| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 12:25 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Maybe a picture of Congressman Mark Foley [en.wikipedia.org] LOL
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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?
| 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.
| 11:06 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As has been said before: if you wouldn't let them explore a city unaccompanied why would you let them explore the Net unaccompanied?
| 8:50 am on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe a picture of Congressman Mark Foley LOL |
Marshall, that was funny.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.