6 ms·

> They’re all children. And like every case of abuse, a child is never at fault. This is accurate, first and foremost before what I say could be interpreted as

> They’re all children. And like every case of abuse, a child is never at fault. This is accurate, first and foremost before what I say could be interpreted as shifting the blame from these perverts. But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all. I think we need to have a serious think about whether it makes sense to expose a child to everything to world has to offer, unguided, before they're much older than 11. There was a lot of optimism about the internet, or more specifically the web I guess, as it developed. But realistically it's not the utopian vision many expected it to become, large parts of it are a cess pool. Back when I was younger the idea that it would aid in education, and make it easy for children to research any topic. Is that truly the case? I'd argue not, misinformation is rife, could any child really be expected to critically examine this stuff unguided? I think we were better with something like encarta to be completely honest. Social media is an abomination, I'm not convinced many adults have the faculties required to use it in a non destructive way. How many of us have parents that seem to be completely radicalised by one Facebook group or another? We know that because they won't shut up about it, so what's it doing to a bunch of kids that don't share what they're reading with their parents? God knows. This is all before we admit that children can be really quite cruel, which gets magnified by them not actually seeing the result of their words/actions. Putting a screen in-between the bullying is a sure fire way to make it much worse. Couple that with the isolation that's felt by this fake 'social connection' and its a recipe for disaster. I really worry about the future if our education systems can't be retooled to teach children critical thinking, and if we don't start to change the way we look at the internet to realise its way more dangerous than we expected it to be.

whatshisface 7y ago
If a bank leaves its vault open to the street and unguarded, it's possible for the the thief and the bank to be simultaneously and fully in the wrong, without the negligence of the bank being somehow compensated for or compensating for the guilt of the thief.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  We don't expect children to be perfect; in fact, we expect that they need to make mistakes to learn from. The bank in your example is beyond negligent, as it provided the opportunistic thief the opportunity to abscond with customers' money the bank exists to protect. In this case, the bank is the parents of children who are obligated to supervise their behavior online, not the children themselves.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Right, the bank is the parents in this analogy. The parents have a duty to protect their children, because they've been entrusted with them.
    - robotron 7y ago
      You have no clue how parenting works.
      - elyobo 7y ago
        I'm a parent and I'm not sure why the idea that parents should protect their children is somehow controversial. In this case it should not be necessary - the world should be a better place, without these sick assholes preying on children. However it is not a better place and so parents need to be aware.
    - arkitaip 7y ago
      Are you a parent? Have you even babysat as an adult?
cmrdporcupine 7y ago
You might have an exaggerated sense of what kind of control parents can have over their children, and an underestimation of how pervasive Internet tech is among preteens. My 12 year daughter, for example, is one of only a few kids in her class that don't have their own phone. And it's been like this for a couple years. Her friends think we're dragons for restricting her and her brother to 1 hour a day. Throughout the school day she is getting access to school iPads for 'free time' where it's open season on YouTube and the like. The ages 11 and up are when parents get a harsh education in just how little 'control' they can (or should?) have over their kids. The best bet is to make sure there's open channels of communication and enough mutual respect that your kids will come to you when confused or upset, and maybe even listen to your advice. Trying to clamp down on them and control their access to the Internet (in an era where most of their peers have almost unfettered access) doesn't encourage that trust. We've learned the hard way.
- bengale 7y ago
  It seems crazy that the school allows that. This is sort of what I mean though, society in general doesn't recognise the danger. No school would just allow strangers into the school to chat with the kids during their free time, or get some flat earth loon in to speak with them, but quite happily expose them to YouTube without supervision.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Lots of schools, though, would allow 12 year olds to read books written by unknown authors or flat earthers. In a world where content is increasingly online, how do you draw the line between protecting preteens from dangerous interactions and preventing them from exploring interesting ideas?
    - shantly 7y ago
      I doubt they'd stock books on Flat Earth in the school library. Maybe it'd get a mention in a book on kookie conspiracy theories alongside Elvis being an alien. There wouldn't be enough material there to get a start then... just keep going indefinitely, like there is on the Web.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Why would an 11 year old be on the internet at all? Homework, from a surprisingly young age, often expects and requires internet use. Personally I would have preferred a reasonable mix of all sources, including using a library, and when and why to choose - the internet often lacks depth, or is wrong, and kids often go through a stage of "it's on the internet, it must be true". I'm not convinced they all get past that, as if they do it's self-learnt. Adults too. Guided use is for younger than 11 as they'll use the net in class and for homework, as well as socially well before high school these days. You'd better have tried to give them the tools and skills to try and judge, be suspicious etc before then. Considering most people really aren't that tech aware, how is a non-tech parent meant to judge when is the right moment? My peer group isn't even slightly representative as there was a heavy presence of router rules, firewalls, non-admin access and so on. None of which is there the moment they hook up to coffee shop or friend's wifi. So, just like walking to school, best you can do is give them the nudges to fend for themselves, and hopefully know when to yell for help or advice from parent or teacher. (Teach would probably be non techie, and not much use either). Then you have peer pressure. It's hard to resist too early smartphone or social media use when your kid is the last in class without, and it's their main form of contact. They don't call round houses or phone like we did in my, pre-internet schooldays. Facebook et al say you shouldn't have an account before 13, but there is precisely no enforcement of that. So what to do? As you say children can be quite cruel, often especially to those who don't conform. We judged the right moment was around 12-13 - high school is when kids get properly cruel. We were amongst the last of the very late adopters as far as we can tell... Critical thinking is one thing that is markedly absent in education, it's far more checking the boxes of giving them a tech education, and schools using "modern stuff", like those mostly pointless interactive whiteboards all the schools got at great expense. No evidence of teaching them to think, to judge, to differentiate between ads and SERPs, or which SERPs might be potentially trustworthy, how to judge a source's credibility, etc, etc. Course critical thinking might have some of them questioning the system... :)
- ldoughty 7y ago
  It's sickening that schools sign agreements that basically let third parties collect data on students... I'm guessing there's a loophole somewhere where that date can be used after they turn 18... When I went back to school for my Master's degree, I had the highest confidentially settings I could set. If I wanted to ask questions on a homework or project, the school required I gave my name, email, and course information, along with the content of my post to Piazza. The argument and agreement was that they can't use my information unless I also am a member on their website outside the context of Piazza... Funny enough, I used LinkedIn... So since I want to use LinkedIn, my school information privacy is violated. I imagine there's a similar goal with high school students. As soon as they turn 18 and claim that on LinkedIn, they can go back and mine their high school and middle school data.
na85 7y ago
>This is accurate, first and foremost before what I say could be interpreted as shifting the blame from these perverts. But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all. You're not shifting the blame so much as directly blaming the victims and their parents.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  I would question why an 11 year old would remain on the internet, if the situation really is that bad. So if there are 11 year olds on the internet for a prolonged amount of time, it seems likely to me the situation is not really that bad.
  - na85 7y ago
    It's almost like human beings who haven't finished brain/mind/social development make irrational decisions.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why? I am not talking about signing up for Instagram. I am talking about staying on Instagram after a flood of sexual harassment, as described in the article.
      - na85 7y ago
        >The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why? You'd have to ask a psychologist, but I'm sure the dopamine hit that comes from all the attention plays a role.
        adventskalender 7y ago
        So the abuse is not actually a "pain" that outweighs the dopamine hits?
agumonkey 7y ago
There's a combinatorial naivety about anything as free form as internet. There will be whatever, good or bad, and everything in between. About child cruelty, I can remember how mean we could be. And how innocent it was at the same time. It's all a game of loud teasing, we were all calling each other names to make everybody laugh; it's just that sometimes some people get too much and sometimes some people already have too much on their plate. I was as much a victim as a perpetrator.
scotty79 7y ago
> But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all. Because she wants to expeirience and learn society where it happens. Internet is main space for human interaction. Asking why 11 year old would be on the internet is like asking why would she be in the mall or on the street or anywhere really except home, school and inside of family car. She should be on the internet and she should be expeiriencing it because that's the only way she can learn to tolerate it and find her way around it. She won't learn it at school or from parents that barely have any clue what's internet outside of their email accounts. When children access internet you need to keep an eye and explain parts of it you yourself do understand. Same as with TV or people in the streets. You can't ban things till children become adults because you are stealing from them opportunity to learn when learning is easiest for them. If they have your support internet won't break them.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  > Internet is main space for human interaction. For an 11 year old, absolutely not. It shouldn't even be the main space for adults. > learn society Calling what happens on the internet "society" is just leading us down the darker path.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    Sorry, but that's the way it is. Internet is the future of human interaction. Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help. Internet is the society. Your family is there. Your fellow villagers are there. Your sages are there. Your support network is there. And your village idiots and villains are there too. You might not like it but that's reality and there's no comming back because internet is the best way of interacting with people thanks to its speed, memory and safety (when compared to any other form of interaction with exactly same people).
    - RandomBacon 7y ago
      > Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help. Sure, it's a tool. That doesn't mean it embodies society. > Internet is the society. Your family is there. No, my family is in their physical community, houses, work places, places they go for recreation, etc. That is society. > internet is the best way of interacting with people That is highly opinionated. And absolutely wrong if interacting with people means being able to talk in person, go somewhere together, shake hands, hug, high five, etc.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
The great boon of the internet is that it allows the small voices to be heard much more loudly. The great bane of the internet is that it allows the crap voices to be heard much more loudly, too.

whatshisface 7y ago

If a bank leaves its vault open to the street and unguarded, it's possible for the the thief and the bank to be simultaneously and fully in the wrong, without the negligence of the bank being somehow compensated for or compensating for the guilt of the thief.

zdragnar 7y ago
We don't expect children to be perfect; in fact, we expect that they need to make mistakes to learn from. The bank in your example is beyond negligent, as it provided the opportunistic thief the opportunity to abscond with customers' money the bank exists to protect. In this case, the bank is the parents of children who are obligated to supervise their behavior online, not the children themselves.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Right, the bank is the parents in this analogy. The parents have a duty to protect their children, because they've been entrusted with them.
  - robotron 7y ago
    You have no clue how parenting works.
    - elyobo 7y ago
      I'm a parent and I'm not sure why the idea that parents should protect their children is somehow controversial. In this case it should not be necessary - the world should be a better place, without these sick assholes preying on children. However it is not a better place and so parents need to be aware.
  - arkitaip 7y ago
    Are you a parent? Have you even babysat as an adult?

cmrdporcupine 7y ago

You might have an exaggerated sense of what kind of control parents can have over their children, and an underestimation of how pervasive Internet tech is among preteens. My 12 year daughter, for example, is one of only a few kids in her class that don't have their own phone. And it's been like this for a couple years. Her friends think we're dragons for restricting her and her brother to 1 hour a day. Throughout the school day she is getting access to school iPads for 'free time' where it's open season on YouTube and the like. The ages 11 and up are when parents get a harsh education in just how little 'control' they can (or should?) have over their kids. The best bet is to make sure there's open channels of communication and enough mutual respect that your kids will come to you when confused or upset, and maybe even listen to your advice. Trying to clamp down on them and control their access to the Internet (in an era where most of their peers have almost unfettered access) doesn't encourage that trust. We've learned the hard way.

bengale 7y ago
It seems crazy that the school allows that. This is sort of what I mean though, society in general doesn't recognise the danger. No school would just allow strangers into the school to chat with the kids during their free time, or get some flat earth loon in to speak with them, but quite happily expose them to YouTube without supervision.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Lots of schools, though, would allow 12 year olds to read books written by unknown authors or flat earthers. In a world where content is increasingly online, how do you draw the line between protecting preteens from dangerous interactions and preventing them from exploring interesting ideas?
  - shantly 7y ago
    I doubt they'd stock books on Flat Earth in the school library. Maybe it'd get a mention in a book on kookie conspiracy theories alongside Elvis being an alien. There wouldn't be enough material there to get a start then... just keep going indefinitely, like there is on the Web.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Why would an 11 year old be on the internet at all? Homework, from a surprisingly young age, often expects and requires internet use. Personally I would have preferred a reasonable mix of all sources, including using a library, and when and why to choose - the internet often lacks depth, or is wrong, and kids often go through a stage of "it's on the internet, it must be true". I'm not convinced they all get past that, as if they do it's self-learnt. Adults too. Guided use is for younger than 11 as they'll use the net in class and for homework, as well as socially well before high school these days. You'd better have tried to give them the tools and skills to try and judge, be suspicious etc before then. Considering most people really aren't that tech aware, how is a non-tech parent meant to judge when is the right moment? My peer group isn't even slightly representative as there was a heavy presence of router rules, firewalls, non-admin access and so on. None of which is there the moment they hook up to coffee shop or friend's wifi. So, just like walking to school, best you can do is give them the nudges to fend for themselves, and hopefully know when to yell for help or advice from parent or teacher. (Teach would probably be non techie, and not much use either). Then you have peer pressure. It's hard to resist too early smartphone or social media use when your kid is the last in class without, and it's their main form of contact. They don't call round houses or phone like we did in my, pre-internet schooldays. Facebook et al say you shouldn't have an account before 13, but there is precisely no enforcement of that. So what to do? As you say children can be quite cruel, often especially to those who don't conform. We judged the right moment was around 12-13 - high school is when kids get properly cruel. We were amongst the last of the very late adopters as far as we can tell... Critical thinking is one thing that is markedly absent in education, it's far more checking the boxes of giving them a tech education, and schools using "modern stuff", like those mostly pointless interactive whiteboards all the schools got at great expense. No evidence of teaching them to think, to judge, to differentiate between ads and SERPs, or which SERPs might be potentially trustworthy, how to judge a source's credibility, etc, etc. Course critical thinking might have some of them questioning the system... :)

ldoughty 7y ago
It's sickening that schools sign agreements that basically let third parties collect data on students... I'm guessing there's a loophole somewhere where that date can be used after they turn 18... When I went back to school for my Master's degree, I had the highest confidentially settings I could set. If I wanted to ask questions on a homework or project, the school required I gave my name, email, and course information, along with the content of my post to Piazza. The argument and agreement was that they can't use my information unless I also am a member on their website outside the context of Piazza... Funny enough, I used LinkedIn... So since I want to use LinkedIn, my school information privacy is violated. I imagine there's a similar goal with high school students. As soon as they turn 18 and claim that on LinkedIn, they can go back and mine their high school and middle school data.

na85 7y ago

>This is accurate, first and foremost before what I say could be interpreted as shifting the blame from these perverts. But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all. You're not shifting the blame so much as directly blaming the victims and their parents.

adventskalender 7y ago
I would question why an 11 year old would remain on the internet, if the situation really is that bad. So if there are 11 year olds on the internet for a prolonged amount of time, it seems likely to me the situation is not really that bad.
- na85 7y ago
  It's almost like human beings who haven't finished brain/mind/social development make irrational decisions.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why? I am not talking about signing up for Instagram. I am talking about staying on Instagram after a flood of sexual harassment, as described in the article.
    - na85 7y ago
      >The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why? You'd have to ask a psychologist, but I'm sure the dopamine hit that comes from all the attention plays a role.
      - adventskalender 7y ago
        So the abuse is not actually a "pain" that outweighs the dopamine hits?

agumonkey 7y ago

There's a combinatorial naivety about anything as free form as internet. There will be whatever, good or bad, and everything in between. About child cruelty, I can remember how mean we could be. And how innocent it was at the same time. It's all a game of loud teasing, we were all calling each other names to make everybody laugh; it's just that sometimes some people get too much and sometimes some people already have too much on their plate. I was as much a victim as a perpetrator.

scotty79 7y ago

> But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all. Because she wants to expeirience and learn society where it happens. Internet is main space for human interaction. Asking why 11 year old would be on the internet is like asking why would she be in the mall or on the street or anywhere really except home, school and inside of family car. She should be on the internet and she should be expeiriencing it because that's the only way she can learn to tolerate it and find her way around it. She won't learn it at school or from parents that barely have any clue what's internet outside of their email accounts. When children access internet you need to keep an eye and explain parts of it you yourself do understand. Same as with TV or people in the streets. You can't ban things till children become adults because you are stealing from them opportunity to learn when learning is easiest for them. If they have your support internet won't break them.

RandomBacon 7y ago
> Internet is main space for human interaction. For an 11 year old, absolutely not. It shouldn't even be the main space for adults. > learn society Calling what happens on the internet "society" is just leading us down the darker path.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Sorry, but that's the way it is. Internet is the future of human interaction. Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help. Internet is the society. Your family is there. Your fellow villagers are there. Your sages are there. Your support network is there. And your village idiots and villains are there too. You might not like it but that's reality and there's no comming back because internet is the best way of interacting with people thanks to its speed, memory and safety (when compared to any other form of interaction with exactly same people).
  - RandomBacon 7y ago
    > Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help. Sure, it's a tool. That doesn't mean it embodies society. > Internet is the society. Your family is there. No, my family is in their physical community, houses, work places, places they go for recreation, etc. That is society. > internet is the best way of interacting with people That is highly opinionated. And absolutely wrong if interacting with people means being able to talk in person, go somewhere together, shake hands, hug, high five, etc.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

The great boon of the internet is that it allows the small voices to be heard much more loudly. The great bane of the internet is that it allows the crap voices to be heard much more loudly, too.