Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
from the oh-come-on dept
Adam Singer points us to a silly and vapid op-ed piece from CNN written by Chelsea Clinton (daughter of Bill) and James Steyer (founder, boss of Common Sense Media, an operation that has done some good, but lately is getting the reputation of being anti-internet) entitled is the Internet hurting children? Just the fact that it would lead with such a ridiculous question gives you an idea of how problematic the entire piece is. It's written as if they haven't been aware that such a "debate" has gone on for ages. Take this, for example:We urgently need a public conversation in our country among key stakeholders: parents, educators, technology innovators, policymakers and young people themselves. The dialogue must focus on the ways social media and technology enable our kids to give up their privacy before they fully understand what privacy is and why it's important to all of us. We should also discuss how social media can help empower kids to find their voice, find their purpose and potentially create the next technology revolution.Every few months, we see basically the same announcement from some somber-looking-concerned-person-of-importance who seems to feel they just discovered the internet. Suddenly, this person realizes that, you know what, not everything on the internet is appropriate for children, and then, suddenly, "we need to have a conversation." You know what? That conversation has been going on for ages, and there's tons of great research being done already. Don't ask for a conversation in a silly paternalistic tone. How about you go talk to researchers like Danah Boyd, who has done some really fantastic work in the space that involves (*gasp*!) actually going and talking to kids and seeing how they use the internet, rather than making that concerned pouty face about the need for "a conversation."
All adults know that the teen years are a critical time for identity exploration and experimentation. Yet this important developmental phase can be dramatically twisted when that identity experimentation, however personal and private, appears permanently on one's digital record for all to see.
Even worse, after admitting that they haven't been a part of the ongoing conversation, Clinton and Steyer immediately jump to the "but we need laws!" as the answer. Notice that it's the very first thing they suggest:
We need legislation, educational efforts and norms that reflect 21st-century realities to maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks for our kids. Only then will we be able to give them the safe, healthy childhood and adolescence they deserve.We've gone through this dozens of time. No, the internet is not perfectly safe for kids, but neither is walking down the street. In some cases, you don't let your kids walk down the street alone, but as they get older, you teach them how to have a basic sense of street smarts, and you give them more power. None of that required special "protect the children!" laws. It does seem clear that kids need to learn some "internet street smarts," but that shouldn't require legislation. We've already seen how "protect the children" legislation has backfired in a big bad way.
For example, we already have COPPA, which basically makes it very very very difficult for companies to offer services to kids under 13-years-old. But this artificial barrier means that parents lie to help get their kids online. It's not clear how that "protects" those kids. It doesn't keep them offline, but it does teach them that lying is a good idea.
So rather than rushing to regulate, and acting all "concerned" about children -- most of whom do a pretty good job on their own figuring out how to stay safe -- perhaps we shouldn't just look at the exceptional cases and jump to legislation, but figure out what a reasonable response should be by taking more typical usage into account. You're never going to stop kids from doing stupid things. It's part of growing up. We can certainly help to educate kids, but taking on a totally paternalistic role is bound to backfire.
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: chelsea clinton, children, privacy, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
15 and on Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW my actual age is somewhere in that range, but I was not born on January 1st.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
for the children
We should also print up a big batch of money and transfer it into my bank account... for the children.
Finally, we NEED everyone who disagrees with me to stop speaking up so I have all the power... for the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: for the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: for the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: for the children
Doesn't sound so ridiculous, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the only tool you have is a hammer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Law Hammer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chelsea? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chelsea? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chelsea? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chelsea? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is really hurting the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is really hurting the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
I didn't say I was a majority stakeholder - I'm not - but please don't dismiss the issues faced by those in professions that interact with kids and the internet.
By the same token, I'd argue that anyone who posts anything online is a small bit of a stakeholder in this, because any outcome going beyond a simple conversation between parent and child could easily impact them. Take voluntary isp filters, for example, or filters offered by private companies. Who gets on the filter and in what capacity could become a major issue. Additionally, companies that serve minors online, with email/music/games/educational content/whatever, have a stake in the process of stripping COPPA of its ridiculous hoops and limitations.
The real situation is unfortunately messier than your admittedly appealing framework suggests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
However, I do believe that if a filter is going on the market publicly, a public discussion about how the filter works and what goes into it can only be helpful for parents. It also allows others affected by filters to add in their own notes on what their content actually is. Overall, this is why I prefer market-based filters instead of government-mandated ones, not least because they're always opt-in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
I am in no way trying to minimize your role. You are probably a good teacher, as most of may children's teacher have been. But there have been a few that have to be reminded of their actual role. And it really makes me angry when I read this "it takes a village" nonsense.
My daughter says that only four out of her seven teachers actually teach. Some show videos, and others just assign reading from the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is really hurting the children?
To address your point at the end, there is a large subset of students who believe that only lecturing is teaching. I don't happen to subscribe to that theory. If I play a video on the subject, I expect students to pay as close attention to what's in the video as they would if I were saying it myself. I'm only not saying it myself because many studies have shown that images have a far greater impact on memory than audio alone. As for bookwork, I give that too when necessary, either as homework that provides basic facts for the next day's lesson or as a type of "scavenger hunt" to provide context for a debate on a topic.
I certainly think there are teachers who are more direct and less direct, and those who are better or not as good at their jobs or at connecting with a particular student. Methods themselves don't always prove the point either way, and the class sizes in some states don't allow for much direct teacher-to-student connection. (My sister just left a high school where the average class size in all but the AP classes was 38.) In short, there are lots of factors, and I can't really judge based on two sentences without context. Your daughter probably has additional reasons for concern beyond the methods themselves, even if I'm unaware of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When kids get sexually interested, we call them teenagers, and they will find material about sex. I snuck my mother's romance novels, and those were pretty steamy. (I can still only remember the sex scenes in "Clan of the Cave Bear". I'm told I'm not missing much.) Other teenagers found an older person's porn stash or bought magazines. In today's world, teenagers do have easier access to porn, but difficulty of access or threat of discovery didn't stop earlier generations.
Also, I have yet to see a study that clearly connects access to porn with earlier, more frequent, or more risky sexual behavior in teens. If you've seen such a study, please point me to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We all know that before the internet, there was no teenage sex, bullying, porn, rape, or any other bad thing. Just listen to the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's children must be the happiest, healthiest, most well adjusted in the history of man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For parents, I suggest making a list of things your child should never say online and drill it into them until they feel uncomfortable even reminding their bff of their mailing address over email. If you really want to make them safe, I mean. And don't sweat the badly drawn cartoon porn. Focus on safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This can be seen in the anthropogenic climate issue, fast and furious, the list go on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the simple answer to a headline like that is, "No," then I don't see why the rest of the article should be written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is
a) already in process or enacted in some places (e.g., Maryland)
b) but it won't help.
Thanks to entirely porous "security" at social networks, meager-to-nonexistent protections against insider attacks and data exfiltration, and the soon-to-come mandatory back doors, it's a near-certainty that every scrap of data held by every social network will -- sooner or later -- be for sale on the open market.
It will be purchased in bulk by brokers who will turn it over to skilled programmers capable of de-anonymizing it (if necessary/desirable) and of correlating multiple collections with each other to produce more enriched databases. These in turn will be combined with other data sources (e.g., CarrierIQ, Euclid, etc.) further enriching the result. The final product will be sanitized and marketed as a service to employers seeking to screen employees. This will provide not only all the information they could possibly want, but it will come with a handy dose of plausible deniability for all involved.
They won't need to log on to anybody's account.
p.s. Danah Boyd does excellent work. She's so good that she's making me reconsider my long-held position that Microsoft should be burned to the ground, sown with salt, covered in toxic waste and nuked from orbit. Really, though, go read her work. All of it. It's absolutely worth the investment of your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After that is done, then we can get started shutting down the internet to protect the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't forget about other kids too. They can be soooo mean sometimes.
We wouldn't want little Johnny's delicate psyche to suffer any damage before it can be properly crushed by the school of hard knocks when he reaches adulthood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All adults know that the teen years are a critical time for identity exploration the growth of faith. Yet this important developmental phase can be dramatically twisted when obscene music, however melodic, alters one's peceptions to love and its physical expressions for life.
I close my eyes and I can smell the 50s. Oddly it's like TV dinners and irrational social repression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What else would you expect from Chelsea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, I'm just kidding. I think Chelsea is all right, and generally fairly sharp, but this is a pretty ignorant position for her to hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we need to protect the children too. From organized religion.
We urgently need a public conversation in our country among key stakeholders: people of faith, believers in science, and young people themselves. This dialogue should focus on the benefits of organized religion. But it should also recognize that the influence of organized religion has been linked bigotry, hatred, racism, and discrimination, in several well-documented cases, crusades, jihads, and terrorism.
We need legislation, educational efforts and norms that reflect 21st-century realities to maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks for our kids from organized religion.
Oh, you don't like that? You attend a Methodist church?
Well, then, how about you protect your children from what you think children need to be protected from, and I'll protect my children from what I think children need to be protected from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can not have children forming their own opinion
Once upon a time the US was a beacon of freedom - now it isn't, heck China seems to be freer than the US these days... That is a SAD state of affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Power for Coercive Government?
Then they will push for a law.
This is why there's always so much government backing over environmental issues and "saving the children". Will it give the people calling themselves government more power? Then the government people are behind it 110%...using the money they stole from you to take away ever more of the freedom you have left.
I believe Tacitus said it best:
"The more corrupt the State, the more it legislates."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CPS Approves 3-year-old on Psychotropic Risperdal, antipsychotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?!
Protect the children? Chelsea Clinton? How about "Protect the Interns?"
The politicians really need to come up with some new battle cries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a better idea.
If I'm not mistaken, we adults outnumber the "Children" at least 8 to 1.
Let's kick 'em off the frikkin' internet and tell them to go do their god-damned homework and -then- clean that pig sty of a room!
And...if they get that done, reward them with a nice bedtime story about the four Piggy-Bears, Bill, Hillary, Monica and little Chelsea. Oh! And tonight's chapter is "The Attack of the Sloppy Cigar Monster"..
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Formula
Connect with Kids and give them a Reason to Learn.
This involves something strange to some parents (who are quick to join the PTA groups in protest of Internet sites but slow to actually talk with their children), you have to talk with them, respect them (rather than demand it, show how to respect, from toddler forward, from privacy to admitting when you are wrong), and most of all, listen to them.
Instead of preaching, just listen.
This can be applied to adults too. It's amazing how far you get when you don't simply dictate and disrespect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they should think before they speak
As for the rest, why not let the parents decide what their children need protection from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe they should think before they speak
Their excuses are likely: no time, no energy, too much work, kids these days, etc...
Many "parents" plop the kid infront of the TV to keep them occupied instead of spending a little quality time with them. It can help the parent relax if they really try (see Tiger Mother - her real trick wasn't being strict, it was spending time with her daughter while she practiced or did homework) to focus on helping their kids.
And also many "parents" should stop relying on the education system to raise their children, that's their job not the job of the teachers. The teachers are to teach math, language, history, science, etc... the parents are to teach LIFE skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe they should think before they speak
VERY WELL PUT, SIR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is safe too safe?
Not the same article I read but very similar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/science/19tierney.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is safe too safe?
Just like the BS that every child is a winner, there are no losers is feeding the sense of entitlement that most kids today have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a trick... the government wants your childrens data
Chelsea's just being a good spokesperson for the Man... She's gently pushing us toward legislation that will require all internet activity by minors to be recorded by the government...
Just wait and see .... mwahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a trick... the government wants your childrens data
Chelsea's just being a good spokesperson for the Man... She's gently pushing us toward legislation that will require all internet activity by minors to be recorded by the government...
Just wait and see .... mwahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darwin is correct
As far as I am concerned, if any other child is too stupid to figure out that they, too, should actively defend their own privacy, then they deserve to lose it, plain and simple. Survival of the non-dumbest, I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Darwin is correct
*Assessed age as teenager for being young enough to have a laptop at age four but older than nine by enough to have changed connection service at least once (hence stating first there). If this is an underestimate, then replace your education with correcting you. If this is an overestimate, than I will have to assign more weight to your grammar argument in light of the demonstration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said I would kill to be young again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the desire to have something and yet to forbid it
But of course this would clash with the other thing that all lawyers and lawmakers want: the ability to trace other people and find out what they've been up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we should worry more about how people act in person and less about the silly crap that they post online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As stated on "Saturday Night Live"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QUICK FACT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]