<?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;parents&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:45:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>Proposed California Bill Would Require Sites To Hand Over Private Info On Kids To Their Parents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130302/02285622177/proposed-california-bill-would-require-sites-to-hand-over-private-info-kids-to-their-parents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130302/02285622177/proposed-california-bill-would-require-sites-to-hand-over-private-info-kids-to-their-parents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It really is <i>stunning</i> how rarely it appears that politicians who introduce bills "for the children" think through the obvious consequences of those bills.  For years, we've discussed how COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, has had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01274116465/unintended-consequences-trying-to-overprotect-children-internet.shtml">massive unintended consequences</a>, mainly cutting off lots of useful sites from any kids under the age of 13.  It's also led to parents encouraging their kids to lie about their age, when they realize that all their friends are on sites like Facebook.  Also, many people point out that COPPA is really an attack on kid's free speech rights.  California has passed its own Online Privacy Protection Act that goes a bit further, but apparently, at least one California politician wants to take things even further, and is doing so with a plan that seems incredibly poorly thought out.
<br /><br />
California Assemblywoman Nora Campos proposed a bill a few weeks ago, AB 319, that would expand things so much that any sites that collect any information about anyone under the age of <i>18</i> would be <i>required under law</i> to <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_319_bill_20130212_introduced.pdf" target="_blank">reveal that personal information to parents</a> if requested.
<br /><br />
Now, think about that for a second.  Since this is for any kids up to 18, we're talking about most of the teenage years for most kids.  These are the years in which many teens rebel against their parents, which is, in many ways, a natural part of growing up and becoming an independent adult.  To think that parents should be able to find out information directly from various sites about their kids' use of those sites seems incredibly problematic.  There may be sites where the teens have tried to keep information private from their parents.  And maybe that's because, say, the parents are anti-gay, and the child is gay.  Do we really want parents to have easy access to that material?  Or... what if it's a site for abused kids, and they are signing up to get help and to report that abuse? Under this law, it would appear that parents can check up on their kids on those sites.
<br /><br />
What this bill would mean is that, in California, minors can get an abortion without parental notification, but they can't use Facebook.  Also, under California law, teenagers may be <a href="http://www.saclaw.lib.ca.us/pages/emancipation.aspx" target="_blank">emancipated</a> as of age 14.  But their parents can still spy on their online activities?
<br /><br />
Oh yeah, and the parents can order those sites to <b>no longer allow their children to use</b> the sites any more.  For troubled kids, seeking to connect with others who can help them at the point when they're struggling the most with their parents, it would seem like a situation that could have disastrous consequences.
<blockquote><i>
An operator shall provide to a parent whose minor dependent
 has provided personal information to an Internet Web site or online
 service, upon request of the parent and proper identification, a
 description of the specific types of personal information collected
 from the minor by the operator, the opportunity at any time to
 refuse to permit the operator&#8217;s further use or maintenance in
 retrievable form, or future online collection, of personal
 information from the minor, and a means that is reasonable under
 the circumstances for the parent to obtain personal information
 collected from the minor.
</i></blockquote>
I'm sure Campos is thinking that this is one of those "protect the children" bills that makes for nice headlines.  But shouldn't someone actually think about the actual impact of these bills before they get introduced?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130302/02285622177/proposed-california-bill-would-require-sites-to-hand-over-private-info-kids-to-their-parents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130302/02285622177/proposed-california-bill-would-require-sites-to-hand-over-private-info-kids-to-their-parents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130302/02285622177/proposed-california-bill-would-require-sites-to-hand-over-private-info-kids-to-their-parents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no,-that-won't-backfire-at-all...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130302/02285622177</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:54:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Poll: US Adults Think Video Games Lead To Violence But Can't Be Bothered To Understand ESRB Ratings</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/06092022134/poll-us-adults-think-video-games-lead-to-violence-cant-be-bothered-to-understand-esrb-ratings.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/06092022134/poll-us-adults-think-video-games-lead-to-violence-cant-be-bothered-to-understand-esrb-ratings.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
It just keeps coming. More and more news items are hitting my eyeballs and ears about violence and video games. We recently discussed the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=violent+video+games">problem</a> with polling adults over this issue, where a giant age-rift still exists amongst gaming habits and that rift appeared to be tossed out for the purposes of the poll in question. Polls like that might be laughable at first, but when you begin to see <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/14455721898/ct-state-representative-proposes-10-tax-mature-video-games.shtml">misplaced legislation</a> introduced by politicians kowtowing to the results, we've got a problem. But let's take it one possibly controversial step further and ask an important question regarding these polls: do Americans generally have any credibility on the question at all?
<br /><br />
Polls like this recent Harris poll, where <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/440011/20130227/violent-games-call-duty-study-harris-poll.htm">over half of American adults link violence and video games</a>, make me question whether that is the case. The problem I have isn't that specific result. If half of Americans think there's a link, that's their right. I can disagree with it, but I won't quibble with their right to believe. No, my problem is the results of the follow up questions regarding the ESRB rating system.
<blockquote>
<i>Two thirds of US adults said they used the ESRB system to help them decide which games were suitable for their children, although only 14 percent claimed to fully understand what the guidelines meant. 18 percent of adult said they mostly, but not completely understood the ESRB ratings system.</i></blockquote>
To highlight the absurdity of the respondents, one needs only place all this in a single sentence. Over half of adults believe violence and video games are linked, two thirds of them use an ESRB system, which less than 80% even claim to <i>mostly </i>understand, to decide which games to buy for their children. This isn't to say that the ESRB rating convention isn't without its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061004/115406.shtml">problems</a>, but come on. If half of adults think there's a link between <i>children and violence</i>, but can't be bothered to <i>mostly</i> understand the rating system (which isn't <i>that </i>complicated), then there's a disconnect somewhere. Either adults don't actually think the link exists, or else they don't really consider the link to be all that important.
<br /><br />
Either way, it doesn't speak to the credibility of the American public on the issue, which is sad.
<br /><br />
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/06092022134/poll-us-adults-think-video-games-lead-to-violence-cant-be-bothered-to-understand-esrb-ratings.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/06092022134/poll-us-adults-think-video-games-lead-to-violence-cant-be-bothered-to-understand-esrb-ratings.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/06092022134/poll-us-adults-think-video-games-lead-to-violence-cant-be-bothered-to-understand-esrb-ratings.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wait,-what?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130227/06092022134</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Recording Industry Rep Suggests Parents Should Slap Their Children To Stop Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/09391821074/recording-industry-rep-suggests-parents-should-slap-their-children-to-stop-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/09391821074/recording-industry-rep-suggests-parents-should-slap-their-children-to-stop-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the many problems with the "guilty until proven innocent" approach to tackling unauthorized filesharing is that it's not clear exactly who should get the punishment.  For example, in France, we saw someone <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/06550920370/first-hadopi-victim-convicted-not-his-own-infringement-because-his-wife-downloaded-songs.shtml">convicted</a> not for infringement that he had committed, but something his then-wife had done and even admitted.  And it's not just spousal activity that is problematic, as TorrentFreak reports in this <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/parents-not-responsible-for-their-teenagers-music-piracy-121116/">interesting case from Germany</a>:

<i><blockquote>A ruling handed down yesterday by Germany's highest court represents a blow to rightsholders in their quest to clamp down on illicit file-sharing. The court ruled that the parents of a teenager who had made available more than 1,100 songs on file-sharing networks can not be held responsible for their son's infringements, nor be required to monitor or hinder his online activities.</blockquote></i>

What's particularly interesting here is that Germany's top court not only threw out the original fine, but did so without imposing any unreasonable conditions on the parents, for example by requiring them to spy on their child:

<i><blockquote>The Court ruled that the parents had met their parental obligations when they informed their child of "basic do's and don'ts" including that file-sharing copyrighted content online is illegal.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the parents were not required to monitor their child's online activities nor install special software to restrict his online behavior. This would only be required should the parents have "reasonable grounds" to presume that their child would engage in infringing activities online.</blockquote></i>

Of course, not everyone was happy with this result, which could have major implications for imposing fines in Germany, since it seems likely that much unauthorized file sharing there as elsewhere is carried out by teenagers in their family homes.  The <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2012/musikindustrie-empfiehlt-eltern-ohrfeigen-gegen-filesharing/">Netzpolitik.org blog</a> pointed us to an interesting comment made by a representative of the music industry (<a href="http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/musiktausch-im-internet-eltern-haften-nicht-fuer-raubkopien-ihrer-kinder-11961702.html">original in German</a>):

<i><blockquote>The case shines "a harsh light" on the fact that, for many parents, the concept of upbringing has become a foreign word, the legal representative of the music industry complained, according to the AFP news agency at the hearing before the federal court in Karlsruhe. While before "an occasional slap didn't hurt", today children are kept on a loose leash.</blockquote></i>

This hankering after the good old days when parents could hit children to cow them into submission is hardly surprising: it's the physical equivalent of the disproportionate legal punishment the music industry would like to see meted out to all those caught doing naughty things online like sharing files without permission.
</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/20121116/09391821074/recording-industry-rep-suggests-parents-should-slap-their-children-to-stop-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/09391821074/recording-industry-rep-suggests-parents-should-slap-their-children-to-stop-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/09391821074/recording-industry-rep-suggests-parents-should-slap-their-children-to-stop-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mask-is-slipping</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121116/09391821074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>AMC Defies MPAA Bullies: Will Show Unrated Documentary To Kids With Permission Slips</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/10242818279/amc-defies-mpaa-bullies-will-show-unrated-documentary-to-kids-with-permission-slips.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/10242818279/amc-defies-mpaa-bullies-will-show-unrated-documentary-to-kids-with-permission-slips.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>There's been a bit of a kerfuffle in Hollywood lately surrounding the documentary <em>Bully</em>, which has drawn attention to the ridiculousness of the MPAA's movie ratings system&mdash;and may even indicate the first real erosion of the organization's power in that area. The documentary&mdash;which has been well-received as an accurate depiction of real problems, and a potentially important film for parents, teachers and kids to see&mdash;was rated R by the MPAA for harsh language, which would stop kids under 17 from seeing it in theatres alone. This sparked a massive push-back from the studio and the anti-bullying activist community, but the MPAA refused to budge, so the studio announced that it would <a href="http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/26/unrated-bully-mpaa/" target="_blank">release the film as unrated by the MPAA</a> (though they do include the much more reasonable "Pause 13+" rating it received from <a href="http://www.commonsensemedia.org/" target="_blank">Common Sense Media</a>, a non-profit children's advocacy group).</p>

<p>This can confuse people, because it's a common assumption that movie ratings are required by the government. In fact, the MPAA's rating system is unregulated and entirely voluntary, and was created as a way to <em>avoid</em> government intervention. The rating from CSM carries no more or less <em>legal</em> weight than an MPAA rating&mdash;but participation by studios, cinemas and retailers in the MPAA system has been so widespread for so long that their ratings are the de facto standard, and essentially mandatory. Any film can be released without a rating, but traditionally that has been commercial suicide, since theatres would treat it as NC17, a rating under which success is nearly impossible since most theatres won't show such films <em>at all</em>. But that's where things with <em>Bully</em> get interesting: AMC has announced that its theatres will show the movie and make it easy for kids to see it. In a unique move, they are <a href="http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/27/bully-amc-common-sense-media/" target="_blank">providing a parental permission slip on their website</a> for kids to print, get signed, and bring to the theatre:</p>

<blockquote><em>&#8220;AMC will be presenting Bully&#8230;as not rated,&#8221; said the theater-chain in a statement. &#8220;Guests younger than 17 can see the film if they are accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, or if they present a signed parental permission slip.&#8221;
<br /><br />
That permission slip will be available on Wednesday <a href="http://go.amctheatres.com/bully" target="_blank">at this link on AMC&#8217;s website</a>. ... (A rep for the company declined to comment on the Parent&#8217;s Television Council&#8217;s statement that screening Bully at AMC&#8217;s theaters &#8220;threatens to derail the entire ratings system.&#8221;)</em></blockquote>

<p>That last bit is interesting, because it shows that the Parents Television Council (notorious <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090911/0257326163.shtml">moralist meddlers</a> in the free speech rights of others) knows <em>exactly</em> what's happening. The power of the MPAA and groups like PTC relies entirely on momentum and force of habit. Nobody is beholden to them, but for a long time it seemed like everyone forgot that. That let the MPAA warp the rating system and use it for their own purposes such as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/0202117509.shtml">playing politics</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110322/04313013586/how-mpaa-screws-over-indie-filmmakers.shtml">screwing over</a> indie filmmakers, and even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060831/152253.shtml">punishing a documentary</a> that criticized the rating system itself. But now people are remembering that they don't have to play by the MPAA's self-serving rules. In their statement, <a href="http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/27/ptc-bully-unrated/" target="_blank">PTC neatly predicts the future</a>, though they rail against it:</p>

<blockquote><em>"This move, regardless of intentions, sets a precedent that threatens to derail the entire ratings system," said PTC head Tim Winter in a statement."If a distribution company can simply decide to operate outside of the ratings system in a case like Bully, nothing would prevent future filmmakers from doing precisely the same thing, with potentially much more problematic material."</em></blockquote>

<p>As with most of the disruption happening in the entertainment industry, this has a lot to do with the internet. In the past, if everyone played by the rules, there was basically no such thing as "unmet demand" for a film with a bad rating. Once the MPAA handed down its death sentence, nobody would touch the project, and it would receive no promotion or screen time, so nobody outside film circles even knew about it. Now lots of people are plugged into the festival circuit and the inside world of film, so a movie like <em>Bully</em> can generate plenty of buzz before it even hits Hollywood. The demand for the film was there, the studios were able to gamble on that demand, and AMC could see the advantage in breaking the rules to meet it. If the film is a success (which seems likely) it will deal a powerful and much-needed blow to the MPAA's ratings regime.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/10242818279/amc-defies-mpaa-bullies-will-show-unrated-documentary-to-kids-with-permission-slips.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/10242818279/amc-defies-mpaa-bullies-will-show-unrated-documentary-to-kids-with-permission-slips.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/10242818279/amc-defies-mpaa-bullies-will-show-unrated-documentary-to-kids-with-permission-slips.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-only-have-as-much-power-as-we-give-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120328/10242818279</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 04:31:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/00095411021.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/00095411021.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ An anti-violence video game group has pulled the easiest trick in the book, hiring a polling firm to do a poll that claims that <a href="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1120399p1.html" target="_blank">72% of parents want an anti-violent video game law</a>.  Of course, with something like this, how you ask such questions is very, very important.  And, of course, it's not hard to word questions about violent video games in a way that would easily make them say they supported a law.  Of course,  you could just as easily twist things around.  I would imagine that if the questions were worded along the lines of:
<blockquote><i>
Do you support a law that takes your freedom of choice as a parent over what sorts of media your child might consume?
</i></blockquote>
the results might be quite different.  Or, how about if it asked:
<blockquote><i>
Despite no evidence of harm down by certain media products, the government is looking to set up barriers to having your children take part in certain cultural events.  Do you support such a law?
</i></blockquote>
Obviously, both questions are highly biased, but it shows what a waste this kind of survey is, when it's designed to elicit a particular response, and almost certainly does not put the issues into context for people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/00095411021.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/00095411021.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/00095411021.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-exactly-unbiased</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100915/00095411021</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Are Kids Not Going Into Computer Science Because Their Parents Want Them To Be Sports Stars?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0202156667.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0202156667.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been some talk lately about how come not as many students are taking computer science in school, and someone over at Information Management online is suggesting that <a href="http://www.information-management.com/news/computer_science_education_week_house_resolution-10016354-1.html" target="_blank">it's all your parents fault</a> for encouraging you to be a baseball star or a CEO or the next American Idol.  This seems to be based on nothing more than a hunch, and the whole thing makes no sense to me.  My guess is that most people who don't go into computer science don't do it because <i>they're not interested in it</i>.  I don't think the answer is to tell your little slugger to put down the baseball bat and spend more time learning BASIC.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0202156667.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0202156667.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0202156667.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/0202156667</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:26:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/0236545786.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/0236545786.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ My parents recently joined Facebook (a few months after joining Twitter), and I actually thought that was pretty cool -- but I'm no longer at the age where everything my parents do embarrasses me.  For kids who <i>are</i> at that point in their lives, having parents join Facebook is quite a conundrum.  The latest study out of the UK is suggesting that, with parents suddenly joining Facebook en masse, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/06/young-abandon-social-networking-sites" target="_new">it's becoming uncool for kids to be there</a>.  I have no idea how accurate the study is, but if it's true, it raises an interesting question: is there a way to avoid such an "uncoolness" factor as a site like Facebook expands?  I would think that you'd need to build in certain features to separate out groups easily, so that you could quickly dunk parents into a certain bucket, and friends into a different one, to make sure that lives are "kept separate."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/0236545786.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/0236545786.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/0236545786.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-always-something</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090806/0236545786</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:54:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can Someone Explain How Video Games Are Worse For Kids Than Plain TV?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0333315457.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0333315457.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, video games have been a convenient bogeyman/scapegoat for politicians to use in complaining about the sort of thing "kids these days" do on a daily basis.  In the past, it's been other things -- from TV to music to comic books.  But, these days, video games pop up an awful lot.  So I guess it should come as no surprise at all that a recent study in Canada found that <a href="http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-parents-prefer-tv-movies-computer-games-kids-/2009/07/03/4257211.htm" target="_new">parents put much greater limits on how much time kids can spend playing video games</a> than they do on TV or movies.  Of course, this seems entirely backwards.  Not that parents should let young kids just randomly play any video game, but if they're playing age-appropriate video games, you would think that would be a lot <i>better</i> than just sitting there watching TV with no interactivity whatsoever.  Plenty of studies have shown that the interactivity of video games helps kids have better hand-eye coordination and (in some studies) problem solving skills.  So why not encourage that?  It's not examined in the study, but I'd guess that the constant complaining about these "awful video games" has an impact on a busy parent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0333315457.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0333315457.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0333315457.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>demonizing-video-games</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090706/0333315457</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, 11 Mar 2009 13:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090310/0231144053.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090310/0231144053.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Tony Eaton points us to the rather disturbing news that New Zealand's "chief censor" (quite a title, there...), Bill Hastings, is <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/03/07/new-zealand-censor-prosecute-parents-who-give-violent-games-kids" target="_new">interested in <i>prosecuting</i> parents who have bought their kids violent video games</a>.  Apparently parenting is no longer for parents, but for Bill Hastings to determine what is, and what is not appropriate:
<blockquote><i>
"There would certainly be some shock value to prosecuting a parent who gives their under-18 child access to a restricted game. It would send out a message that the enforcement agency means business."
</i></blockquote>
Based on the law, parents prosecuted could face $10,000 fines or be put in jail for three months.  Which do you think would do more harm to a child?  Playing GTA or having their parent dragged through a show trial, for "shock value," and dumped in jail for three months?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090310/0231144053.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090310/0231144053.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090310/0231144053.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shock-value</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090310/0231144053</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:20:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>Parents Think The Internet Is More Dangerous Than Drugs Or Drunk Driving?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0311242719.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0311242719.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed repeatedly how the press has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/0218421649.shtml">freaked people out</a> over the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/020921.shtml">greatly overhyped</a> threats of online risks to children.  And, not surprisingly, those stories have had an impact.  <a href="http://techliberation.com/2008/11/02/whats-more-dangerous-the-internet-or-drunk-drivers/">Adam Thierer</a> points us to a Larry Magid column where he's discussing a recent survey that shows many parents are <a href="http://kids.yahoo.com/parents/blog/1003/103--Is the Internet as Dangerous as Drunk Driving%3F" target="_new">more worried about online threats to their kids</a> than they are about the threat of drunk driving or drugs.  Magid points out how silly this is, and how low the real risk is to kids surfing the internet.  He's the latest mainstream press columnist to realize how much the mainstream press has overplayed this threat for years.  It's just too bad that it's taken this long for everyone to realize the threat online isn't nearly as big as it has been made out to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0311242719.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0311242719.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0311242719.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-what-the-press-taught-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081103/0311242719</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few years, the "but think of the children!" crowd constantly talks up the importance of having parents monitor their kids' online activities, and often puts out studies like the following one, <a href="http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&#038;name=News&#038;file=article&#038;sid=17092" target="_new">bemoaning the fact that not enough parents are monitoring their kids enough</a>.  Of course, the simple fact is that parents are never going to be able to fully monitor what their kids do online (at least without seriously pissing off their kids).  If kids want to chat online, they're going to find a way to be able to do so.  Perhaps rather than focusing so much on spying on everything that kids do, the focus should be more on <i>educating</i> them to the dangers that are out there, the laws that they should be aware of and the risks of not obeying them.  We have this tendency in our society to overprotect kids, which often has the opposite effect: not preparing them properly to face the real world.  Kids who understand the risks tend to make <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060809/1324238.shtml">better choices</a> online.  As for those who are constantly spied on and overly protective?  We'll again quote Richard Posner in one of his legal rulings:
<blockquote><i>
"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."
</i></blockquote>
Parents should be <i>aware</i> of what their kids are doing online by talking to them about it, and helping to educate their kids on the risks they face, but that doesn't mean spying on their every move.  That will only backfire.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080826/0913572100.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-think-of-the-children!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080826/0913572100</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:45:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fewer And Fewer Parents Freaking Out About Kids Chatting Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/194802818.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/194802818.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you look at the history of pop culture, there's a pretty clear pattern that emerges: parents fear whatever "new" thing their kids are into, whether it's "rock n roll" or video games or social networking.  The fear boils up, even to the point of politicians pushing for laws to stop this horrible thing.  But then, after a little while, parents realize the "new thing" they feared really isn't so bad.  So while we're still seeing fear mongering reports about social networking, it appears that <a href="http://www.marketingvox.com/americans-more-comfortable-with-kids-social-networking-chat-room-use-037941/" target="_new">parents are increasingly comfortable with their kids chatting online</a> using social networks or chat applications.  That's good, too, because studies have shown these things really <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080218/232906285.shtml">are not</a> particularly dangerous, and most kids are perfectly able to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060809/1324238.shtml">handle</a> whatever minor dangers they might face.  Have no fear, though, I'm sure parents will soon find some other new terrible thing that needs to be regulated... and politicians will happily oblige.  And, in the meantime, since politicians are a bit slow on these things, don't expect the laws against social networks to die down just yet either.  There's still plenty of grandstanding to be squeezed out of that lemon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/194802818.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/194802818.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/194802818.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-things</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080410/194802818</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Adults Encroach Upon Youth Turf Online</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/17145938.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/17145938.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As technology starts to develop at a quicker and quicker pace, a generational digital divide has started to form between the children, who are growing up amidst all of this new technology, and their parents, who are left to play catch up.  So, though most adults are now familiar with technologies like email (which has been around for decades now), more are starting to use instant messaging and social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook.  We're not referring to the so-called "online predators" that have been the subject of numerous tv specials.  As mom and dad embrace these technologies, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_hi_te/technological_turf_war;_ylt=AmsgyiJWcIikqSQb4uYVNbgjtBAF" target="_new">today's youths complain that grown-ups are encroaching upon their "turf" and would prefer that they stay on their side of the generational digital divide</a>.  Online youths have been quick to embrace the sites like Facebook as somewhat of a <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/07/facebook-and-multiple-personality-syndrome/">social theater</a> where they where they publicly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/220404.shtml">canoodle with crushes</a>, post pictures of the previous night's escapades, and comment openly on each others' profiles.  Now, as adults get hip to the internet, these once private worlds are now at risk of being invaded.  Back when these adults were kids, there was never really a fear of their parents invading their parties, or crashing their proms, so now some youths feel it necessary to keep a "grown-up friendly" online presence, thereby ruining the appeal of such sites.  It might behoove Facebook to introduce more selective sharing levels, lest their most avid users start to lose interest in actually using the site.  That said, this problem of over-sharing is not unique to youths -- for quite some time now, adults have been getting into <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060118/1056224.shtml">trouble</a> over their online profiles as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/17145938.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/17145938.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/17145938.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>your-mom-poked-me</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080122/17145938</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:31:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Lots Of Parents Playing Video Games With Kids... Though, That's Not What The Headlines Say</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/164017.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/164017.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the last few years, we've seen a number of studies suggesting that, while most people think of video games as something kids play, that it's increasingly becoming a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20061207/141259&#038;threaded=true">family activity</a> involving parents (and even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060519/1346212.shtml">grandparents</a>) playing video games with their kids.  This seemed like a good thing.  A common activity over which families can bond seems positive.  That's why it was a bit surprising to see a bunch of headlines trumpeting the news that <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5if3tJjIxhz596nF_zjpcPWstHt5gD8SSC7HO2">"Many Parents Avoid Video Games With Kids."</a>    So when you get down into the article, you see that the headline is seriously misleading.  What the report actually says is 43% of parents with kids who play video games never play with them.  That would mean that 57% <i>do play video games</i> with their kids, which seems like quite a large number, especially compared to earlier reports.  Yet, that apparently doesn't support the story line that the headline writer wanted to tell.  While it is true that another 30% say they spend less than an hour a week playing video games with kids, that is still <i>some</i> bonding time, and shows that many, many parents are quite aware of what kinds of video games their kids are playing -- meaning that perhaps politicians can stop claiming they need to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/004822.shtml">act as parents</a> when it comes to video games.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/164017.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/164017.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/164017.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>details,-people,-details</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071112/164017</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>