4 ms·

The article is a mess, mixing surveillance, filtering and generative AI. In fact, their main argument about potential harm is that filtering makes it hard to f

by GuB-42 3y ago

The article is a mess, mixing surveillance, filtering and generative AI. In fact, their main argument about potential harm is that filtering makes it hard to find information. They also say that surveillance is used to discipline kids (obviously, that's what surveillance is for). And that students are using ChatGPT for their homework (sure but that's another topic). Then they throw in LGBTQ+ and children with disabilities again without much coherence. There are links to other article but none of them are about how school surveillance is harming kids. Where are the studies? The numbers? Overall poor article that doesn't really help its cause.

bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
erulabs 3y ago
Ironic about the other reply to your post - generally studies here are totally dismissed or not required - it’s supposed to be “common sense” when it comes to “the children”. It’s so strange how whenever things are most important we tend to totally throw out scientific rigor. See SF abolishing math with zero studies or the way we construct school buildings with zero architectural appeal or the way schoolbooks are procured. Methodology is a thing for nerds to use to build airplanes - at least that’s the attitude I get when asking other parents / teachers about data to back up their “overhauls”.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It's lack of trust. I too tend to be dismissive by default when it comes to school decisions backed by "studies", because I don't trust an average social science study, I definitely don't trust those that become trendy, and I don't trust school administration to be able to comprehend even a valid study, much less implement it fully in a hostile political and parents/school relationship environment. Hard sciences are easy, soft sciences are difficult. When you follow a bogus physics study and fuck up your airplane design, your mistake will be immediately apparent. When you follow a bogus social sciences study and fuck up the K12 curriculum, your mistake might be apparent after you retire, if it'll ever become apparent at all.
jstarfish 3y ago
Disabled kids makes some sense, but if we're going to excuse such poor judgment then maybe they shouldn't be allowed on the internet in the first place. Give them a copy of Encarta. As for the LGBTQ stuff, it's just histrionics. They never go into detail for a reason; people react to "it causes harm" without evidence all the same. Then you find out it's kids reading gay erotica on AO3 during school ohours. Then the parent is informed and it becomes a traumatic outing. And the "harm" is all the school's fault. "It's not my fault for doing it, it's your fault for snitching."
parentheses 3y ago
Agreed. Surprised this is not top comment. While the subject matter provides so much to explore, the article lazily grows scope to find "arguments" but fails to be clear.

by GuB-42 3y ago

bannedbybros 3y ago

[dead]

erulabs 3y ago

Ironic about the other reply to your post - generally studies here are totally dismissed or not required - it’s supposed to be “common sense” when it comes to “the children”. It’s so strange how whenever things are most important we tend to totally throw out scientific rigor. See SF abolishing math with zero studies or the way we construct school buildings with zero architectural appeal or the way schoolbooks are procured. Methodology is a thing for nerds to use to build airplanes - at least that’s the attitude I get when asking other parents / teachers about data to back up their “overhauls”.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
It's lack of trust. I too tend to be dismissive by default when it comes to school decisions backed by "studies", because I don't trust an average social science study, I definitely don't trust those that become trendy, and I don't trust school administration to be able to comprehend even a valid study, much less implement it fully in a hostile political and parents/school relationship environment. Hard sciences are easy, soft sciences are difficult. When you follow a bogus physics study and fuck up your airplane design, your mistake will be immediately apparent. When you follow a bogus social sciences study and fuck up the K12 curriculum, your mistake might be apparent after you retire, if it'll ever become apparent at all.

jstarfish 3y ago

Disabled kids makes some sense, but if we're going to excuse such poor judgment then maybe they shouldn't be allowed on the internet in the first place. Give them a copy of Encarta. As for the LGBTQ stuff, it's just histrionics. They never go into detail for a reason; people react to "it causes harm" without evidence all the same. Then you find out it's kids reading gay erotica on AO3 during school ohours. Then the parent is informed and it becomes a traumatic outing. And the "harm" is all the school's fault. "It's not my fault for doing it, it's your fault for snitching."

parentheses 3y ago

Agreed. Surprised this is not top comment. While the subject matter provides so much to explore, the article lazily grows scope to find "arguments" but fails to be clear.