4 ms·

I mostly agree with you. (I have 4 kids ages 9, 11, 13, and 23) My Counter-Counterpoint is to first consider the following: (a) most kids are using normal soci

I mostly agree with you. (I have 4 kids ages 9, 11, 13, and 23) My Counter-Counterpoint is to first consider the following: (a) most kids are using normal social networks like Snapchat and Instagram in jr. high school (age 12+ in the US), (b) children see their parents and older kids using social networks and want to emulate them, (c) a lot of parents are either too busy or too lazy to do what you suggest and that's why so many children are handed a device at way too young an age, (d) helicopter parenting makes c. even worse. So, given that, I say this should be built–if, for no other reason, than to encourage responsible and empathetic use of social media. Maybe it has time limits and is purposely non-addictive. Maybe it encourages IRL interactions at the park and helps parents coordinate that. Maybe it detects cruel comments and teaches them why its not ok. Maybe it guides kids through outdoor games and educational activities. I like what you're suggesting but I'm more of the mindset "this is inevitable so i hope someone takes the moral/responsible route with it" Also, a side note for those that don't have kids and aren't aware, a very large swath of elementary school children in the US already have Google accounts through their school or school district. Edit: some words

jansho 9y ago
Why not effective Internet safety education and a bunch of apps that block NSFW, set time limit etc? (An AI bot that hovers in one corner and highlights and teaches not-OK content, maybe ..?) IMO a safe children’s social network is a bit of an oxymoron. You’re never going to make something safe, unless it’s a closed system!
- callmeed 9y ago
  I'm not sure which side (if any) you're arguing. I don't agree with your oxymoron statement. First, social networks aren't inherently unsafe. Plus, I don't think they are "open" or "closed" in a binary sense. Every system–real or online–with humans is going to have bad actors. You just need varying levels of ID, auth, filtering, etc. I wasn't really involved with Club Penguin because I didn't have kids using it during the heyday, but my understanding is that they grew it to be pretty big without any major safety issues [0]. I think this whole notion of "completely closed and safe" is what gave rise to the helicopter parenting I mentioned above. That's not a good thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Never underestimate the persistence of 4chan.[1] 1: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/purple-republicclub-penguin-raids http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/purple-republicclub-pen...
  - jansho 9y ago
    > I'm more of the mindset "this is inevitable so i hope someone takes the moral/responsible route with it" I might have misunderstood but you’re suggesting an actually safe, well-designed social network for kids right? Agreed, systems aren’t open and closed in a binary sense. But social networks only thrive when the channels for self-expression are flexible, available and lots of people are using them. With kids however, safety is No.1 and as long as the channels are open, it’s impossible to safeguard against dodgy content and (worse) users. Really determined people will always find ways to get around a system, and the more ‘open’ the system is (for example private messages and chat functionalities) the higher the risks. That’s what I meant by “oxymoron.” Club Penguin is interesting, because imo it’s an example of a fairly closed social network. Kids can only interact via the available set of responses, like emoticons and coins. (At least that’s what it was like more than five years ago when I watched my younger siblings play.) So there’s no way to type in anything, all profiles are avatar-based and they have pretty fierce moderators. It’s very well designed actually. But to use it as a way to educate kids of social media in general, maybe not, just because the major social networks like Facebook etc are designed too differently (i.e. more open.) That’s why I’m an advocate of internet safety education - because you’re right, it’s impossible to shield them! The only way I can think of implementing a safe social network for kids is within the school itself. Okay you’re with your classmates all the time, but the social network can be more of a democratic educational platform, where kids can access content and discuss topics anytime. In the U.K., there’s a few like that already, though it’s still a bit primitive (Frog I hear is quite buggy.)
SolarNet 9y ago
I think local social networks are the path forward here. Things similar to mastodon - albeit with some specific additions - because they are already local oriented, just prevent children from having any "federated" interactions (e.g. outside the local instance). In addition ways for parents to observe the follow/messaging behavior of their children, and how their messages are federated (e.g. keeping the data private to the local instance unless otherwise approved). This also works well because it means only the local community will be on the app, and children can only interact with locals. And they could theoretically still be allowed to retweet or discuss federated content in a sort of read-only manner; and the content they are allowed to reach could be on a white list decided upon by the intersection of the community via the school (e.g. a conservative list of content the school will choose for educational resources) and parents (e.g. a more liberal list parents will vet for their children).

jansho 9y ago

Why not effective Internet safety education and a bunch of apps that block NSFW, set time limit etc? (An AI bot that hovers in one corner and highlights and teaches not-OK content, maybe ..?) IMO a safe children’s social network is a bit of an oxymoron. You’re never going to make something safe, unless it’s a closed system!

callmeed 9y ago
I'm not sure which side (if any) you're arguing. I don't agree with your oxymoron statement. First, social networks aren't inherently unsafe. Plus, I don't think they are "open" or "closed" in a binary sense. Every system–real or online–with humans is going to have bad actors. You just need varying levels of ID, auth, filtering, etc. I wasn't really involved with Club Penguin because I didn't have kids using it during the heyday, but my understanding is that they grew it to be pretty big without any major safety issues [0]. I think this whole notion of "completely closed and safe" is what gave rise to the helicopter parenting I mentioned above. That's not a good thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety
- kbenson 9y ago
  Never underestimate the persistence of 4chan.[1] 1: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/purple-republicclub-penguin-raids http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/purple-republicclub-pen...
- jansho 9y ago
  > I'm more of the mindset "this is inevitable so i hope someone takes the moral/responsible route with it" I might have misunderstood but you’re suggesting an actually safe, well-designed social network for kids right? Agreed, systems aren’t open and closed in a binary sense. But social networks only thrive when the channels for self-expression are flexible, available and lots of people are using them. With kids however, safety is No.1 and as long as the channels are open, it’s impossible to safeguard against dodgy content and (worse) users. Really determined people will always find ways to get around a system, and the more ‘open’ the system is (for example private messages and chat functionalities) the higher the risks. That’s what I meant by “oxymoron.” Club Penguin is interesting, because imo it’s an example of a fairly closed social network. Kids can only interact via the available set of responses, like emoticons and coins. (At least that’s what it was like more than five years ago when I watched my younger siblings play.) So there’s no way to type in anything, all profiles are avatar-based and they have pretty fierce moderators. It’s very well designed actually. But to use it as a way to educate kids of social media in general, maybe not, just because the major social networks like Facebook etc are designed too differently (i.e. more open.) That’s why I’m an advocate of internet safety education - because you’re right, it’s impossible to shield them! The only way I can think of implementing a safe social network for kids is within the school itself. Okay you’re with your classmates all the time, but the social network can be more of a democratic educational platform, where kids can access content and discuss topics anytime. In the U.K., there’s a few like that already, though it’s still a bit primitive (Frog I hear is quite buggy.)

SolarNet 9y ago

I think local social networks are the path forward here. Things similar to mastodon - albeit with some specific additions - because they are already local oriented, just prevent children from having any "federated" interactions (e.g. outside the local instance). In addition ways for parents to observe the follow/messaging behavior of their children, and how their messages are federated (e.g. keeping the data private to the local instance unless otherwise approved). This also works well because it means only the local community will be on the app, and children can only interact with locals. And they could theoretically still be allowed to retweet or discuss federated content in a sort of read-only manner; and the content they are allowed to reach could be on a white list decided upon by the intersection of the community via the school (e.g. a conservative list of content the school will choose for educational resources) and parents (e.g. a more liberal list parents will vet for their children).