homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.41.242
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Professional Webmaster Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: LifeinAsia & httpwebwitch

Professional Webmaster Business Issues Forum

    
Adult Content- Publishers need to be responsible
Matt Probert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 9:14 am on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yesterday, my nine year old and her eight year old friend wished to research foxes (the animal) on the Internet and so typed in the name of a website they assumed should be about foxes.

The site in question was about "foxy ladies" and was a pornographic erotic site. The front page was worded in terms the children didn't understand and thinking it was an advert, they clicked enter....

I am no prude, I respect the right to publish erotica, but publishers must be responsible to protect against accidental viewing by minors and those who may be offended. It is not good enough to use a front page disclaimer worded in terms children don't understand.

Failure to take more responsibility can only strengthen the censorship argument and lead to erotica being regulated and removed from the web, which is not in the publisher's interests.

Perhaps a front screen which asks the simple question; "How old are you?" and which responds depending upon the answer may protect the young children, while still presenting the usual disclaimers to protect adults.

Matt

 

Habtom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 9:49 am on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Perhaps a front screen which asks the simple question; "How old are you?"

That is a good idea. A little interactive question like you suggested should make the person aware what they are getting into.

I like the idea.

Marshall

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 10:03 am on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Another suggestion is a graphic, probably cartoonish in design (to grab a cihlds attention), that is universally recognized, indicating NOT FOR PERSONS UNDER 18. Something like the Mr Yuk [en.wikipedia.org] stickers poison centers pass out.

Marshall

John_Blake

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 12:09 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

agreed, the wording itself is not enough for preventing kids from seeing stuff they are not supposed to see. There must be some sort of non-offensive image that should be known for describing such content.

Marshall

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 12:25 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe a picture of Congressman Mark Foley [en.wikipedia.org] LOL

Marshall

HarryM

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 1:16 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

a graphic ... indicating NOT FOR PERSONS UNDER 18

Doh... If the internet had existed when I hit puberty, I would be clicking every "warning" image that I could find.

Children need protection, they can't be expected to be their own guardians.

Another point is, why 18? Why not 16 or 21? Customs and legal requirements vary from country to country.

This is a very grey area. How do you define erotica? Not all erotica is porn. Some classical paintings are definitely erotic, but we wouldn't necessarily disapprove of children viewing them.

Matt Probert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 1:27 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is a very grey area. How do you define erotica? Not all erotica is porn. Some classical paintings are definitely erotic, but we wouldn't necessarily disapprove of children viewing them.

A good point. In France, the naked chest of a woman is considered quite normal and acceptable. In Denmark hard core pornography is wildly available. While in Muslim countries bikini-babes are considered offensive and obscene.

When I chose the word "erotica" I was more meaning pornography in the definition widely understood in the UK, I realise this definition will vary from one culture to another. My daughter's issue was in encountering, by accident, pornographic images.

Matt

vincevincevince

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vincevincevince us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 1:32 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

so typed in the name of a website they assumed should be about foxes.

Sounds like someone needs to learn about search engines... typing a domain name in is bypassing the title, snippet and adult filtering facilities which would have forewarned you if you did a search.

Frida

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 1:53 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Recently I read an article about a software that locks the kids in an friendly software environment that protects them and prevents them browsing like mad, but I can not recall the name now. Anybody?

Steerpike

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 11:04 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)


An 8 and 9 year old shouldn't be within 10 feet of the internet without a parent or guardian doing the typing and clicking.

DamonHD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 11:06 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bingo.

As has been said before: if you wouldn't let them explore a city unaccompanied why would you let them explore the Net unaccompanied?

Rgds

Damon

Habtom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 8:50 am on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe a picture of Congressman Mark Foley LOL

Marshall, that was funny.

oddsod

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 10:18 am on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have young kids. It's not the Internet's responsibility to protect them.

And the Internet can't.

It's not just porn. What if I believe that religion is a pernicious influence and don't want them viewing any religious information? Or tatoo sites? Or a lot of the eco-nonsense that spews in vast bellows of invisible smoke polluting the Earth like collective dinosaur methane couldn't? Or that man and man living together is a reflection of the abysmal depths our society is dredging?

There are lot of things on the internet that I don't want them to see. The tools are filtering software and personal monitoring, not one country's regulation based on it's own "moral" standards (and cartoons). I have no objection with a front screen that asks, "How old are you?" I'm against that being a legal requirement.

dragsterboy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 1:51 pm on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Internet is definitely not for young kids. They should have the basic general knowledge in order to comprehend all the stuff that's on the net.

RandomDot

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3449304 posted 7:30 pm on Sep 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's not the publishers fault. It's not the internets fault. It's not the regulations fault. It's not the systems fault. It's actually yours.

You know what's on the internet. You know what's published. You pretty much know what it is. Now, Ask yourself why you then let your children search on the internet without supervision if you don't want them to see what's there, and know what they just might come across - and you don't want them to be exposed to whatever material you find is offensive and too adult for your children.

That's my opinion anyways, take it or leave it - just tired of people blaming everything else but themselves, when they know what can happen.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Professional Webmaster Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved