)
Re:Thank goodness ... (Score:2)
First the children, then the world! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the desire is to have a self-moralizing population, so that as much as society as possible is on auto-pilot on the proper moral course. There are problems with this desire. The first is the emotional and religious nature, or at least the description, of the problems. This prevents objective analysis of effects of content exposure. (Boobs
Now, there's a lot of research that says that an imbalanced exposure to certain kinds of stimulus, violence for instance, leads to unstable behavior. I've never seen anything concrete that says exposure to such content corrupts; just the natural assessment that too much of anything is a bad thing.
Anyhow, getting back to my original point, the purpose of efforts like this is to form the mental and emotional structure of the generation which will win the battle for morality and indecency. It's not a conspiracy. It's just an emotional desire by a lot of people who've already had such an upbringing, who want to extend it, and have found an outlet for that desire. I consider it insidiously damaging to an enlightened, scientific, [classical] liberal, OR scientific nation, as all four of which the ".us" was founded. That is, the effects are insidious, not the desire or the intentions of those wishing for this.
Personally, I've found that I have a sort of natural morality built into my consciousness. I think it's empathy. It guides my every emotion. Pain, exploitation, deceit, humiliation, they all repel me, probably as I've experienced some very minute facet of them in my life, and I can very clearly read the same feelings in others as if they were my own. I don't hate myself, don't wish to experience that, so I don't wish it on others, so some 9/10ths of all pornography turns me off or does nothing for me. I find empathy, along with reason, to be God's natural gifts to humanity to use to determine morality. Perhaps we took them from the Tree of Knowledge. Either way, I know what's right and wrong, and I've learned to see it in the world through my free exposure to information from an early age. Along with liberty and contextual guidance, a good good prescription of physical touch and affection should give you the greatest and brightest sorts of youth.
Re:First the children, then the world! (Score:2)
Natural morality? That's giving very little credit to your parents.
Re:First the children, then the world! (Score:2)
They have the credit of allowing me free exploration, but they were barely there, and did not provide context. My mother, in fact, was very damaging to my academic career, my emotional development, and social development. I've been able to enact some restitution by neglecting her presence in my life. I occasionally have to put up with some discouragement and "get it over with" advice when she hears about my good grades or desire
How about the other direction? (Score:3, Interesting)
US-centric? (Score:1)
Anybody can register a domain and license subdomains to their customers. What's so different here?
To really make sense, they would have to create a new, regulated top level domain (.kids)
~rL
Re:US-centric? (Score:2)
Regulated to which country's standards? In Europe they have nudity on broadcast TV. In Saudi Arabia they'd cut out your eyes if you looked at a nude woman. No, this is definitely better done on a country-by-country basis. I would assume kids.us will be based on Christian morals since the US is over 77% Christian... they may throw a little Jewish morality in there as well to satisfy them. I wouldn't expect to see
Imagine slashdot.kids.us (Score:1)