<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;kids&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 May 2013 08:57:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>This Is My Pencil. This Is My Pencil Pretending To Be A Gun. One Is For Writing. One Is For Mandatory Suspensions.</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
A majority of human beings would look at two 7-year-old boys pretending their pencils are guns and say something about "boys being boys" or "someone's going to poke their eye out" and leave it at that. Those who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml" target="_blank">craft and enforce zero tolerance</a> policies see something more sinister. They see "threatening behavior" that must be dealt with swiftly and with as little thought as possible.
<br /><br />
The end result? Two 7-year-old boys with otherwise clean records were handed two-day suspensions for <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/a-pencil-is-considered-a-weapon-when-its" target="_blank">pointing their pencils at each other and making shooting noises</a>. This ridiculous punishment was (of course) defended at length by school administration.
<blockquote>
<i>Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw said a pencil is considered a weapon when it&rsquo;s pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made.</i></blockquote>
Really? Administration thinks a pencil becomes a weapon when "gun noises are made." (They don't actually think this, of course. They've just crafted a policy that <i>states</i> this, thus preventing administration members from "erroneously" coming to independent conclusions.) I can see a pencil being considered a weapon if it's being "pointed" (in a stabbing motion) at a sensitive area like an eyeball or a neck. <i>Then</i> a pencil is a weapon.
<br /><br />
When two boys point pencils at each other and make shooting noises, a pencil is still a pencil and their imagination is doing all the heavy lifting. All it would take to "disarm" these kids is asking them to stop. Which is what a teacher did.
<blockquote>
<i>On the suspension note, the teacher noted that the boy stopped when she told him to do so.</i></blockquote>
Problem solved. No one is harmed and the perpetrators were left with nothing but non-threatening pencils. Why this was written on a suspension note, rather than on a simple concerned note to the parents or better yet, on NOTHING AT ALL, is beyond me. But Bradshaw has an answer for every question and <a href="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/2-va-boys-suspended-for-using-pencils-as-guns/" target="_blank">a terrible excuse for every idiotic zero tolerance policy</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Some children would consider it threatening, who are scared about shootings in schools or shootings in the community,&rdquo; Bradshaw said. &ldquo;Kids don&rsquo;t think about &lsquo;Cowboys and Indians&rsquo; anymore, they think about drive-by shootings and murders and everything they see on television news every day.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Do they? My kids don't think about that kind of stuff. Then again, they rarely watch the news. Would my boys be "threatened" by a pencil gun? I doubt it. They're probably packing a pencil or two themselves during the school day. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these hypothetical, hypersensitive children who bruise whenever the wind changes direction <i>do not actually exist</i>, at least not outside of statements like Bradshaw's. They're straw children.
<br /><br />
Bradshaw also defended the moronic policy using this gem:
<blockquote>
<i>Bradshaw said the policy has been in place for at least two decades.</i></blockquote>
So... you're saying the administration has been stupidly overreacting since back when MTV still played music videos and no one has <i>once</i> thought that <i>maybe</i> a few policies might need to be updated or relaxed or given a good once over with a dose of context or common sense? Rules <i>can</i> be changed, even big, important ones. (See also: Amendments 1-27 to the Constitution, but pay close attention to nos. 18 and 21.) Nothing's so inflexible that anyone should be reduced to the rhetorical level Bradshaw is, fending off irritated parents with "Yeah, it's a shitty policy but what are you going to do. It has tenure."
<br /><br />
Bradshaw doubles down on the importance and inflexibility of "rules" as well.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s an effort to try to get kids not to bring any form of violence, even if it&rsquo;s violent play, into the classroom,&rdquo; Bradshaw said. &ldquo;There has to be a consequence because it&rsquo;s a rule."</i>
</blockquote>
Yeah, I get it. A rule is a rule. And enforcers like Bradshaw are throwing stuff on kids' permanent records that wouldn't pass the laugh test in the real world. Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst.
<br /><br />
We can only hope that having these stories reported widely might push a few administrators to consider loosening or removing these so-called "zero tolerance" policies. Unfortunately, to date most administrators (and their policies) seem impervious to public ridicule, and every school-related tragedy just results in a newer, more rigid set of unbreakable rules. Until the day comes when kids can be kids without being suspended for pretending pencils are guns, parents might want to sit their kids down and have a long talk about safe pencil handling and the requirements and responsibilities that come with the "conceal-and-carry" permit they'll be needing before being allowed to start the next school year.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>school-admins-looking-to-shutter-known-arms-dealer-OfficeMax</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130507/16130622982</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Big Data On Kid Development</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11452312191/dailydirt-big-data-kid-development.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11452312191/dailydirt-big-data-kid-development.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Long term studies of children are expensive, but the data collected may be invaluable -- especially if wide-ranging policies are based on them. The amount of data Facebook is collecting on kids may be massive, but it'll probably only be data mined for marketing purposes. Here are just a few examples of some kid research that could influence the way people raise their kids.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/25/172880140/to-spot-kids-who-will-overcome-poverty-look-at-babies" href="http://n.pr/VLMmPI">Measuring the difference between heart rates when a baby inhales and exhales could lead to predictive indicators for whether or not that kid will overcome poverty.</a> For "sensitive" babies, where the difference is large, a stable environment may have a greater effect on the child's future well-being. [<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/25/172880140/to-spot-kids-who-will-overcome-poverty-look-at-babies">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/01/how_important_is_preschool_if_you_are_researching_early_education_philosophies.single.html" href="http://slate.me/VLR3sM">Preschool seems to be important for disadvantaged kids, but the benefits for middle class kids are not as clear.</a> So flip a coin, tiger-moms, but some <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/13/137109349/the-friday-podcast-the-case-for-preschool">economists</a> might have a good argument for government funded access to preschool for at-risk toddlers. [<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/01/how_important_is_preschool_if_you_are_researching_early_education_philosophies.single.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/what-56-up-reveals.html" href="http://nyr.kr/13lNwpy">The <i>7 Up</i> documentary began in 1964 and followed seven year old kids from different economic backgrounds as they grew up.</a> The latest installment, <i>56 Up</i> checks in on these people now as they face retirement (or not) -- and presents a fascinating snapshot of society. [<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/what-56-up-reveals.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11452312191/dailydirt-big-data-kid-development.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11452312191/dailydirt-big-data-kid-development.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11452312191/dailydirt-big-data-kid-development.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101208/11452312191</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:17:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NRA: Games To Blame For Violence!  Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Attention readers of this article! This is important to realize: I do not hate guns, the NRA, or freedom. While this is not the forum for any of us to discuss our personal philosophy regarding firearms or the 2nd amendment, let's just say my views are nuanced and leave it at that. Again, I do not hate guns. What I do hate, however, is hypocrisy and stupidity, and the NRA has a habit of occasionally engaging in both. I mean, the idea that doctors should by law <i>not</i> be allowed to ask questions about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/03074114209/it-may-soon-be-illegal-doctors-florida-to-ask-about-gun-safety.shtml">gun safety</a> in "well-child" visits is just stubborn silliness. That kind of paranoia should be reserved for the lunatic fringe, not the most powerful firearms lobbying group in the country. Likewise, the insane idea that the 2nd amendment should be protected by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml">treading upon</a> the 1st and 4th amendments isn't just hypocritical, it's <i>multiplicatively </i>hypocritical.
<br /><br />
But if you thought that kind of PR mistake was the zenith for the NRA with regards to their anti-video game stance, prepare yourselves for liftoff, because the NRA has released <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-the-national-rifle-associations-video-games-like-nra-varmint-hunter/">several shooting games</a>, the latest of which is <a href="http://www.geekosystem.com/nra-shooting-range-game/">targeted at elementary-aged school children</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>There have been a lot of people blaming violent video games for gun violence in America, especially in the wake of the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings. Chief among them, of course, was the National Rifle Association. In his comments after the shootings, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre blamed several video games that featured guns, like Bulletstorm and Splatterhouse, but left off titles like NRA: Varmint Hunter and NRA: Gun Club. He also failed to mention the new NRA branded iOS game which must have been in development at the time, NRA: Practice Range. The new game is recommended for ages four and up, probably because they don't want kids younger than four to see how much fun super-cool guns can be.</i>
</blockquote>
Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming. The simple glorification of guns for 4 years olds is probably not the best move PR-wise in the current atmosphere, but even having an NRA sponsored game for shooting animals raises questions. The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry"> predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy</a>. Why is the NRA providing a gaming avenue for such behavior while decrying other/more violent games for providing a gaming avenue for that same behavior?
<br /><br />
It should be pointed out that, true to their words, the NRA is littering these games with gun safety tips, but from the standpoint of public relations that doesn't really soften how dumb a move this is. To be clear, I don't think the stupidity is in releasing these games. I'm fine with them. The problem is when you seek to deflect criticism for gun violence by pointing to games, all while you're also releasing shooting games, you lose a great deal of credibility. But when you put forth a game that gives you "one minute to fire off as many rounds as possible" and aims it, by their own words, at children as young as four years old, you just look like jackasses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pr-is-a-skill</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/08485121701</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:23:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Early-Morning Raid Sent To Confiscate 9-Year-Old's Winnie The Pooh Laptop For Downloading Music</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/02340221122/early-morning-raid-sent-to-confiscate-9-year-olds-winnie-pooh-laptop-downloading-music.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/02340221122/early-morning-raid-sent-to-confiscate-9-year-olds-winnie-pooh-laptop-downloading-music.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the biggest problems with the current approach to dealing with alleged copyright infringement is the totally disproportionate nature of the action undertaken in response to it.  The "three strikes" collective punishment of households that is available in <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1116089868.shtml">France</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100425/2121239163.shtml">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090311/0213404068.shtml">South Korea</a> is one example of this.  From Finland, we learn about another <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/police-raid-9-year-old-pirate-bay-girl-confiscate-winnie-the-pooh-laptop-121122/">completely over-the-top action</a>:

<i><blockquote>CIAPC, the company that had The Pirate Bay blocked by ISPs in Finland, tracked an alleged file-sharer and demanded a cash settlement. However, the Internet account holder refused to pay which escalated things to an unprecedented level. In response, this week police raided the home of the 9-year-old suspect and confiscated her Winnie the Pooh laptop.</blockquote></i>

The specific details are worrying:

<i><blockquote>Tuesday morning the doorbell of the family home rang around 8am and the man, who works in the hospitality sector, had quite a shock. Police were at his door with a search warrant authorizing the hunt for evidence connected to illicit file-sharing.</blockquote></i>

This kind of early-morning raid would be more appropriate for dealing with serious and dangerous criminals than 9-year-old girls (barely even mentioning that the girl's father claims her attempts at downloading failed, leading them to go purchase the music legally anyway).  Similarly, the fact that for such a trivial case the account-holder's name and address were obtained from the ISP, and a search warrant issued, shows how out of control the law has become in this area.  
<br /><br />
Under the malign influence of the copyright companies, it would seem that the police force is now little more than a bunch of heavies sent around at ridiculous hours of the day to frighten people who refuse to pay the arbitrary sums demanded.  It's hard to square this colossal waste of police time and public money with the deadly threat of terrorism that we supposedly live under: is intimidating members of the public in this way really such a priority for the Finnish state?  It's also disappointing to see the legal system in Finland and elsewhere acquiescing in this terrible perversion by powerful lobbies of what is supposed to be even-handed, proportionate justice for all.
<br /><br />
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/02340221122/early-morning-raid-sent-to-confiscate-9-year-olds-winnie-pooh-laptop-downloading-music.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/02340221122/early-morning-raid-sent-to-confiscate-9-year-olds-winnie-pooh-laptop-downloading-music.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/02340221122/early-morning-raid-sent-to-confiscate-9-year-olds-winnie-pooh-laptop-downloading-music.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-question-of-priorities</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121122/02340221122</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:05:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We talk a whole lot about the security theater in airports these days. While most of what we write revolves around the TSA and its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04390118385/tsa-security-theater-described-one-simple-infographic.shtml">crazy policies</a> that never seem to do anything to actually protect the people, there is still plenty to talk about in other nations. Take this recent story as an example of how little it takes to bypass modern security using nothing more than a little social engineering.<br />
<br />
An eleven year old Manchester boy decided that shopping with his mother was just a little on the boring side and decided to run away. Not content with running away to join the circus, as most little boys are wont to do, he decided that <a href="http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1584312_runaway-boy-11-jets-to-rome-alone-after-slipping-through-security-at-manchester-airport" target="_blank">running away on flight to Rome was the better option</a>. Despite not having a passport or a boarding pass, the boy was able to make it through airport security and board the flight. How?
<blockquote>
<i>It&#39;s then understood Liam &lsquo;tail-gated&rsquo; a family with other children even though he had no passport or boarding card tricking security staff into thinking he was part of the group. By the time he passed through the scanner at security, it was 1.15pm.</i><br />
<br />
<i>It is understood Liam headed almost immediately to the first departing flight, the 2pm service to Rome where passengers were already queuing to board the flight.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Airline staff at the gate again appear to have thought he was with a family and failed to check for a passport or a boarding card and allowed him to walk to the plane.</i></blockquote>
Since the boy was only eleven, he was able to pass for a member of a family traveling through the security checks without any questions. He was then able to pull the same maneuver when boarding the flight. While it might be easier for a kid to pull off something of this nature, it does show that there is still a major weakness in security, something that no amount of post 9/11 security policy can fix.<br />
<br />
One of these weaknesses is that we are training our security to look for the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/01531214053/weve-trained-tsa-to-search-liquid-instead-bombs.shtml">wrong things</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Aviation security expert Chris Yates said: &ldquo;This was a lapse but I don&#39;t believe this was a serious security breach. Anybody who passes through Manchester Airport must be screened whether that is through a full body scanner or a metal detector. That did happen in this instance.</i></blockquote>
You see, the people running security were so caught up in looking for potentially dangerous objects such as liquids over 3 ounces or nail clippers that they completely neglected to check if the people entering the gates or boarding the flights were supposed to be there. Even with this kid being eleven years old, that is a pretty big slip up. One that resulted in a lot of people being suspended while an investigation is under way.<br />
<br />
I know what some of you are going to say. "The kid was eleven, how much of a threat could he be?" Sure this kid was eleven. He couldn&#39;t have been too much of a threat. However, it shows a major weakness in our security: the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050623/1559203.shtml">human element</a>. Humans are naturally fallible. We make mistakes. As long as there is a human element, no amount of security is foolproof. Even though this kid was eleven, social engineering knows no age boundaries. Even the strongest security systems in the world can fall by a single lapse in judgment by a human being. As we become more and more dependent on machines to scan and screen passengers, we will be opening up larger and larger holes via the human element.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>news-at-eleven</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120728/09062719865</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Kids Don't Just Eat Anything You Give Them...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Kids are notoriously picky eaters when it comes to anything that isn't a dessert. Parents aren't helped when their kids are bombarded by ads on TV for all kinds of junk food. But here are a few food efforts that might divert kids' attentions back to healthier foods.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-news/press-releases/2012/06/walt-disney-company-sets-new-standards-food-advertising-kids" href="http://bit.ly/LyCkaT">Disney is adopting new standards for food advertising on its shows targeting kids and families -- to promote fruit and vegetable consumption and meet healthy nutritional guidelines.</a> Awesome, now all healthy food will be approved by Mickey! [<a href="http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-news/press-releases/2012/06/walt-disney-company-sets-new-standards-food-advertising-kids">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May12/BatmanFood.html" href="http://bit.ly/MjLVas">Mickey Mouse isn't the only fictional character who can influence what kids eat. Superheroes can, too.</a> What would Batman eat? [<a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May12/BatmanFood.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/29/153931434/food-trucks-draw-hungry-kids-for-free-summer-meals? " href="http://n.pr/LyCNtQ">Food trucks are trendy now, so what better way to bring free meals to kids?</a> Sounds better than an ice cream truck... [<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/29/153931434/food-trucks-draw-hungry-kids-for-free-summer-meals? ">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422761220716518.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6" href="http://on.wsj.com/NkJINv">Exercise your palate and try new foods that are bitter.</a> Instead of sticking with salty and sweet (which are generally associated with junk food), a more bitter-flavored diet might provide a healthier range of food. [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422761220716518.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100707/04270610103</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:07:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/14022718188/parent-claims-enders-game-is-pornographic-teacher-who-read-it-to-students-put-temporary-leave.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/14022718188/parent-claims-enders-game-is-pornographic-teacher-who-read-it-to-students-put-temporary-leave.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Like many kids, I read Orson Scott Card's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game" target="_blank"><i>Ender's Game</i></a> 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 <i>do</i> 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 <a href="http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/0315Followup-with-school--3862406" target="_blank">put on paid administrative leave</a> 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 <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/normative/statuses/182565857749254145" target="_blank">joked</a>, the book is full of "buggers."
<br /><br />
As <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/21/enders-game-isnt-porn-teacher-who-read-t" target="_blank">Reason points out</a>, the <i>police</i> were even called in to investigate, though (thankfully) they quickly determined that <a href="http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/032112-middle-school-teacher-investigation--3877085" target="_blank">no criminal charges should be filed</a>.  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?  <i>Ender's Game</i> is widely considered a good book for teens to read, and with very good reason.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/14022718188/parent-claims-enders-game-is-pornographic-teacher-who-read-it-to-students-put-temporary-leave.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/14022718188/parent-claims-enders-game-is-pornographic-teacher-who-read-it-to-students-put-temporary-leave.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/14022718188/parent-claims-enders-game-is-pornographic-teacher-who-read-it-to-students-put-temporary-leave.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>all-those-buggers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120321/14022718188</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Collection Society To Libraries: No Story Time For Kids Unless You Pay To Read Aloud</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04501718088/collection-society-to-libraries-no-story-time-kids-unless-you-pay-to-read-aloud.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04501718088/collection-society-to-libraries-no-story-time-kids-unless-you-pay-to-read-aloud.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>If there's a common trait of the various rightsholders groups around the world, it is their sense of entitlement.  If anyone does anything with a work under copyright, they feel they have a right to regulate it and be paid for it.  A good example is the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/1014293724.shtml">claim</a> by the Authors Guild that owners of Kindles weren't allowed to use an experimental text-to-speech feature, since that would infringe on the entirely made up concept of "audio rights" -- and hence, presumably, require further payment.
</p><p>
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Belgian rights group SABAM has already established itself as a copyright hardliner with its attempts to force <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111127/14274716903/european-court-justice-says-isps-cannot-be-forced-to-be-copyright-cops.shtml">ISPs</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/02071617774/eu-court-justice-says-social-networks-cant-be-forced-to-be-copyright-cops.shtml">social networks</a> to set up monitoring and filtering systems to combat copyright infringement.  Its latest demand shows the same apparent <a href="http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/03/13/belgian-rightsholders-group-wants-to-charge-libraries-for-reading-books-to-kids/">indifference to the negative consequences of its action</a>:

<i><blockquote>Twice a month, the library in [the Belgian town of] Dilbeek welcomes about 10 children to introduce them to the magical world of books. A representative of the library in question is quoted in the De Morgen report as saying there&#8217;s no budget to compensate people who read to the kids, relying instead on volunteers (bless them).
<br /><br />
SABAM got in touch with the library to let them know that it thinks this is unacceptable, however, and that <b>they should start coughing up cash for reading stories from copyrighted books out loud</b>. The library rep calculates that it could cost them roughly 250 euros (which is about $328) per year to pay SABAM for the right to -- again -- READ BOOKS TO KIDS.</blockquote></i>

It's worth emphasizing that these are volunteers, so this is in no sense a professional "performance".  It's just public-spirited people generously doing exactly what parents do when reading to their own children. Indeed, it's not hard to imagine SABAM trying to claim money for that too, one day.
</p><p>
Of course, if SABAM refuses to back down here, the likely outcome will be that many libraries throughout Belgium will cancel these reading sessions for children.  As a result, fewer young people will be introduced to the world of reading, fewer of them will grow up to be readers, and writers will have fewer fans and less money.  In other words, SABAM's attempt to extend its reach to new areas will harm not only children -- about whom it is obviously indifferent -- but also the very people it purports to serve.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04501718088/collection-society-to-libraries-no-story-time-kids-unless-you-pay-to-read-aloud.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04501718088/collection-society-to-libraries-no-story-time-kids-unless-you-pay-to-read-aloud.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04501718088/collection-society-to-libraries-no-story-time-kids-unless-you-pay-to-read-aloud.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-there-no-limits?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120313/04501718088</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:47:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/03323417826/techdirt-deemed-harmful-to-minors-germany.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/03323417826/techdirt-deemed-harmful-to-minors-germany.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Hanno alerts us to the news that Techdirt has apparently been deemed harmful to minors in Germany.  The German Media Control Authority has apparently been pushing internet "youth filters" to protect kids from dangerous things online.  So far, it has officially approved two internet filters.  Hanno got his hands on one and <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fdigital%2Finternet%2F2012-02%2Fjugendschutzfilter-filtern-blogs" target="_blank">discovered that Techdirt was one of many blocked sites</a> (Google translation from the <a href="http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2012-02/jugendschutzfilter-filtern-blogs" target="_blank">original German</a>) -- as the filter declares that Techdirt has pornographic images and depictions of violence.  We do?
<br /><br />
Hanno reached out to a spokesperson for the JusProg filter, and got the usual runaround.  "We do not want to censor political opinions."  The spokesperson claims that the system is automated and looks at links.  When asked why Techdirt was blocked, it was explained that since we use certain words "perhaps twenty times" in discussions about pornography and censorship, the system deemed us clearly a danger.  Apparently, we can appeal to JusProg, but it appears that might require some familiarity with German...  So, in the meantime, let's just hope that we haven't already damaged the youth of Germany too much.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/03323417826/techdirt-deemed-harmful-to-minors-germany.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/03323417826/techdirt-deemed-harmful-to-minors-germany.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/03323417826/techdirt-deemed-harmful-to-minors-germany.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ah,-censorship</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120221/03323417826</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Understanding Kids</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1033199866/dailydirt-understanding-kids.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1033199866/dailydirt-understanding-kids.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Young kids can be really fun to play around with, but sometimes they can be little terrors, too. By understanding how little kids think and behave, parents might be able to cope better with the "terrible two's" (which can extend into the "terrible three's and four's"). Here are just a few interesting links on studying our descendants.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/05/143062378/whats-behind-a-temper-tantrum-scientists-deconstruct-the-screams" href="http://n.pr/vCnuco">There's a nascent science studying the phenomenon of children's temper tantrums.</a> All tantrums could have a predictable pattern that might lead to better ways of coping with them and maybe avoiding them someday. [<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/05/143062378/whats-behind-a-temper-tantrum-scientists-deconstruct-the-screams">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://bigthink.com/ideas/40320" href="http://bit.ly/umXfNa">Plenty of parents try to tell their kids to "use words" to describe what they want.</a> Are kids hard-wired for grammar to use their words, though? [<a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/40320">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132745952/big-babies-helped-shape-early-human-societies?" href="http://n.pr/rsReIB">While human babies weigh about 6% of the weight of their moms, newborn apes generally weigh about 3% of their mother's weight.</a> Having big babies may have influenced the development of human society, encouraging our ancestors to become more social creatures to care for our kids. [<a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132745952/big-babies-helped-shape-early-human-societies?">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting articles on the human mind, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:315" href="http://bit.ly/hkDPKq">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:315">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 
By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1033199866/dailydirt-understanding-kids.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1033199866/dailydirt-understanding-kids.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1033199866/dailydirt-understanding-kids.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100617/1033199866</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 May 2011 12:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Chicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While Driving</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years back, there were some reports of tools that would "block" people from texting while driving by simply <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0855443310.shtml">disabling the feature</a> if the phone was moving over a certain speed.  It was targeted at parents to put on their kids' phones, but we haven't seen much of an indication that it's gained any traction.  No worries, politicians to the rescue.  Gregil10 points us to the news that "an influential group of Chicago aldermen," are pushing for a law that <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/05/chicago-aldermen-want-texting-disabled-if-teens-are-driving.html" target="_blank">would <b>require</b> such software be placed on any mobile phone</a> sold in Chicago, which could then be enabled by the parents (or, I guess, by the user themselves).
<br /><br />
Of course, the same problems that we discussed a few years back apply (and haven't been solved).  If you think kids won't figure out how to get around such things, you haven't seen kids and their mobile phones lately.  They understand the devices better than parents.  Even if a parent can figure out how to enable the software, you can bet kids will figure out how to disable it.
<br /><br />
An even bigger issue is that blocking texting based on the speed of travel is a really broad brush for trying to stop texting while driving.  Speed of travel isn't a very good proxy for whether or not someone is <i>driving</i>.  It may be a good indication that someone is <i>travelling in a vehicle</i>, but that hardly means they're controlling the vehicle.  And, it really doesn't make sense to block texting for <i>passengers</i>.  In fact, allowing passengers to communicate in this way often serves as a good way to <i>stop</i> drivers from texting, because they can ask a passenger to handle the texting instead.  Or if someone's on a bus or a train, should they really be stopped from texting?  Often, that's when people use such functionality the most, letting others (such as parents!) know that they got on the bus or train and would be arriving on time/late/early/etc.
<br /><br />
I certainly recognize the risks of texting and driving.  And it's no secret that many, many kids do engage in this incredibly risky and stupid behavior.  But laws like this don't solve the real problem.  Instead, they just create even more problems.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>technological-realities</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110505/00370614161</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:09:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Have Computers Improved The Lives Of Your Kids?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/15044113884/how-have-computers-improved-lives-your-kids.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/15044113884/how-have-computers-improved-lives-your-kids.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been running a series of experimental discussions lately asking people to weigh in -- via an ad unit -- on different aspects of computing in their lives.  The latest such ad box is running for a few days either on the front page of the site or below this post, asking the question: how have computers improved the life of your child?  I actually think this is a pretty interesting <i>question</i> by itself, let alone the possible answers.  I still don't feel particularly old, but when I think back to how different things were when I was a kid, it's really quite shocking how much computers now pervade everyone's life compared to not so many years ago.  I had a computer growing up -- an Atari 800 -- which was stashed in the basement.  It wasn't connected to the rest of the world.  It didn't have a hard drive.  But it was a computer.  But today, my kid is surrounded by computing devices everywhere he looks, and even though he's young, he's already fascinated by all kinds of computing devices which will, of course, feel completely "normal" to him.  Anyway, you can share your thoughts directly in the ad unit by clicking on one of the "poll" options, and then answering the question in the box.  Once again, we're shutting off comments on this post to keep them directed in that ad unit.
<br /><br />
<i>Once again, this experiment is being sponsored by ASUS Windows Slate, in partnership with Microsoft and SAYMedia.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/15044113884/how-have-computers-improved-lives-your-kids.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/15044113884/how-have-computers-improved-lives-your-kids.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/15044113884/how-have-computers-improved-lives-your-kids.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-do-you-think?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110413/15044113884</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Reminder To Parents: Online Kid Filters Don't Really Block All That Much</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/00460212665/reminder-to-parents-online-kid-filters-dont-really-block-all-that-much.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/00460212665/reminder-to-parents-online-kid-filters-dont-really-block-all-that-much.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we have no issue with parents choosing to use filters for their kids' computers (we do have an issue when its gov't mandated, however...), we've pointed out in the past that one of the worries with such filters is that parents will over rely on those filters to actually work.  Yet, history has shown time and time again that they don't work very well, and a new study out of Europe <a href="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/01/ec-survey-finds-cracks-in-onli.php" target="_blank">once again notes that the filters aren't very good at blocking "objectionable" content for kids</a>.  The filters are basically good only at domain-level blocks, which is fine for some stuff, but there's all sorts of content on social networks and blogs that might not be appropriate for kids, but that these filters won't block.  The simple fact is that sooner or later kids are going to see stuff they weren't meant to see.  But if you rely too much on the filter, and think that it really will block stuff, you might not think to teach kids that perhaps some stuff online isn't appropriate for them, and teach them how to deal with it if they run into it by accident.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/00460212665/reminder-to-parents-online-kid-filters-dont-really-block-all-that-much.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/00460212665/reminder-to-parents-online-kid-filters-dont-really-block-all-that-much.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/00460212665/reminder-to-parents-online-kid-filters-dont-really-block-all-that-much.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>your-kids-can-still-see-stuff</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110114/00460212665</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:39:14 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Class Action Lawsuit Says Facebook Violated The Law By Letting Kids Like Ads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16035510804.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16035510804.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It appears that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook for the horrible, horrible act of <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/27/lawsuit-teens-facebook-like/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Techcrunch %28TechCrunch%29&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">letting kids like ads</a>.  As TechCrunch explains:
<blockquote><i>
On Facebook, you can "like" any status update or post in your stream, but you can also "like" ads. When you do so, it can appear as a status update to all your friends if that ad is linked to a Facebook page, thus turning the "like" button into a social endorsement...
<br /><br />
The class action lawyers claim that in the case of teenagers, Facebook is "misappropriating the names and pictures of minors for profit." Facebook might say that it is in its terms of service, that's how the site works. But the lawsuit hinges on a loophole in California law which requires parental consent in order to obtain a minor's consent for using their name or likeness for an advertisement, And Facebook doesn't do that.
</i></blockquote>
This seems like a clear "unintended consequences" situation.  Politicians pass a law to "protect the children" from being exploited in advertisements, but it also has the potential to get in the way of really harmless activity, such as a kid clicking a "like" button on his Facebook profile.
<center>
<object id="_ds_51825423" name="_ds_51825423" width="560" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=51825423&#038;mem_id=715794&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;allowdownload=1&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16035510804.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16035510804.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16035510804.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>because,-they-better-not-like-ads...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100827/16035510804</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:30:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100805/02022610502.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100805/02022610502.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, it looks like Hollywood is going to keep betting against basic economics.  A new report has come out suggesting that the latest generation of kids <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6740LZ20100805?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2FtechnologyNews %28News %2F US %2F Technology%29" target="_blank">are perfectly happy to pay for digital content</a>.  The report suggests that it's just the slightly older generation -- "the Napster generation" -- that isn't interested in paying for content.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but there appears to be no indication of how this conclusion was arrived at, other than some random research firm says so.  There is no indication of an actual study or methodology -- though, if someone can actually figure it out, please let us know in the comments.  Frankly, this sounds like wishful thinking.  It's premised on the idea that the reason many people don't pay for content today is because they "don't know any better."  But that's hogwash.  People understand the legalities of it all.  It's just that many don't buy into it.  Furthermore, having the legacy players bet on this fiction that the next generation of kids will magically start paying for what their older siblings got for free means that these legacy players will hold back on making the major changes they need to make to their business models.  This kind of report is the sort of thing that is written to make big company execs feel good about their unwillingness to adapt -- rather than give them any sort of <i>useful</i> advice.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100805/02022610502.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100805/02022610502.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100805/02022610502.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-stop-believing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100805/02022610502</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:54:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Studies Show That Violent Video Games Aren't A Problem For Kids</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While a few anti-video gaming folks keep <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1357558345.shtml">insisting</a> that the evidence shows that violent video games are bad for kids, anyone who looks closely at the research has found that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0212264165.shtml">there does not appear to be any real connection</a> between violence in kids and violent video games.  For a while, though, the American Psychological Association had <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507890/20050818/story.jhtml?headlines=true" target="_blank">warned about violent video games</a>, despite the lack of real evidence.  It looks like, perhaps, the APA is realizing this was a mistake.  In a new "special issue" of Review of General Psychology, published by the APA, a variety of studies are reviewed, and the findings suggest that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65841B20100609?type=technologyNews&#038;feedType=RSS&#038;feedName=technologyNews&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2FtechnologyNews %28News %2F US %2F Technology%29" target="_blank">the moral panic over violent video games is almost totally misplaced</a>.
<br /><br />
The <i>only</i> issue is that in a small group of kids, who already appear to have other psychological issues, the video games may contribute to and exacerbate those issues.  In other words, it's not the video games that are the issue, but a separate problem.  But for most children, there are no problems with them playing violent video games, despite what you may have heard on the nightly news:
<blockquote><i>
"Violent video games are like peanut butter," said Christopher J. Ferguson, of Texas A&#038;M International University. "They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems."
<br /><br />
He added that studies have revealed that violent games have not created a generation of problem youngsters.
<br /><br />
"Recent research has shown that as video games have become more popular, children in the United States and Europe are having fewer behavior problems, are less violent and score better on standardized tests," Ferguson, a guest editor for the journal, explained.
</i></blockquote>
Other studies also found that many video games have positive aspects, and can be quite useful to kids.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-again-and-again-and-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100609/1109309754</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Study Shows Txting Improves Kids' Spelling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2326407852.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2326407852.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While it still seems like the common belief is that "txt spk" and other sorts of abbreviated elements of the English language <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0321244168.shtml">harm</a> kids' ability to write properly, we've seen  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060731/1938242.shtml">study</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20041223/1427218.shtml">study</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051031/1836235.shtml">study</a> after <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080916/1957542289.shtml">study</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0128203880.shtml">study</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0344536106.shtml">study</a> has found exactly the opposite.  They've found that most kids <i>can</i> tell the difference, and do understand what's proper and what's not.  On top of that, heavy texters tend to be better spellers, because they're much more used to writing -- even if they tend to abbreviate the language when communicating via technology.
<br /><br />
So it almost seems superfluous to mention that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8468351.stm" target="_blank">yet <i>another</i> one of these studies has come out</a> and it, too, has found that those who regularly use txt spk have very strong literacy skills.  But what's annoying is that both the researchers and the BBC act as if this was a "surprise."  It's as if no one bothered to check to see if similar research had been done before, and found the many, many, many studies all saying the same exact thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2326407852.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2326407852.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2326407852.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ok,-are-we-done-yet?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/2326407852</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:56:38 PST</pubDate>
<title>New Study Says Social Networks Not Making Kids Stay Up Late</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/1924057822.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/1924057822.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While there were some studies last year claiming that heavy social networking users were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/0245066526.shtml">likely to have lower grades</a> (though, there were lots of problems with that study), it apparently <a href="http://www.cio.com/article/514826/Study_Social_Networks_Don_t_Keep_Students_Up_At_Night" target="_blank">isn't because it keeps kids up late at night</a>.  A new study that looked at students and their social networking habits didn't find much difference in the amount of sleep heavy social network users got vs. those who weren't spending all their time on Facebook and Twitter.  My guess is that, with both of these things, there are so many other factors that finding any sort of causal relationship is unlikely in a simple comparison of two variables.  There could be many other factors that lead to either good or bad grades, and also impact how much a person uses social networks or the amount of sleep they get.  And, in the end, looking for something to blame for either really misses the point.  It's an attempt to blame a technology for something else, rather than look at the real underlying reasons why a student doesn't get enough sleep or doesn't do well at school.
<br /><br />
But, of course, don't expect that to stop the debate.  As I was finishing up this post, along comes a <i>different</i> study that again <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html?src=twt&#038;twt=nytimestech" target="_blank">notes a correlation</a> between really heavy users and bad grades.  But, the study also finds that for kids these days, they're pretty much online all the time somehow -- even more than the study's authors thought possible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/1924057822.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/1924057822.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/1924057822.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no,-that-would-be-sms</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100119/1924057822</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:19:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Film Your Kid Dancing To A McDonald's Happy Meal CD... Get A Takedown Notice From Google</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the more famous examples of abuses of the YouTube video takedown process was the case of Lenz vs. Universal Music, which involved Universal Music issuing a YouTube DMCA takedown to a woman who posted a very short clip of her baby dancing to a Prince song that was playing in the background.  It was a clear case of fair use, and while after the woman filed a counternotice Universal chose not to sue, the EFF <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070725/224422">filed a lawsuit</a> against Universal Music, saying that the DMCA notice was fraudulent, since it was such an obvious case of fair use.  While Universal Music argued that since fair use is just a "defense" and not a "right" it need not consider fair use in sending a takedown, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0251282050.shtml">the court disagreed</a>.
<br /><br />
You would think, then, that any takedown notices on similar short videos of kids dancing to music would avoid a similar scenario.  <a href="http://twitter.com/copycense/statuses/7189321369" target="_blank">Copycense</a> points us to the news that a guy has <a href="http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=6433" target="_blank">received a notice from Google of potential infringement for his short clip of his kid dancing along</a> to what appears to be a version (not the original) of the Kool &#038; The Gang song "Celebration."  As in the Lenz case, this video is a kid dancing to somewhere around 30 seconds of a song:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MmqZQqdpxFE&#038;rel=0&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MmqZQqdpxFE&#038;rel=0&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
The <a href="http://www.tribbleagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Screenshot-22.png" target="_blank">notice</a> claims that the video contains content for which the copyright is held by record label Razor &#038; Tie.  The guy who got the takedown seems a bit confused, in that he appears to be blaming McDonald's for the mess, when it appears McDonald's had nothing at all to do with the takedown.  In fact, the record label Razor &#038; Tie may not have anything to do with it either... as I'll explain below.  The song used in the video was from a CD that came with a McDonald's Happy Meal.  Looking around, it appears that in April, McDonald's announced a promotion with record label Kidz Bop to issue <a href="http://www.moresay.com/2009/04/15/mcdonalds-happy-meal-kidz-bop-muisc-cd-may-2009/" target="_blank">music CDs</a>.  Razor &#038; Tie is the parent company of Kidz Bop.  The problem here is clearly not McDonald's.  All it did was include the CD in Happy Meals.  It's got nothing to do with the takedown, and the guy's anger at McDonald's is misplaced (though, you could make the argument -- and it's a stretch -- that McDonald's should tell its partners to avoid these sorts of ridiculous copyright claims that scare people away from buying Happy Meals).
<br /><br />
The next assumption, then, would be that Razor &#038; Tie is guilty of sending the takedown, but I don't think that's true.  If Razor &#038; Tie had sent a DMCA takedown, the video would be down.  When Google receives a DMCA takedown, it almost always (or perhaps always) pulls down the content immediately in order to retain its DMCA safe harbors.  The user would then need to file a counternotice to start the process of potentially getting the video back up.  The fact that the video is up and the notice the guy received simply tells him to review the videos suggests that no DMCA takedown was sent.
<br /><br />
Instead, the blame almost certainly lies with Google's content recognition engine/filters that the record labels pushed them to use to try to catch copyright infringement ahead of time.  Now, Razor &#038; Tie is somewhat complicit here, in that it appears to have uploaded its catalog to train Google's filters (if I remember correctly -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Google needs the copyright holder to submit copies for its filter to work).  So, Google had this particular song on file, and noticed the similarity.  Google's filter algorithms don't appear to consider fair use (or, perhaps more likely, they do a bad job of it in many cases) and the guy then is sent the automated notification, even though it makes everyone -- McDonald's, Razor &#038; Tie <i>and</i> Google -- look bad, though the blame from the recipient appears to be in almost reverse order of culpability.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, the guy who received the notice also appears to be confused concerning his own rights.  He says he is going to take down the video, though he clearly has a strong fair use case in asking for the video to be left alone.  It seems likely that Google would allow the video to stay up, and I highly doubt that Razor &#038; Tie would do anything else (it would be ridiculous to try to claim that this was not fair use).
<br /><br />
Either way, this highlights a variety of interesting things.  First, despite all the publicity of the Lenz case, these types of "takedowns" (even if it's not a DMCA takedown) still happen.  Second, people on the receiving end of these notices assume that there is no recourse that would allow the video to stay up.  People get official sounding notices and they assume they need to jump.  Third, Google's content match filter isn't particularly good on fair use issues.  Fourth, when these sorts of bogus notices are sent, it reflects very poorly on a variety of companies.  In this case, McDonald's is getting most of the blame, despite being almost entirely blameless (well, it did decide to put out these silly music CDs, but that's a separate issue).  Even Razor &#038; Tie may be getting misplaced blame (though it may depend on the "rules" it set for Google's filter).  Amusingly, it may be Google that deserves the most blame, and it appears to be getting the least.
<br /><br />
Still, no matter what the situation, it's simply ridiculous that a guy filming 30 seconds of his kid dancing should have to worry about <i>any</i> of this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>prince-redux</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091230/0252517545</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:56:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kiddie Monitoring Software Spying On IM Chats, Selling Info To Marketers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/1916036134.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/1916036134.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are a bunch of different "child filtering/monitoring" software on the market these days, and many parents use it to help them keep track of what their kids do online.  I have no problem with this -- so long as such filters aren't mandated by the government.  But it appears that just selling the tools isn't enough for some companies.  JJ sends in the news that one of the top providers in the space doesn't just monitor what kids do for parents, but <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5CjgMEdrwRm3JxeglUykMAHAYmAD9AGNVM00" target="_new">collects all the data -- including the text of chat room discussions</a> -- and resells it to marketers.  You have to imagine that this isn't exactly what the FTC (or parents) expects of such tools.
<br /><br />
The company defends the practice, claiming that the data is anonymized and no identifiable data is included -- but we've heard that before.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071130/114005.shtml">Every</a> single <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0258271684.shtml">time</a> someone insists their data is anonymized, news <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090525/2124075004.shtml">breaks</a> showing that it is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1118574277.shtml">not</a>.  I don't think there's anything wrong, necessarily, with doing targeted marketing programs, but using unsuspecting parents and getting them to install filters and monitoring software, without realizing the data will be handed over to marketing firms, seems pretty sleazy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/1916036134.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/1916036134.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/1916036134.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-go-over-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090908/1916036134</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1801565830.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1801565830.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few months, there's been a push among some to suggest that file sharing is really a marginalized behavior, only done by a small group of people -- and that with just a little education (and maybe a few big legal victories, such as the ones against Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum -- combined with new services like Spotify), perhaps it can be brought "under control."  The "evidence" given for this has often been a case study in how to use statistics to delude yourself, often looking at the total percentage of people or internet users who engage in file sharing.  But, the fact is that ignores the real issue: which is that kids today (tomorrow's consumers) are file sharing at a very high rate.  A new study, sponsored by UK Music (the UK organization that's looking to get ISPs to put in place some sort of blanket licensing plan) has found that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/14-24-years-olds-pirate-8000-music-tracks-each-090810/" target="_new">over 60% of kids in the UK admit to file sharing</a>, with 83% of those admitting to doing it regularly, and those surveyed claiming to have downloaded <i>an average of 8,100 tracks</i>.  Think about that for a second.  <i>8,100</i> tracks.
<br /><br />
While the defenders of the old system want to liken file sharing to a problem like shoplifting, at some point you have to realize it's something entirely different.  This isn't a marginal behavior done by "bad kids."  This is about as common as can be.  Oddly, the BBC tried to spin this report to say that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8193148.stm" target="_new">file sharing has dropped</a>, but that "drop" was only 2% and it's within the margin of error of the survey -- meaning there's no actual evidence that it dropped.  The study also contradicted that other study we wrote about recently (also in the UK) that claimed that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090713/1138025529.shtml">kids were replacing downloading</a> with streaming services.  In this survey, 78% said they had no interest in a streaming service, and 89% saying they'd never pay for such a service.
<br /><br />
Given the two conflicting studies (both sponsored by biased parties), you have to question the results of both.  But, given the fact that kids are more likely to deny file sharing activity these days, rather than admit to it (knowing they could get in trouble for it), you have to wonder if this study even undercounts the actual activity.
<br /><br />
Now, once again, let's make a clear point: I'm not saying this is right or legal.  I don't think anyone should download music from an artist who does not authorize it.  But the fact is that file sharing is not a "small thing" among kids today, and to think that there's some sort of magical method of getting it to go away is wishful thinking.  Given that we're seeing more and more artists learn how to <i>embrace</i> file sharing to do better with their own business models, at some point it's time for those fighting against it to recognize -- from the copyright holders' perspective -- that it's better not to fight what consumers want, but to embrace it, combined with a smart business model, and stop worrying.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1801565830.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1801565830.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1801565830.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-not-going-away</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090810/1801565830</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Forget Video Games, Why Aren't Politicians Complaining About Chess?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ President Obama is the latest in a rather long line of politicians to start <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/06/15/obama-names-video-games-health-concern-speech-ama" target="_new">calling out video games</a> as being something that is bad for kids and should be taken away from them, as encouragement to go outside and play:
<blockquote><i>
The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and <b>raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside</b>.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, there's been very little evidence that playing video games alone somehow leads kids to be less active or to play less outside, but it may also be worth putting this into a historical context.  Tom sends in a look back at <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=100-years-ago-baseballs" target="_new">some old quotes from Scientific American</a>, where the last one on the page, written in July of 1859 -- yes 150 years ago -- sounds quite similar to Obama's comments on video games, but is in reference to that pernicious child-obesity-causing monstrosity we call "chess":
<blockquote><i>
"A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, 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. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship."
</i></blockquote>
You heard them!  No more chess playing, you kids!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sedentary-occupations!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090628/1613445386</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shocker: Parents Don't Have A Good Idea Of What Their Kids Do Online</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1300534172.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1300534172.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A new study from the UK says that parents <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7948187.stm">underestimate by half</a> the amount of time their kids spend online, while 81% of those parents surveyed said they had a good idea of what their kids look at online, but just 31% of kids agreed. All this happens in spite of more than half of British parents saying they put filters or other sorts of controls on the PCs their kids use, suggesting that -- surprise, surprise -- those controls <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20060517/2243224.shtml">aren't</a> particularly effective. Furthermore, the survey would seem to indicate that what's lacking here aren't technological controls on kids' online behavior, but rather a lot of parental <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090212/1325343752.shtml">attention</a>. Trying to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090113/1619263394.shtml">outsource</a> parental responsibility to some technological solution isn't going to work -- but the responsibility shouldn't be to fully or accurately monitor kids' online behavior (which is largely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml">impossible</a> anyway), it should be to educate kids to protect themselves and behave responsibly on the internet.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1300534172.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1300534172.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1300534172.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>attention-gap</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090318/1300534172</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:46:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Do Kids Still Need Courses In Basic Computer Skills?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1233423969.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1233423969.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Stats out of the UK say that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7919350.stm">the number of students taking IT and computer courses is falling</a>. Fewer students are taking IT courses at the GSCE level, or at ages 13-16, and consequently fewer are studying and getting qualifications in it at sixth-form level, or when they're 16-18, and the country's Office for Standards in Education says this is cause for concern given the importance of IT skills in adult working life. It is certainly true that modern, advanced economies demand workers with computer skills, but perhaps the growing pervasiveness of home computers means that students are getting sufficient hands-on training, and don't have as great a need for dedicated computer coursework as they once did? Also, the Office says that the schools doing the best job of teaching IT and computer skills are those that spread computer resources across multiple subjects, and don't use them solely in specific IT courses. One would imagine that students' general computer skills have risen across the board over the last several years, and they pick them up through their other coursework, and of course, their personal lives. Curriculum should adjust to reflect this, and if there is less call for general computer skills, IT coursework should be refocused to provide students interested in IT careers the best base possible from which to work.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1233423969.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1233423969.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1233423969.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>readin,-ritin,-and-that-other-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090303/1233423969</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>European Parliament Study Finds Video Games Are Good For Kids</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0345093744.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0345093744.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For the past decade or so, the press and certain politicians have been somewhat successful in building a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/0218421649.shtml">moral panic</a> about video games and the supposed harm they do to children.  The problem is that there's almost no evidence that this is true -- and almost all of the evidence that <i>claims</i> this is true doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  Often, the moral panic-inducing results are actually either the researcher or (more likely) the press coming up with a conclusion that does not match with the actual study results.
<br /><br />
However, in just the last year, we've finally been seeing prominent researchers and politicians start to push back on this notion of video games causing harm.  Last year, two Harvard professors came out with a book reviewing all of the research and adding some of their own, all of which showed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080418/005355882.shtml">no evidence</a> that video games made kids violent (in fact, it found that it was the kids who <i>didn't</i> participate in video games that you should be worried about.
<br /><br />
Perhaps even more surprising, though, is that some politicians are now pushing back, as well.  A study done in the EU Parliament is now noting that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/12/computer-games-eu-study" target="_new">video games are actually good for kids</a>, noting that they can help "stimulate learning of facts and skills such as strategic thinking, creativity, cooperation and innovative thinking, which are important skills in the information society."  The report does, unfortunately, still claim that in some cases violent video games may stimulate violence (though, without much proof), but it's still surprising to see a political report on video games that sees them as being useful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0345093744.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0345093744.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0345093744.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>put-away-your-moral-panic</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090212/0345093744</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>