Why Do Copyright Maximalists Think That Lame 'Education' Campaigns Will Brainwash Children?

from the doesn't-make-any-sense dept

It happens at least once a year: some major copyright maximalist organization comes out with some sort of "copyright education campaign" targeted at children. These programs are always high on propaganda and short on facts. They rarely include full or clear explanations of things like fair use, or the true intention of copyright (benefiting the public). The latest such attempt is happening in France, where three-strikes agency Hadopi is proposing a propaganda campaign at a big kids' event called "Kidexpo." Numerama, who got its hands on some details of the plan, explained that the goal is to "raise awareness" of issues related to copyright and creativity.

But, here's the thing: all of these programs seem to assume, falsely, that kids are complete idiots who can have basic common sense brainwashed out of them. That's not the case. As we've seen for the better part of a decade, kids who attend these "sessions" know a lot better than the people teaching them just how ridiculous they come off, and don't take them very seriously. No matter how many times this strategy fails, however, some clueless adult decides that kids can be brainwashed if they just try again. It's even better when they include silly mascots.

While it's amusing sometimes to watch the maximalists flail around like this, you have to wonder if they'll ever recognize that kids aren't stupid, and pushing obvious propaganda to them doesn't make them unable to understand how technology works.

Filed Under: awareness, children, copyright maximalists, education, propaganda

Sherry Turkle Says Younger Kids Can't Handle Facebook Because Teens Fret About Looking Cool Online

from the oh-the-unprecedented-horror! dept

There have been many different definitions of "childhood" in history. Often, it meant "a series of fevered illnesses preceding a constant fight for survival," or if you were lucky, "a brief period of unpaid labor in preparation for a life of poorly-paid labor." The nominal modern notion of an extended formative stage of life, and the fact that it's actually possible for some people, seems like quite the accomplishment in that light—but it's noteworthy that, on the whole, every generation of children has managed to muddle through somehow, adjusting society's norms and standards as it goes. And the culmination of all that change is modern humanity: still far from perfect, but no more or less fundamentally flawed or fundamentally gifted than we ever were.

So how likely is it that Facebook is going to be the thing that finally ruins children forever? Well, according to Sherry Turkle in a recent interview with TechCrunch's Greg Ferenstein, it's a very serious concern—so serious, in fact, that she can talk about it for almost fifteen minutes without really saying anything (watch the full video below).

Now, I wouldn't wish her non-specific wrath on anyone, but Mark Zuckerberg must have known he'd be getting a dose of Turkle-talk when the news broke that Facebook is considering new access systems for kids under 13, who are currently technically banned by the rules. Never mind that nearly 40% of 10- to 12-year-olds are already on Facebook, often with the knowledge and support of their parents—in fact, apparently Facebook should be working to correct that errant behavior, not recognize and accommodate it. Why? As Turkle so eloquently puts it, "what Facebook does is it forces you to have a Facebook profile."

Indeed. And according to her, kids just can't handle that. This is apparently based on her conversations with kids over 13, who report getting stressed out about the identity they present online:

This is something that's difficult enough for high school kids. Should I say I like Harry Potter because that'll show that I'm cool, does that show like I have a childlike side and that's cool, or is that too nerdy, or...? Just agonizing over decisions like this.

Yes, you read that right: teenagers are worrying about how to look cool. It's shocking, I know. Turkle thinks that this pressure is now greater than ever because kids have a central online identity, which makes them less able to experiment with different ways of defining themselves—and that they will later be haunted by digital records of their past. There's some truth to that notion, but it's hard to see it as much of a problem—we're talking about broad, shifting trends in the way people communicate, and such trends are the progenitors of societal norms, not slaves to them. If, in 20 years, there is no such thing as a political candidate without an embarrassing photo lurking online, then we can fairly assume society will not be so excitable about such photos; if, when today's nine-year-olds enter the workforce, they all have to 'fess up to that [insert silly subculture] phase they went through in high-school, it's not going to cripple them all emotionally—it's going to foster an environment where people are less embarrassed and judgmental about such things.

As for having this start a few years earlier, it's still hard to see the problem—especially when so many kids are already doing it. Obviously nine-year-olds shouldn't be completely unsupervised on Facebook, nor should they use it without some guidance and advice from their parents—but there aren't really many things that nine-year-olds should do completely independently anyway. Plus, part of Facebook's whole plan for new children's access is to provide better parental controls and simpler, more emphasized privacy settings—so all those young kids who are already using Facebook can hopefully do so more responsibly. Will there, as Turkle fears, be some parents who are overactive in defining their child's online identity, making personal decisions for them and living through them? Probably—and that might be concerning if it was a new issue, and not one of the oldest and best-known tropes in the parenting-mistake canon.

But then there's Turkle's corollary fear, which is that kids aren't learning human interaction:

At that age anything that takes time away from what you learn face-to-face, the skills of negotiation and being attentive to tone and the delicate kinds of things that you learn when you're with kids and you're with your friends and horsing around and really learning how to be a friend face-to-face and the messiness and complexity of human relationships, that's not good. This is a time when kids need to be encouraged in every way to spend that time face to face, and even suggesting that Facebook is something they might want to do just presents the wrong signals.

Maybe Turkle is unaware, but for most of us, online social skills are now really, really important too. There are unwritten rules and codes of etiquette, and hard-to-define skills of empathy and intuition, in the digital world as well—and online etiquette is only going to be more nuanced and complex when today's kids are all grown up. Facebook and other online communication is now a pretty big part of the "messiness and complexity of human relationships", and keeping kids away from it is definitely not going to alleviate social confusion. It also seems likely to create an immediate sense of exclusion from both their peers and society in general—but Turkle doesn't think so:

First of all, the notion of ten-year-olds and nine-year-olds being ostracized for not being on Facebook - I think that's a pretty quick jump.

...

The argument for why kids need it is: that's where the social events are posted, that's where kids are sharing where the parties are, where the events are. I'm saying that at ten, it's better that those things happen in person. Parents should be encouraging children, as much as they can throw their weight behind it, for those things to still be happening in person at that age.

I'm not sure how it's any kind of stretch to say that kids will feel ostracized for not being allowed to do what their friends are doing—and we're not talking about jumping off a cliff here. And apparently it's not enough that kids are still going to each others' birthday parties—as in, events where they spend all day engaging in face-to-face socialization—Turkle thinks they need to be told about them in person too. I guess that way they'll be prepared for the adult world, where we all hand-deliver our invitations.

The simple reality is that, yes, Facebook presents new and different social challenges to kids. Every generation has faced unique challenges, because the social landscape is always changing. Every change also presents new opportunities, and while Turkle is worrying about kids getting less face-to-face interaction, those same kids are building whole new kinds of communities that cross traditional borders. Some things will be lost, of course, and to sometimes pine for a "simpler time" is a natural thing in moderation, but Turkle actually wants to talk about the "cost-benefit analysis" of broad social change. How is that even possible with something that can't be quantified? As a psychologist, Turkle should spend her time looking at ways to maximize the good aspects of social media, instead of fearmongering about the supposedly bad ones.

Filed Under: children, identity, sherry turkle, social media, techno-panic
Companies: facebook

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.

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.

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."

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.

Filed Under: chelsea clinton, children, privacy, social media

Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave

from the all-those-buggers dept

Like many kids, I read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game around the time I was in middle school (where I was from, it was junior high school) -- which is about when it came out. I don't remember exactly when I got the book, but I do remember that the reason I read it was because my father had heard about it and after reading it himself thought I'd like it. He was right. As the next two books in the series came out, I read those too. About five years ago I reread the whole series (including the additional "Shadow" books that came out later) and it's still an enjoyable set of books, even if the first book is by far the best of the bunch. So it's a bit crazy to hear that a middle school teacher in South Carolina was put on paid administrative leave for reading part of the book in class, after a parent argued that the book is "pornographic." I have to admit, I can't remember anything about the book being even remotely "pornographic," though, as Julian Sanchez joked, the book is full of "buggers."

As Reason points out, the police were even called in to investigate, though (thankfully) they quickly determined that no criminal charges should be filed. But, seriously, what is wrong with people that they'd claim that such a popular book, and one that so many young teenagers read, is pornographic, and that a teacher should be investigated for reading it? Since when did we become so fearful of words and stories? Ender's Game is widely considered a good book for teens to read, and with very good reason.

Filed Under: children, ender's game, kids, orson scott card, pornography, teaching

The Inevitability Of Techno Moral Panics: But Think Of The Children

from the women-and-children-first dept

For years, we've been fascinated with the general phenomenon of technology moral panics, and how we see them all the time around new forms of technology. Video games destroying children's brains. The internet leading kids into a life of porn. These things go back many, many years. In the 15th century there was a technopanic about the printing press ("He who ceases from zeal for writing because of printing is no true lover of the Scriptures.") In the 19th century, people were told that traveling on trains above 20mph would asphyxiate passengers. A hundred years ago, movies and telephones were declared evil (movies: "This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood" and telephones: "Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy? Does [it] break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?").

DannyB now points us to an interesting Wall Street Journal article that delves into the subject of technopanics, and how they almost always seem to target "women and children" first. It's the classic "for the children!" argument that we see all the time. In fact, the article highlights another techno moral panic we hadn't heard of before: around electricity:

If you electrify homes you will make women and children and vulnerable. Predators will be able to tell if they are home because the light will be on, and you will be able to see them. So electricity is going to make women vulnerable. Oh and children will be visible too and it will be predators, who seem to be lurking everywhere, who will attack.

The article focuses on the research of Genevieve Bell, who has a theory on these kinds of technopanics, saying that they need to have these three conditions to really bring out the fear mongering:

• It has to change your relationship to time.
• It has to change your relationship to space.
• It has to change your relationship to other people.

I'm not sure this always applies (think of the panics around video games, comic books... and chess -- yes, chess: "chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body"), but it does seem to apply in many cases.

Of course, for those of us who tend to be optimistic about new technology, and skeptical about the same old moral panics that almost never seem to have any evidence to back them up, there's not much to be done, other than to point out these historical similarities. Unfortunately, that rarely works for the new generation who always have something in their back pocket about why "this is different!" even though it almost never is.

Filed Under: children, moral panic, technopanic, think of the children, women

Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter

from the terrorism? dept

A woman, who did not feel comfortable going through the TSA naked scanners, was arrested for disorderly conduct when she also refused to let the TSA molest and grope her daughter. I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer on airplanes.

"I still don't want someone to see our bodies naked," the mom is reported to have replied.

As for the pat-down option, the police report states that the mom didn't want her daughter to be "touched inappropriately or have her "crotch grabbed."

TSA agents say she became belligerent and verbally abusive. The woman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

So, either your privacy gets violated, you get molested, or you get arrested. Where do we live again?

Filed Under: arrest, children, groping, scanners, tsa

TSA Chief Pistole: Maybe We Can Stop Petting Your Children

from the but-probably-not dept

There are things in this life that are difficult to figure out.  Quantum Physics, for instance, just ain't easy.  Hell, I'm 29 years old and I still don't don't understand the very basics of neuro-regenerative surgery.  So perhaps we should all take a moment to stand up and applaud TSA boss John Pistole for deciphering the it's-probably-not-okay-to-touch-our-children code.

At a recent meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Pistole relented:

"We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down."

This was in response to outrage over a YouTube video in which a six year old girl gets groped by a TSA employee, including having the inside of the waist of her pants checked (video embedded below).  As he was specifically discussing airport gropings at this meeting, it's as yet unclear if this policy change will also apply to the TSA Flashmob Security Theatre Troupe that they have roaming around other transportation hubs throughout the country.  Besides which, it's hardly a firm admission that strangers sticking their fingers down our children's pants may not be the best of ideas.  In fact, at the same meeting, Pistole went on to say:

"Unfortunately, we know that terrorists around the world have used children as suicide bombers."

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.  What we have is a few rather isolated incidents of bad things happening on the other side of the world and we somehow go from that to what can only be described as overreactionist policies on our side of the ocean.  Have terrorists ever used a baseball bat to commit their crimes?  Probably.  There goes the national past time.  I'm pretty sure they've used cell phones too.  How could we possibly allow these combination sexting/bomb-making devices to enter an airplane?  It's said that bin Laden had a stash of porn at his Pakistani safehouse.  Why haven't we arrested Jenna Jameson yet?

Senator Rand Paul appears to think the threat posed by American child-terrorist wunderwaffe is overblown as well:

"This isn't to say we don't believe in safety procedures," Paul said. "But I think I feel less safe when we're doing these invasive exams on a 6-year-old. It makes me think that you're clueless, that you think she's going to attack our country, and that you're not doing your research on the people who would attack our country."

Indeed.  Why are we spending time converting our airports into Mr. Rogers' land of Make Believe, where children are a threat and the good guys are the ones twisting our naughty bits?  And, perhaps as infuriating, why are we paying for it?

Filed Under: children, john pistole, rand paul, security theater, tsa

British Labels Propagandizing To Children

from the not-so-much-teaching-as-preaching dept

While the practice of the entertainment industry issuing propaganda to school children is certainly nothing new, every time I see it in practice I shiver involuntairly.  But when I came across a story from the BBC regarding a British label actually coming in to talk directly with high school kids about the many evils of piracy, a couple of questions leapt to mind.

But give the label credit for bringing along toys for the kids to play with this time.  They showed up with a bunch of their music-making equipment to let the kids have a go at producing their own tracks.  But even in this there was an ulterior motive.  They were hoping to show kids (KIDS!) how hard it is to actually make the music they listen to, which would then demonstrate all the many people that are involved in the process.  Why?

"Paul Shedden, Head of Label at Shed Records, explained the project is about raising awareness of the 'unseen' faces in the industry who rely on music sales for their livelihoods.  He said: 'A whole army of people work behind the scenes to bring you new, fresh music.  Everything from the songwriters through to production, artists, engineers, radio pluggers, PR companies all those people need to get paid.  Otherwise they can't continue doing the jobs they love and the music you love will stop coming out.'"

Okay, the first question here is the obvious one: how can the threat of disappearing music production be used when we see more music coming out than ever before?  Want to guess whether the label reps bothered to mention that to the kids?  In addition to that question, I wonder if they brought amongst their toys some of the amazing new technology that's come out which allows artists to do more of this work themselves, rather than rely on an "army" of other folks who "need" to get paid. 

But beyond that is the real question which is at the heart of why I have a problem with this kind of thing.  Why do we let corporate interests speak directly to our children about industry needs and policy?  And why aren't there representatives from opposite sides of the debate alongside them?

Would we let McDonalds come in to speak directly to our children about how they consume food?  Would we allow gun manufacturers to hold audience in the school auditorium for a quick Q&A on gun control laws without representatives from the opposite side of the debate?  Maybe we could get Larry Flynt to come in and hold court at a Saint Mary's School For Girls assembly on what types of jobs are best suited for women?

Or maybe schools should educate and leave industry out of the process entirely.  If I were a parent (which I'm not), I'd be more than a little itchy at the prospect of my kid's school bringing in corporations to teach our children. 

Filed Under: children, music, propaganda, uk