What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
18 Comments
- WiseWeasel, on 04/03/2008, -0/+18No. In fact, ultimately, any attempt by anyone at regulation of content on the internet is doomed to failure. Information wants to be free, censorship is routed around like network damage, etc. Instead, the more effective response is to educate people to be able to handle the potential hazards of internet use, and to monitor or limit your own child's online activity until they are able to do this for themselves. The internet will continue to be a seedy, dangerous place for as long as people continue to be seedy and predatory. It's idiotic to think that any court system or legislative body is going to be able to keep up with the evolution of the internet, which will try its best to stay seedy and dangerous. Instead, people need to be able to navigate these hazards, which will help them better understand fundamental human nature and deal with everyday social situations. The US couldn't even really regulate US-based social networking sites, as the site operators or users would find ways around it.
- Celeron, on 04/03/2008, -0/+17The best regulator are parents.
- Bleeding_Heart, on 04/03/2008, -0/+7If we are talking about improving parents awareness of online dangers and improving and promoting the use parental control software, then fine.
If they also want to use the same age logos on games and movies fine it makes it easier for parents to decide what is appropriate for their children. The BBFC have been pretty good with rating context over content lately and if we can use the same logos and system for Anime and Live Action, why not for game content.
If they want to get parental control software to block access to sites based on age, great it helps the site out and the parents, if you set the software to 12 and the sites minimum age is 13 then the site gets blocked.
Ultimately the parents will have to decide what they buy and what they allow their children to see, making it easier for them by tweaking some things isn't a problem.
Improving on systems already in place is a lot better than letting them stagnate and become irrelevant like governments tend to do. I think most if not all modern countries have some rating system in place better a useful one than a pointless one.
If we were talking about putting a giant content filtering system in place to keep legal things from adults then it would be a different matter. - Tenoq, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5Shame in today's world most people won't take any personal responsibility for their own failings. It's always someone else's fault. Just look at how litigious we've become. The best regulators ARE parents - but far, FAR too many refuse to take responsibility for their kids and their upbringing.
- bosssmiley, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5child protection, identity theft etc - nothing but Trojan Horses for the rampant control freakery of the Thought Police elements of the British government.
The powers that be want to keep our ability to assemble and exchange ideas within their purview at all times. Untramelled freedom of thought, association and/or assembly cannot be tolerated any more. This is just extending the Criminal Justice Act "Any assembly of more than a dozen people without prior notification to the police = proof of criminal intent" (yes, that has been British law since the 1990s) onto the web.
As an aside. You know, you'll *never* see the word 'unregulated' used in praise of something in either the British press or in government press releases. - pezholio, on 04/03/2008, -2/+6What are you wittering on about?
- Leomarth, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4The US feels it can regulate Canadian businesses. Why not have other countries regulate ours? It's the principle of reciprocity. If we want to push the rest of the world around, we give them ethical grounds to push us around.
- arkivx, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4OBEY.
- Jamfa, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Okay, I call that article out, I KNOW, that nobody is on Bebo!
- ciaran036, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4They better not! What's to regulate there is nothing wrong with any popular social networking sites!
- synyster, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2guess you never been to asia
- antdude, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1And they shouldn't be having sex without controls (condoms).
- ciaran036, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1They better not! What's to regulate? There is nothing wrong with any popular social networking sites!
Is that any better for you?
And no. - MadOgre, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2No. They can't. We have the first amendment here... they can blow me.
- adsighted, on 03/13/2009, -0/+0Better not to regulate. Else what the purpose of Social?
- digtestcase, on 04/03/2008, -3/+0If they also want to use the same age logos on games and movies fine it makes it easier for parents to decide what is appropriate for their children.
- PJBovoNox, on 04/03/2008, -4/+0Did you pick up that awkward style of writing from such sites?
- Scheissen, on 04/03/2008, -11/+5Go! go! socialism!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is