Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thoughts on Class 4/5/11
Touching more on the freeness of Google and the internet, I feel like there are less safe guards now then there were ten years ago. Take for instance the comment about porn on the youtube page, that person is kind of right when it comes to material on the internet that young teenagers and under should not be seeing. Whether this is porn, vulgar blogs or what have you, I think our ability to file share has made anything and everything free on the internet. It's more than just instant gratification, it's perpetual gratification. Thinking about it,it must be kind of scary for parents. Let's just skip the birds and the bees talk and let them do some research online! They say knowledge is power, but I also think too much of a good thing is not good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A number of people share your concern. Is there a point, though, at which filtering for the sake of children becomes the unjustified censoring of adults?
ReplyDeleteI don't think its possible to filter for the sake of children because they will find a way around it. Yes, there are seemingly solid safe guards such as parental blocks or programs, but if a child wants to access it, and knows how, there is not much to be done, accept removing the computer, but this would be punishing the adult which would make for an interesting situation.
ReplyDeleteKnowing how isn't insignificant.
ReplyDeleteYour point about perpetual gratification in the post is very good. And this applies to everyone, right, not just kids.
It's odd, though, that you associate Google with fewer safeguards than before, even though Google builds safeguards into its algorithm.
Amazing; another case of Blogger eating my longest comment ever.. in summary of what I was just typing forever:
ReplyDelete-A lack of access to all the content Google provides can serve as a safeguard, as well, and I think that's what Abe is referring to here. Easiest metaphor: Abstinence is the best method for preventing pregnancy.
-Kids will have a geek friend in school that will show them how to bypass everything (see: me; hackers always win)
-Compare Google as content provider to a cable/satellite provider. Cable/Satellite channels self-censor, while the provider merely enables pay-walls/password protection for content deemed unsuitable by the individual renting their service. Names and descriptions of pornographic material are generally uncensored, too. Of course, this is a super unclean metaphor since the providers decide which content to provide and which not to, as well. If we ignore this last and glaringly obvious flaw in my argument, note that the consumer chooses which content to censor. But then again, is it a viable option at internet scale?