Technology Moral Panics: But Think Of The Children!
from the everyone-panic dept
Recently I wrote about a dreadful article in USA Today hyping up the "oh-no-think-of-the-children problem" of predators using console games to seek out kids. This followed similarly bogus news articles hyping up the threats of predators on social networks. Yet, all the "panic" raised by those articles has politicians practically shoving each other aside to introduce legislation against those social networks, or just various Attorneys General threatening those social networks without any evidence that there's a significant problem, other than a few totally hyped up news articles.It turns out that a PhD Candidate at NYU, Alice Marwick has recently published a paper discussing exactly this type of "moral panic," focusing on the situation in 1996 in which Time Magazine famously published a scare mongering article about porn online, now known as the Rimm Report. Sean Garret, who pointed me to Marwick's paper has a good analysis of the Rimm Report's ripple effects as well (as does Adam Thierer). Basically, the report, which claimed that 83.5% of images online were porn was based on ridiculously faulty premises and research. It was almost entirely wrong.
And while Time Magazine came out of it looking bad, it didn't stop politicians from using the "moral panic" created by the article to push through the Communications Decency Act -- which after many years of wasted taxpayer money was eventually declared unconstitutional. What's scary though, is how this process works: newspaper basically overhypes a non-story into a "big scary trend" and almost immediately politicians start pushing for questionable "save the children!" legislation:
This paper is about moral panics over contemporary technology, which I call "technopanics." I use two examples, the cyberporn panic of 1996 and the contemporary panic over online predators and MySpace, to demonstrate the links between media coverage and content legislation. In both cases, Internet content legislation is directly linked to media–fueled moral panics that concern uses of technology deemed harmful to children. This is of particular interest right now as a new Internet content bill, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), is being debated in Congress. The technopanic over "online predators" is remarkably similar to the cyberporn panic; both are fueled by media coverage, both rely on the idea of harm to children as the justification for Internet content restriction, and both have resulted in carefully crafted legislation to circumvent First Amendment concerns. While both panics have their roots in legitimate concerns, I am not primarily concerned with the extent of the purported harms. However, my research demonstrates that the legislation proposed (or passed) to curb these problems is an extraordinary response; it is misguided and in many cases masks the underlying problem.The paper goes on to rip apart the media in blowing up these technopanics, often using outright incorrect or made up data, such as the idea that "50,000 sexual predators are online at any given time," a favorite of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The problem is that this number was made up out of nowhere. In tracking down where the number came from, the sources basically admit they pulled it out of thin air, with one saying that the number 50,000 is a:
"Goldilocks" figure -- "Not small and not large." He added that it was the same figure that was used by the media to describe the number of people killed annually by Satanic cults in the 1980s, and before that was cited as the number of children abducted by strangers each year in the 1970s.But that didn't stop Dateline NBC from using it repeatedly -- leading to politicians claiming it was fact. Marwick systematically goes through the various stats like this one used by politicians and destroys each one as being false or misleading. But, of course, neither the press, which popularized them, nor the politicians using them to push through legislation, are interested in the truth. They want sensationalism, because that helps both of them.
The paper concludes that this new law, DOPA, is targeting exactly the wrong thing (i.e., not the actual problem) and is merely a response to yet another moral panic that is likely to die out as people realize it's not as big a deal as the press and politicians are making it out to be. In the short term, though, passing the law could be quite harmful. Beyond wasting millions in taxpayer dollars (like the CDA and COPA did), it could make it more difficult for kids to use social networks and certain web services for beneficial purposes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alice marwick, cyberporn, moral panic, predators, techpanic, think of the children
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PS. sry to drag this in here, but im sure im not the only one who thought of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology Moral Panics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, but....
Let's not confuse statistical assumptions with actual statistics.
If 50,000 people are harmed or hilled by a gun in the US eveyr year I'm inclined to place considerably more accuracy on that number than I am the "50,000" online predators lurking on MySpace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child predators
In actualilty....A child is more likely to be sexually molested/abused from their own mother than a stranger, yet alone a stranger they met in an internet chat room.
This all goes back to trying to stop stupid people from breeding. /sigh a hopeless cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Predators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predators
Maybe its because they are complete dorks or so socially inept that they can't get dates with adults so they go after kids. That must be why you all defend each other.
Criticizing someone for name calling only works if it doesn't make you a hypocrite. Your initial post was overly insulting, made absolutely no valid points, and was simply an uninformed opinion.
Debate involves backing up your statements with reasoning. Since you have completely failed to provide any, you are in no position to criticize on that front either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predators
Translation: I'm going to start my comment by attempting to insult the perceived audience of techdirt, primarily because I don't have any actual evidence or rationale for my point.
if our government doesn't start protcting the innocent, some of us might just need to use those guns!!!!!!!
And this demonstrates the problem: the media over exaggerates the problem, which in turn inspires a misinformed public to demand that the government work to "protect the innocent", ie. children. The government responds by passing vaguely worded laws that not only fail in their goal of protecting children, but also unfairly abridge freedom of speech, which is why COPA was declared unconstitutional.
The other problem created is that a small portion of the public that has been convinced by the media will irrationally attack anyone pointing out the problems involved with these so-called protection laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate children
On a serious note, I do believe we need to stop internet predators. But the more effort should come from parents and technology companies should not be unreasonably harassed. Parents "must" control what their children watch and the time they spend on internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate children
It's meeting in person that makes it dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep Your Family Safe!
It's irresponsible journalism, but it sells magazines - and commercial time on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Panic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect the Innocents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moral panics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Panics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Panics
I'm not saying I believe that conspiracy theory, I'm just saying I'm wonder if they're smart enough to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://facilprogramacion.es/simpsons/images/helen.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Law Sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
50,000 example
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1238156020080713?feedType=RSS&feedName=topN ews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 50,000 example
Kind of like how "The combined company will save $5 Billion in operational costs" People think again "Wow, that's a big number" Then two years later another press release saying "10% of the workforce is laid off". Nice! 3,000 people out of work, on corporate welfare (called "Unemployment") and then government welfare. That's a big number!
Because people like big numbers, maybe it's time to wake up that some top executives are making 700x the pay of an average employee. CEOs making be paid equal to 700 of you. How do they do it? In China for example, they may be able to afford to hire 30-50 (or even more) people on your salary. Yes, when you can be replaced for an army, it's no wonder!
I'm just waiting for the China-made Fords to show up at our ports to proclaim once and for all 'Greed Won'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 50,000 example
Yes, Greed is killing this nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Panic
----H.L. Mencken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My take on the media hype fears are this. Most people don't actually panic every time the news comes on. Most people don't care about whatever new craze is sweeping the nation. The news however, will find and highlight two maybe three people that will give an interview saying how awful this new revelation is. The politicians rush in to take advantage of this new hyper sensationalized phobia and pass whatever they can to help themselves in its name. We are led to believe that the mass public falls for this. I am willing to be that most of them don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No chance against emotion
I wouldn't be surprised if the real media reported a story just like the one in "South Park". What will parents do if the media starts saying that parents are bad for kids? Will legislators create new rules "to protect the children" from their own parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No chance against emotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No chance against emotion
Yes, and look at what happens with that emotional response. We get poorly conceived arguments such as yours that advocate the creation of "protect the children" laws that do anything but their stated goal. And when this is pointed out, you respond with insults instead of reasoning.
If you morons believe that kids are not being victimized due to lack of government responsiblity through tougher sentences and better regulation
Sorry, but parental responsibility trumps governmental responsibility. Throwing your kid on a computer so you don't have to deal with them is bad parenting, and passing laws that allow those parents shirk responsibility and claim is wrong.
look at the damage and havoc wreaked on the most innocent of our society by the most useless
As you previously stated, you seem to be pushing the idea that most online predators are the "techie nerdy" types, while providing no real basis for this argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No chance against emotion
Sorry, but parental responsibility trumps governmental responsibility. Throwing your kid in front of a computer so you don't have to deal with them is bad parenting, and passing laws that allow those parents to shirk responsibility is wrong.
Having parents actively monitoring internet use, educating their kids, and making and enforcing rules for internet use will accomplish more than any "child protection" law. Unfortunately, there are too many parents willing to plead powerlessness when it comes to raising their kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just realized...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just realized...
For lunch, it's not uncommon for me to attack the CheeseWiz guy as he stocks the shelves at my local grocery store. Again, eat it with a diet coke. You got to have the Diet Coke!!! It cancels out the calories-- I saw that on a report on NBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just realized...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I just realized...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't someone please think of the children
There are people out there that rape adults. Teaching our children to protect themselves now will help them protect themselves in the future.
The government needs to go after the people that are doing this not the tools they use. Parents need to teach their children to protect themselves from those that slip threw, and that is happening a lot since the government is going after social networking sites and video game consoles.
Won't someone please think of the children's future. There I put two big issues into one sentence, the children and the future.
@Ruffzan. Blaming techs for child molesting? Have you ever payed attention to anything? All I see are old fat guys who barely know how a computer works. People like politicians, ex-jocks who are past their prime, overly weird musicians, priests.
The overly introvert, D&D playing tech is just an outdated stereotype. It's not valid in this day and age.
I'm not going to call you a retard, that would be an insult to the mentally handicapped. I will call you what you are. A person who's outdated way of thinking is holding back society. Catch up with the times or get the hell out of our way.
Sorry to the other TechDirt readers. I am just so sick of prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I rather skip the coffee, it's making me panicky
Yup, I remember a truism that the more statistics, the more leaky the argument...
If you want to protect children from these "predators"...Why not fund law enforcement agencies, better pay and equipment ;)
And please...I remember another truism: "You can never legislate morality..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invoking Godwin's Law
We all know what resulted from that. It is my opinion that when the "think of the children!" argument is trotted out, people should be reminded what atrocities have already been committed to that refrain.
We should leave parenting to the parents, and kick the politicos out of our daily lives, along with the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet predators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]