I'm posting this here, assuming some of you are interested in the social aspects of online communities. This stuff always is interesting, and I've posted on it from time to time.

This column, from Cory Doctrow, explores trolls and offers some suggestions for dealing with them. It does not go into a whole lot of detail, but did link to this, which I find very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling

Essentially, it's another evolution in moderation technique. So far, we've been in a binary mode where posts are either present or not. Sometimes, in some places, edits are done, but generally nobody likes that idea and it's time consuming.

And to be clear, I'm speaking in general here, not specifically about PDXRadio.com!

This disemvoweling is a new twist on moderation in that it preserves the idea of free speech, yet allows moderators to depreciate words that are not constructive to the community as a whole. With this action comes the stigma of having one's words disemvowled. If it happens often enough, others will then lower their expectations of said contributor, resulting in a more flame retardant community as a whole.

That's it really. Just thought I would share what I consider to be another small evolution in our ability to get along online!

Original column here:

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005

The Informationweek article was a really good read. The observations made therein seem to fit this board to a tee. Specifically, I am thinking about how so many people seem to have to get their two cents in when one of the following applies:
1) popular but controversial religious and political figures are being attacked
2) a discussion is designed to bait a poster or posters who are known to hold a certain type of view
3) several people get into the "comraderie mode" discussed in the Informationweek article, and somebody comes in with a different view and tries to crash the party

When I look at threads that have taken one of these routes, the experience is pretty unsatisfying. Very little is learned by reading this kind of stuff. What is even less satisifying is when a thread dies with a post asking a question. If that question is mine, I am left feeling as if I just let out a big fart and sent everybody scurrying away in disgust!

Aw, the science of infoboards.

Kind of a town meeting with the participants alone behind screen names and a keyboard.

Yes, fascinating subject. So, I will leave this post asking a question, hopefully not a big fart. Do these boards offer substantive discourse, or serve to just isolate and divide? The answer may not be as obvious as we all think.

You didn't fart, Redford...Or at least I can't smell it! I have been pondering the discourse vs. isolation question myself, and although I haven't come up with a final, all-encompassing answer, I have observed some trends:
1) If a board is very general in nature, like this one, the pdx.general newsgroup, etc. then it is likely that a lot of trolls will make their way into the forum.
2) On the other hand, if the subject matter is such that the people on the board feel that they are in a small minority and that there is no way that they could have met people with similar interests without the help of the Internet, then the chances for community building go up. Unfortunately, this is not the same thing as discourse, which I take to be defined as a rational evaluation and comparison of the merits and deficiencies of different viewpoints or ideas.

As a testament to observation #2, I have read that many sexual fetishes were unknown to the psychological community until the Internet became available to the general public and the fetishists started creating Webpages and discussion fora for their respective fetishes.

Number 2 is a significant development and area of study for social scientists of all kinds.

To answer Redford, it depends!

Seriously, what you put in to these things directly relates to what you get out.

From a contributors perspective, this small crowd does present many ways of uncovering information that would otherwise be lost in the noise. It's a rich playground, if one is willing to push and engage to get at it.

This has been my mode and I've learned a ton!

(thanks all for putting up with me --I try to add value, I really do!)

We have had threads here that are profound. That's excellent and worth the while, IMHO. We've also had some recurring themes that are also very valuable in that one has a chance to present on a topic many different ways and actually quantify the results, because the sample size is small and somewhat regular.

It's a real shame the archives were lost for a number of years. Prior to that time, I used to mine them for points and counter points, research the various possibilities and then present them and close the loop on numerous occasions. We will get there again, but some serious conversation has gotta build up before that again becomes viable.

I seriously find this stuff interesting and quite valuable in both personal and professional life. I am not sure I've made that known, so I will now.

(and I expect others to do the same and am quite happy to be aware of it and help if I can)

The matter of isolate and divide really depends on the people in question.

For lurkers, it's all about what they are looking for. There is a lot here actually --more than the average board of this size.

For contributors, it's a mix. There is some isolation in that we fall into patterns, but there is also some serious potential for making change, learning new things and reconsidering what would normally be well tread ground.

An example for me is Ed's idea that we all suffer some degree of faith, no matter if we deal with God, or just prefer a rational and secular mindset. The implications of that simple idea are still playing out in our conversations here.

For me, that's extremely rewarding and valuable. For others, maybe not so much.

All depends on how willing one is to actually engage. Do this a lot and the self is exposed. Things can change and will change and that's worrysome. Don't do it and one could still change others, yet remain somewhat constant.

(IMHO, this is less than honest, but it's reality, so I deal.)

There is another aspect here, I know I am not the only one that appreciates; namely, therapy. Getting some tough stuff out to people you know well, but do not interact with in real life on a regular basis is a lot like dealing with professionals who get paid for the experience.

This can be quite valuable, but must be kept in check or one risks abusing those friendships.

I've had trouble with this in the past. It's something that must be watched if the reward is to be true.

Missing, a very thoughtful summarization. What you are talking about toward the end of your last post is very true, but, as you say, can be dangerous. We all need to be affirmed in our thoughts and words. But in this endeavor, we risk great let-downs at the same time. These highs and lows are not real, just imaginary themes that seem real. I guess these thoughts are a part of human existence, but manifesting themselves in newer technologies that don't rely on real human face to face communication. Isn't this the real danger?

Well, they are as real as you think they are!

I know it's zen, but think about it for a while. There are serious implications that go unnoticed by many.

There is a clear and present danger in not having face to face communications. In particular, the potential for manupulation is extremely high where it would not otherwise be with warm bodies interacting.

With the good comes the bad.

My method for dealing with this is:

-attach ones real name to the posts, or accept a particular persona and live with it

Here I've attached my name to things. Elsewhere, I've stuck with one persona; namely, my own and have dealt from there. That does expose the self, but again, that's not all bad, particularly if what one says and does is defensible.

On that last note, defensible is key.

If you cannot articulate what it is you believe, without labels, then you really haven't thought it out. I learned that core lesson here and it's a very potent one.

If you express true thoughts, and I don't mean literally truth as in absolute truth, but truth in terms of said expressions being your own, then your interactions will have value. Others see this and will generally interact accordingly.

Again, that's exposure of the self and it takes some measure of character and self confidence to pull off. If you feel bad about your self, and do this, it's gonna show and others will react accordingly.

It's our human truth detector going off. We see character far better than we think!

I honestly come here to learn things, and interact with friends. I've gotten to know many of the people here very well. Some of us have met too.

(That is always bizzare, knowing somebody before meeting them in person!)

So, pushing hard on things, expressing things is all up front and honest. I've surrendered nearly all my issues of the self and have no problem showing it. Took a lot of time to get there however.

(years, since the early 90's)

When it ends up bad, given the other things that I've written, it's likely bad! I then reconsider and move on, secure in that I am trying to interact in a real way, not a contrived way.

Interacting in a contrived way is the danger. It's usually easy to spot, but not always. That's where I think it's less than honest and I generally resent others doing it on a consistent basis.

*There is always messing with people. That's different!

Don't know if I helped or hindered, but that's how I see the dangers or non-dangers of online interaction in general.

Just realized something!

Some of us interact, knowing it's real, presenting in a real way, and understand the implications of that. Wade in as deep as you want, but make sure you don't drown. No biggie.

Some of us know it's real, but prefer to not present in a real way, and also understand the implications of that. It's like playing a deadly game, with an ace in the hole. Only the other person could really die. This is the less than honest part that's sometimes very difficult.

These two I covered above.

There is a third:

Some of us don't understand it's real, but present as real, thinking nobody knows. This is the anoymonity of the net playing bad games here. This lack of awareness can have serious consequenses for those involved!

Young people can suffer from this, as they have little life experience to draw from and can often blur the distinction between online life and real life. These things do blur --often more than we know.

That too is a real danger. Probably the worst of dangers.

Interesting discussion, folks. I'm covering the Internet currently in a class I'm teaching to HS students, and for almost all of them these concepts fly right over their heads, though one could say it is one of the most important issues concerning Internet use. Nevertheless, the kids go online, they chat, participate, lurk, surf, etc. and never consider that it is anything more than an enjoyable diversion; although it is clearly much much more.

Missing, I am regularly amazed by the amount of thought and analysis you put into almost every post you make. And though I was at first bowled over by the sheer mass of many of your posts, I realize now that you are simply thinking out loud (if 'out loud' can include the sound of furiously tapping on a keyboard). And frankly, you usually wear me out with your dissection of the issues (not that that is bad...)

Diving deep into a discussion of a topic of merit is very worthwhile, and I have done that a few times here. But to do it right requires time and energy, both of which I have very little of during the school year. Come summer and my schedule lightens up considerably, then I would hope to have the time to participate more often in some of the more meaty discussions.

I have found it helpful to 'lurk' and get a sense of the 'personalities' of the regular contributors. As I have dipped my toe into the waters here, that understanding of the group you are conversing with has been valuable. It really is important to know your group; the discussions here are shaped as much (more?) by the interplay between personalities and perspectives as by any particular contributor or contribution.

(and this is the second time you have mentioned a post of mine that has impacted you - I wish I could remember specifically which of my many profound thoughts you are referring to! Oh, and I have downloaded "Common Sense" off the web, just have to read it now...)

Thanks!

It is thinking out loud. (this is why I do not spell check, syntax / grammar check It ruins the whole thing.) As for the digging deep, it's worth it for those times when somebody says, "hey!" and you learn something. At some point, communicating online, I found that thought and words more or less became one. (this was closely related to being able to actually type, and feeling some passion for the topic at hand.)

Interestingly, allowing the kids to interact via MySpace, evoked many of the same skills! (I nixed that for other reasons however...)

I am convinced it's the latency that does it. There is not only time to think, but also edit! And one knows it's gonna be a while before they get a response, so why not pack it in?

For most, it's tough because we like to interact one little focused point at a time, generally in sequence. In fact, many professional settings require this, and encourage it. (And it sucks.) Better to grab clusters of ideas and themes and interact with those. More gets done per cycle! We are all perfectly capable of this, yet many of us just don't bother...

Anyway, the kids rapidly began handling more thoughts at a time in bigger batches, just as we do here, when it gets really interesting. And it happened for them, when it got interesting.

With IM, this happens in a different way. Typing big batches of stuff is not cool, because it limits interactivity. (and it's known to not be a long time between interactions, and every interaction could be the last, making the whole thing worse!) So, the end result is multi-threading in the conversation. People will type answers to questions they know are coming, or delay responses while they get theirs in, while reading older thoughts posted while they wrote their earlier response. It gets out of sync, but sorts out in the end. Adults, who have not experienced this, have trouble. It boils down to state. Most interactions have one or maybe two states. (digression maybe, or bifurcation) IM could have many states, all in various stages of closure. Bizzare and something kids grok nearly instantly.

This, BTW is a dead on way to clock an adult, trying to present as a kid! They are often clunky because of their learned interaction habits. That and they will often actually punctuate.

If you ever want a class visitor, or just want to share your observations, let me know. I find these interactions very interesting. I believe they are going to have social ramifications we don't yet understand.

I've raised my kids around the net, since the late 90's. Watching them and surfing with them was quite an experience!

Despite what you see, I suspect many of the kids grok the net as being more than a diversion. Take the theory of mind test and bend it a little to examine their actions...

If they present personas, don't they also realize the implications of that? Of course they do, otherwise they would not have any reason to present as anything other than themselves. This then, implies a fairly solid understanding of the net and what interactions are possible, etc...

The net, to them then, is a tool. It can be a venue for play, knowledge, companionship, etc... It's nearly as transparent to them as a phone, or letter might be to us. It may well be some of the harder concepts are just givens, which would make the discussion difficult.

Try personification as a tool to stimulate discussion of the harder concepts. You might be shocked --as I was with my kids. Also try IM'ng with them, or using a message board. You will be very interested in the interaction differences you find in them, vs peers your own age.

crap... another long one.

(right now, BTW, I'm holed up in a hotel room on business travel. So, some programming, some Internet use, etc... )

That thought was simply that our roots are not known to us. You didn't say it that way, but that's how it came out. Was a discussion on religion and the law and our founders. Somebody called anti-god and I went off.

(badly)

At that time, you had just appeared and picked through that discussion, rationally detailing how the core elements --assumptions, on both sides were not known true things.

*Bam*

That made a whole lot of sense and frankly triggered a fair amount of discussion with friends and some reading. The end result of that discussion and thought was that we all must make some core choices period. That's a solid justification for how our founders set this place up, and that's when I cited Paine for context.

Peaked in the "Take the KSKD Faith and Religion Poll" thread, where I put that idea out in a way that would deliver feed back.

Boy did I get it! But I did not get anything anywhere, from anyone, that disproved the idea I put best as shared ignorance. That remains true today. I reason with it, and have gotten farther on some of these rough topics than I did in the past.

And that suggests to me, this is something largely ignored that maybe shouldn't be, but is because it's threatening.

One special type of poster that I have noticed on this board and other radio boards is the professional who steps into a discussion in which people are criticizing some aspect of the industry (like playlists, delivery, availability of formats, engineering issues, etc.) and proceeds to defend the current industry policies. Depending on the person and his/her mood, these defenses can range from being enlightening descriptions of how things work "behind the scenes" to "you don't know what the hell you're talking about" denigration. These people are not trolls in my opinion, although they are often treated as such. For example, if you have followed rec.radio.broadcasting over the years, Rich Wood and David Eduardo are prime examples of this type of person.

What I have never fiugred out conclusively is what motivates these people to post? Why do they care what the people on a message board think about playlists, DJs, audio bandwidth, etc?

Could it be that they wish to transform the message board into a more serious forum with more authoritative content?

Are they doing it to defend their egos?

Do they feel that it is their duty, as good employees, to defend the reputation of their respective employers and industry?

Is it just frustrating to them to see views that they consider wrong-headed and uniformed to be echoed over and over again?

I think it's a little of both.

When the posts are reasoned responses, I'm ok with it. When they extend into the whole, you are just some person and don't know what you are talking about bit, without actually detailing where and how the target of the post has it wrong, I'm generally not ok with those.

---because they don't add value, which is what everybody contributing should be doing.

Adding value can be humor, relationships, information, devils advocate, etc...

Re kids and the wild internet

I'm thinking down the road as old posts and myspace activity return to haunt kids later in life, we will see an upswing of civil behavior. The ones that continue to behave as jerks can easily be ignored because most rational people by then have moved beyond that level of internet dialog.

Ok, my turn to ask a question and kill this thread: So, what can be done to stop these echos? I had my fill of Nixon in 1973, my cup runth over in 2007.

Turn off you computer and TV! Other than that when current affairs are dead ratings wise they will always trudge of past scandals and re-hash it in comparison to some current figurehead. I think things like MySpace and YouTube should be strictly prohibited to minors. Kids are posting things on youtube that could cause them our theirs families problems in the here and now or later on!
My turn to ask a question and kill this thread:
Why is Radio so regulated by the FCC and if some DJ uses a word like Shit in the context of a bodily function and not a swear word that station could be fined bigtime. And then here is the internet....free to post or say whatever the heck you want with no reprocussions. Technically a station could have a seperate program streaming on the internet than the one on the airwaves, one that would have some teeth in it and be very edgy if they wanted to....right? The FCC should not be able to have any say in content of solely internet streaming radio....right? So why is the FCC, the government, so paranoid about radio content and completely uninvloved in internet content?

I don't know Skep.

Frankly, it's just ambigious enough to continue to be viable. The quickest stop appears to be a quick, "nobody cares", followed by a relevant back on topic!

It's not so bad though. Signal to noise is currently pretty good. I've no worries.

Dark: I do not agree at all. Parents are in charge of their minors, not the government. Any means and or methods that will keep minors from seeing something ugly on the Internet will also hobble it for everyone else. That's just not a trade that is worth it, given any parent can just actually engage in parenting and take care of the problem with few worries.

Go back in time to the early 70's. That's when I was young in the way that people today are worried about young people. Think I didn't go check out some porn, read about bombs, electronics, stories of all kinds, etc..? I absolutely did, and so did many of my friends. The parents that mattered kept things in check and generally we all did just fine.

It's no different on the net today. Parenting is different today however and that's a biggie where I'm concerned.

Today, both parents work and kids have more alone time than they did before. They also engage in the tube more too. All up to the parents to fix, not Uncle Sam.

Want to improve on these things?

-redefine your lifestyle such that you can spend more kid time

(this is what we did)

-advocate for a solid middle class where parents have enough to focus on more than just getting their monthly nut paid.

(this will help kids more than just about anything)

Bottom line is always the same. Invest in your kids and you will get results. Don't invest and you will still get results, but they won't be your results!

Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing about the Internet today that warrants such drastic changes. I'm always on top of these matters because I value an open Internet where I can actually do stuff. This comes with a price however.

I paid my dues, parented my kids, did the hard work of educating them and maintaining a trust relationship. I don't want all of that to go to waste, nor do I think we should dumb things down just so people can get out of it either.

After I read your reply I was gonna snap back, counted to ten and then appreciated your post. I have made an investment in my kids and they are pretty solid with a good grasp of right and wrong and I believe they are OK on the net. But in reading between the lines on your reply why not do away with pornography age restrictions at the stores, why limit tobacco purchases to only adults, and sell alcohol to anyone! If we raised our kids good then they won't partake even though they can. Parents should not need assistance there either right?
Let's face it the internet "Sextanet" is the main source for porno these days and that porno can be viewed by anyone, any age. Would you support a .sex domain extension that would require any and all internet porn be placed there with stricter age verification requirements? A .sex extension would then give parents a wildcard tool "*.sex" to block in the computer browser settings. Keep the internet a free information tool but regulate pornography as it is behind the counters of 7-11!
If your 10 year old child was sold porno from a store and found it, you would, or at least I would, take it and that child and go face to face with the person responsible for selloing my child adult material! That store could be sued, the person responsible fired, and insure it would not happen again. How do I do that with an internet website? My god man go to Craigslist of all places and see just how easy it is to view adult adds!
Have a good one!

Although this is not at all related to forum trolls, it is a good discussion. I think that the real issue going on with regulation of Internet activities is that even today, in 2007, many policy makers are either not capable of or don't know how to create policy that would effectively keep children from stumbling on pornography, curtail e-mail SPAM, stop online scammers, etc.

Having said that, I have noticed that despite the "anything goes" theme of the Internet, I don't think that I have ever seen online advertisements from tobacco companies. Of course, there are online merchants who sell discounted tobacco, but I think that one can easily make the argument that these merchants cater to people who are regular tobacco users rather than enticing non-smokers to start smoking because they generally sell cigarettes by the carton. What I am getting at with this is that I think that what has kept tobacco ads off the internet is a taboo against tobacco advertising, rather than any specific legislation. Could this concept be used against other types of Internet activity that is deemed socially reprehensible?

My point is on porn in stores being regulated and controlled by the seller vs the internet were it is freely available. Nobody can hope to monitor their children 24X7X365. All you can do is instill a good values in them and hope they stick. Kid's are curious and will naturally experiment and push the limits of their freedom's. All i'm saying is place porn in a more manageable domain. Right now it is rampant in .com, .net, .ws, etc.etc! It would be so much easier as a parent to block access based on the *.sex extension than having to worry whether of not your virtual web agent is categorizing the sights properly in order for adult/sexually explicit ones to be blocked.

Hey Dark, I totally understand. No worries had you gone off either! This is a touchy one.

It's not a nice place all the time. I'm not for the xxx domains for a whole lot of reasons. The biggie being content discrimination. The second being that porn is going to continue to exist on the standard domains! Not everybody will work on this matter. The demand is too high for it to work otherwise.

As for blocking, any number of free proxies will circumvent most all blocking software. This is now common knowledge to middle schoolers. It's nuts!

Had one of the little buggers try and show off at the house. Caught him with the log. I did go to his parents, who were completely shocked at the idea that their kid was doing this kind of thing. He was shocked too, secure in his assumption that all parents were equally ignorant on these matters.

They also let him have an Internet connection in his own room too. Big mistake. That's gone now, with surfing happening in the family room only, and the modem tucked away in the evening hours.

As a young kid, porn was freely avaliable. Was not that difficult to go dig into somebodys stash and pass the loot around. Happened all the time. Why lie about it. What young 14 year old male is not gonna look?

I'm not sure how this is different from the Internet today. The porn is there, the looking still happens, people still lie to one another about it, and the world still goes around each day.

At my house, I'm not willing to have my Internet account tagged with porn. So, I let the kids know the implications of that and logged the traffic with a Linux box. Only took a coupla transgressions, from the one of my kids who was into that, and it was all over. Busted.

Surf, even once, and the record is there. It's only a matter of when it's discovered. This little guilt goes a LONG ways. I could turn the log off and have no worries today.

That's been quite effective. It's also a PITA.

Frankly, if I thought I could trust regulatory groups to actually do the right thing, I would be for some serious content tagging. We could use the tech for a whole host of other things and likely be better off.

The problem I've got is I know this will absolutely not happen. The kids might end up somewhat safer (doubt it), but adults would then be in for all sorts of fun and games. Single issue groups would be all over this.

Just look at all the mess we have here just defining profanity. I like the European approach far better. Make it fairly permissible and don't worry about the little things. Had a Brit in a conference last week, drop his mike. Uttered "god damn" right there in a business setting! The room grew silent, he then said, "bloody stiffs, lighten up!". That broke the ice and we all moved on.

My point is we would have a very difficult time actually properly tagging porn and it would be an endless discussion that we likely don't need.

I'm also somewhat outside the norm in that I don't have a big problem with porn. It's not my thing, but it's not some horrible mess that's gotta be purged from the planet either. We are people and we find other people interesting --that includes sexual interest. Sucks, but that's who we are as a race. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, particularly when there are far bigger fish to fry.

So, I've handled it that way. My account, my house, my record = no porn on my dime. Want the porn? Go get your own account, own record, own dime and pay for it. That more or less puts it into the wait until you are an adult catagory.

I find it far less of a worry to let the kids know what people think of porn, what kind of impression that can make, and what the implications are in general. Should be a private thing, like other personal acts and that's that.

Knowing the Internet is really a public place makes this all a lot easier.

My kids are cool with that. It's a brutal conversation, but better than the endless battle of filtering, permitting, etc...

All things considered, I still see it as a parenting issue and not a regulatory one.

I really like Alfredo's idea, but I fear it won't work with porn that well. This is because a fair number of adults enjoy porn! This makes a taboo difficult to enforce.

(as an admin for a liberal company or two, the stats prove this out. It's better than 6 in 10 average adult males)

I think this statement makes the most sense:

All you can do is instill a good values in them and hope they stick.

I very strongly agree with this.

Great topic(s) everyone! Lots of bits-n-pieces here that I'd like to chime in on:


DT: "I think things like MySpace and YouTube should be strictly prohibited to minors. Kids are posting things on youtube that could cause them our theirs families problems in the here and now or later on!"

No one picked up on this important point. Most of the discussion has been about content consumption by minors on the Internet, but what about content creation? MySpace and YouTube are perfect examples of the 'net making it easier and easier for all of us to become "broadcasters". Kids in particular love the ability to have this kind of voice. But, they do not have the maturity or the responsibility to manage their content well, and (as pointed out) there are no content regulations on the 'Net. Wait - I take that back. I had one student about three years ago arrested and expelled from school for comments on his MySpace page. What did he do? Threatened the life of President Bush. The Feds are watching...very closely.


DT: "So why is the FCC, the government, so paranoid about radio content and completely uninvloved in internet content?"

The gov't *wants* to be involved in the Internet, and has tried (1997 Telecommunications Act / Communications Decency Act). But most of the traffic on the web is considered private point-to-point communication (like a telephone call), therefore untouchable by regulation. As WiFi becomes more prevalent, I wonder if this interpretation of the internet being unregulatable will hold, since WiFi uses radio waves, part of the "public domain".


Alfredo: "What I am getting at with this is that I think that what has kept tobacco ads off the internet is a taboo against tobacco advertising, rather than any specific legislation."

Perhaps, but I think it's more than that. When cigarette advertising was banned from television in the late '60s cigarette manufacturers were at first panicked that their sales would plummet. Actually their profits soared. How? They already had their customers hooked, smoking was still 'cool' so their own customers were doing a better job of promoting the product than ads were. And, they were saving millions by 'not' advertising on TV! And since all tobacco sellers were equally impacted, there was no competitive disadvantage to not advertising on TV. As you point out, since then the mere idea of selling cigs on TV has become weird, and this may be part of the reason why you see few if any cigarette ads on the 'Net. But if cigarette advertisers wanted to run ads on the internet, they would. So what is stopping them? Partly the stigma you pointed out. Perhaps websites are unwilling to accept cig ads. And maybe cigarette manufacturers are choosing not to advertise in that venue - yet. There could be corporate agreement "not to go there" in order to save all companies involved the cost of that advertising. Because once any cigarette manufacturer starts, all must follow, and there's an expense they aren't ready to assume. Yet.


Missing: "It's not a nice place all the time. I'm not for the xxx domains for a whole lot of reasons. The biggie being content discrimination. The second being that porn is going to continue to exist on the standard domains! Not everybody will work on this matter. The demand is too high for it to work otherwise. etc..."

The big question about children's safety on the Web has no easy answers. In my utopian concept of the world, there are controls for access to porn and other inappropriate materials, much like the person at the counter of the 7-11. Of course, this is simply an adult who is not the parent watching over your kid for you. If we couldn't trust the guy at the 7-11 counter, then it doesn't matter if the law requires proof of age. A big part of the ability to trust any controls that might be instigated on the Net is the ability to trust others to a significant degree.

But this is not the utopian world, but the real world. And I have done essentially the same thing that Missing has with computer access: kept it in the family room, account lockouts, limits on where when and how much the net can be used. The parents are definitely the first line of defense on keeping the internet safe for kids, but they should by no means be the only line of defense.

I had a nice conversaion with my 10 year old daughter te other day. She was curious why we wanted to restrict use of the Internet. I asked her to think about what it would be like if she were allowed to walk around downdown Portland by herself - what would she have to worry about? She gave all the right answers: getting lost, strangers who got 'gross', being attacked. I helped her understand that all those dangers exist on the Internet also. It clarified for her (and me) why it is important to have strong controls and a strong guiding hand for kids on the Internet.

That is absolutely the right conversation.

Ours ended up like driving. I didn't like that one because I don't want licenses for Internet use. I'm gonna use the downtown one from now on. It's like any public commons. You get the good with the bad.

I also think it's very important to shatter the illusion of anonyminity. There is this, where ordinary people are concerned. All good. One can role play, etc... No harm, no foul. But there isn't enough of it to get past breaking the law, unless you want to deal with extremes. (park out of state, near open wireless, upload nasties...)

The idea of an Internet record is good in that things add up and could have an impact, much like their school record does.

Trust resonates too. If there is no solid trust between kid and parent, the kid isn't gonna be doing much. I always come back to that, no matter what the activity. Trust builds at a 1:1 ratio, over time. Distrust, or breaking trust subtracts from that exponentially. My kids groked that quickly and will often come and fess up, or discuss problematic things that happen. For me, this removes the exponent!

I don't like the idea of content regulators like the 7-11 counter guy. Either we have carriers, that honor all content equally, or we don't. If we don't, then we need really solid means of making decisions about said content. Right now, today, the structure required is not there and will be totally and completely abused.

Fix that and I'll step up and support better content controls.

On the MySpace stuff, kids also target other kids and get into serious head games. This is why I nixed it, hi5, zanga, face book and others. It's too much hassle.

Out of my four kids, my two youngest ones like the control. They want to be safe and are perfectly happy offloading that to me. They will come and ask for stuff --anything really, we talk about it, then I make it happen. My oldest two are not in that zone, making trust a constant issue.

I can only imagine the hassle this presents at a school! Kids ability to circumvent is growing rapidly as core network understanding becomes commonplace. Do you guys log them? My school doesn't and depends on a lot of filters that do little good.

They stop obvious porn, etc... but do not stop MySpace, etc...

I think a big part of the content control problem is failure to exercise tolerance and some acceptance of how people are. If porn was to be understood as a valid adult activity (which it really is, despite what any of us may think about it), then controlling it would be easier in that we would not have to worry about single issue groups trying to punish people for viewing it.

The filters at my school are based at the MESD, where our district hubs through (as do I think many east county districts). I know that MySpace is blocked. The American Nazi Party website is also blocked - something I discovered while assembling an internet-based lesson on alternative political parties. I understand the rationale, but it sure watered down my ability to get into some meaty issues with the kids.

> Kids in particular love the ability to have this
> kind of voice [MySpace Profiles & YouTube]. But,
> they do not have the maturity or the
> responsibility to manage their content well....

This is very true, but I think that even adults can fall into this trap. As an example, a few years ago, I made some stupid, unprofessional comments on this board, thinking that the person who was the subject of discussion didn't read the message board. I was wrong! I apologized, but I still feel some guilt over what I did. Moreover, I think that I may have shut myself out of some future job opportunities because of my immature online conduct. I certainly learned a lesson out of that particular episode: Play it safe--assume that your boss, your co-workers, the people interviewing you for your next job, your spouse/significant other, your parents, the sheriff, the IRS, the FCC, etc. are all reading the stuff that you post! Airing out your dirty laundry is not without its consequences.

MySpace concenrs me a bit..

I'm concerned about this connection......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4697671.stm

And this:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/05/myspace_photo_costs_teacher_ed.ht ml

Very interesting thread with thoughtful and insightful discussion.

A bit OT, but, Missing, is your username in reference to the station that preceded R*sie and The Buzz?

I really like what I'm reading here regarding parenting and the Internet. As I've ventured to this side of the board, frankly I'm often appalled at the way some discussions degenerate into name calling and dismissal of opposing positions based only on political perspectives. (Trolling?)

The reasons you have stated for keeping the children's Internet access "public" in the the home are exactly the same reasons given by some very conservative types. I wish others were more into parenting like this instead of just playing with their kids and trying to be their friends all the time. I see it close to home with a relative who doesn't monitor their kids' Internet usage at all and watches inappropriate content with them on Comedy Central.

Earlier someone mentioned all the proxies kids are using to bypass web filtering in schools. I work in a middle school and we're very much aware of that. As a result, we've blocked thousands of proxies. We've blocked so much that I now call it the Internot. I wish we could split our network so that students were on one side and staff on another. That way staff might have a little more "freedom" to use the 'net intelligently or to research as was mentioned above.

As far as MySpace and children having lack of experience when it comes to content generation, we've had kids who've been caught with certain substances and they'll say they've never used them before. But their MySpace page will show them demonstrating quite a bit of experience with said substance. They think no one's looking or that adults are really that stupid.

Missing, I also liked your observations about IMing. So true! IM sessions often get way out of sync, but still somehow make sense.

Don't kill this thread yet!

FM.....
You learn to just ignore said "Trolls" and the banter they create. Once a thread hit's that point I just ignore it no matter who recently posted to it. You missed the "Troll King" whose name I cannot mention as it causes certain posters undo pain and who is currently banned!

BTW...Welcome to the Jungle

Welcome fm87!

(hands standard issue flame suit over)

Yeah, we get into it. Sometimes too often, but here's the deal: If it's not totally real, as in post something and be accountable for it from your peers, the really good discussions won't happen. At least that's my belief. If one can possess that degree of tolerance, so goes the inhibition and the really great discussions follow!

To me, that's been worth it. I can't tell you how much I've learned by interacting with the group here --all of them! Thanks again for all of you, who frequent this place regularly. You all are friends to me. I hope the reverse is true.

Proxies... Subnetting the school network should be no biggie. That, or have a proxy for the staff. IMHO, that should be almost a given. If you can't trust your own peers, the school has bigger problems than some questionable content leaking in among the kiddies! Teachers should also all have their own shared space too. A network drive would do. That way, content necessary for instruction could be easily cached, bookmarked and used by the students in a consistant fashion.

For those classes happening with net access live, cut it off, during lecture, point to the cached content, have discussion, then open it up for research and student contributions.

KSKD does refer to that station. Excellent, and missed fairly huge. Got the playlists though, so I can rebuild it at will --just need time.

(Eugene, if you read this, I need your post address! I've gone and lost it!)

LOL!! @ kids posting crap on MySpace only to get caught. A while back, my wife served some time (volunteered, Ahem...) in an out of control music class. She did this because my oldest daughter was essentially not getting anything out of it.

Was a very eye opening experience! She identified the kingpins, then we took them down, one at a time. MySpace was a part of this! The school is limited in their actions, but we are not! So, we gathered the data, visited the parents and shut them all down. Class went just fine after that.

My wife received death threats from pissed middle schoolers! That's nuts and a clear sign that we've parents who either don't have the time necessary to raise their kids, or don't care, or both. It's the single biggest problem with school today.

IM: Don't 'ya just love the jargon too! Almost another language. I get scared a little, each time I see it creep into a paper, unless it's there as part of a value add to the subject at hand. (story, featuring character texting, for example)

lol, wtf, brb!

Thanks, Missing.

Yes, I remember "Cascade" 105 when it was in Salem before morphing to Q105, Rosie (don't sue!) and then The Buzz after migrating north.

We do have subnets in the schools, but they aren't separated by staff and students. We currently lack enough switches and ports to do that in the classrooms, but it should become a goal. I think it once was. Teachers and students ARE separated with their own areas on the various servers.

There are other ways in which technology is used or abused in the schools. Here we don't allow students to have electronic devices during the school day, but elsewhere? I've heard comments from peers who are somewhat flabbergasted to walk into high schools where testing is going on and there are the kids with cell phones in front of them, listening to their iPods, using PSPs to txt msg across unsecured wireless networks (usually the neighbors')... Does it take a genius to figure out kids txt msg each other with phones??? Has anyone realized cellphones have cameras? And what ARE they listening to on their iPods? Some have recorded test questions and answers knowing their teachers don't grok the technology.

And yes, parents are key, but you also have to realize we have an awful lot of kids who were never taught anything themselves who are now reproducing on their own.

Thanks for the welcome. FM87 comes from when I DJ'd parties, dances and did tapes. After a party at the lake, where FM87 was "broadcast" via synchronized car stereos, we distributed fliers for the fictional Muzik FM ("so low we're off the dial") and then chuckled while watching people trying to find it on their car radios.

Nice!! I simulcast KSKD on the AM band for some period of time. Had a 1/2KW AM transmitter as a late teen! Lots of fun. Did some DJ stuff too, along with doing sound for small bands. Miss those times actually!

Back in my HS days, I owned a Tandy pocket computer. It had a 2K ram. Plenty for notes, formulas, the works... To all, but one fantastic computer teacher, it was just a calculator. He knew better and I had to surrender it, or poke the reset button and list memory contents before doing a test.

Little did the rest of them know... Was possible to program all that would be needed for a physics test into the little bugger, run the numbers, and be done! For other classes, 2K is a lot of notes to jog the memory. Best $100 I ever spent, and I still use the thing, from time to time. Writing a small program to obtain an answer is just dead simple.

Much easier to show work, when one has an absolute check! Didn't hurt me one bit. Perhaps some elementary programming skills, logic (and, or not xor), discrete numbers, and other computer goodies wouldn't be a bad idea either. Problem is we've no really easy devices like this today to apply the skills on. Nothing is both portable and directly programmable in this day of GUIs and dumbed down tech. It will take a picture, but won't help you actually augment your brain, other than for memory. This is good, but not that good.

One other thing about kids, I feel very strongly about, is making sure they develop manual skills. I still regularly ask them to develop papers by hand. We do the edit cycle, old school. They hate it, but it's as effective as it ever was. There is a powerful incentive to get it right, if re-drafting takes all evening!

Tech is pervasive, but still not something one should depend on for core skills.

Manual skills, factoring, estimation, ratio, reasoning (fallacies, etc...), visual representation of data, etc... are all as important as they ever were. I worry sometimes about the lower degree of emphasis I'm seeing on these things, convinced we've not yet struck an ideal balance overall. Perhaps it's just me and my paranoia about tech dependancy and control.

For a long time, I limited them to a word processor with no spell or grammar check as well. Now, that's permitted and it helps, but it helps in the same way it helps us adults. All good.

I had one great teacher that had us do an essay every week. We got 40 minutes to knock it out. He would throw out a topic, sometimes we would grumble, so he would alter it, or go with our mood. Write it, turn it in and get feedback that following monday. He would let some spelling and grammar slip, but wanted the reasoning to be solid. If we wrote something stupid, but wrote it well, we still got a poor grade. Something very smart, but perhaps flawed somewhat got a very solid grade. I still remember the tough questions written in the margin...

When we take car rides, sometimes I'll do thought problems, or have discussions. Things like probability, miles per gallon, what's actually cheaper in the store, what does this word mean exactly, is anything really free, etc...

The grey matter is still the king of tech. Isn't as sexy as all the toys are, but is always there in a pinch!

...kids never taught anything, reproducing on their own. Ugh. Totally true! IMHO, those of us, awake in this regard, really should be reaching out to those that aren't. Takes time, but I don't know how else to break that cycle.

One good thing, that happened more or less by accident, was cultivating an environment where my kids friends come to the house more often than not. Having the computer out and available, in the late 90's, was a big draw. Still is these days, but not so much as it once was.

We've tried to meet every parent. There are a lot of good ones out there, which is great news. However it also means that smaller number of poor ones, or ones too consumed with meeting that monthly nut to matter, cause the majority of the grief.

We need to nail this, or it does little good, I'm afraid. There are no outs, if we really want any of it to matter longer term.

No Parent Left Behind, perhaps?

The "keep government out of my life" crowd, of which I am a staunch member, won't grok this and will fight it... How to differntiate empowerment from regulation, get legislators to play ball and act, is beyond me. Who ever gets that, will make a fricking ton of money!

Same for learning how to learn, vs, learning a bunch of static facts.