Well, I could say something but I feel like I'd be recapping rstuart and CJ Morgan- but I think I can add a few new points.

Shouldn't the lesson to this story be that kids should NOT get access to computers with internet access AT ALL until they're older? Generally it sends a clear point that the internet simply is NOT suitable for young children.

I mean, a kid could pinch dad's credit card, jump on the machine, enter every detail in and have a giant shopping splurge without him knowing till the parcel comes to the door (or the bill). It would be impossible for someone to do this over the phone or by mail if they were underage.

But instead, the rest of the country's mature adults are expected to get their (free and private) access to pornography, as well as access to stunt videos, fighting matches, documentaries, and to information unsuitable for children (eg politicial sites, to how to make a battery) cut solely because some parents feel strongly that seeing this stuff too early is going to deviate their kids (but the horribly sexualised and gruesome content on morning TV- Britney Spears etc, along with Australia's Funniest Home Videos, The Simpsons, South Park, the news, UNICEF ads, sex adverts on buildings isn't a big deal)- but at the same time, can't even be arsed to speak to a few other parents about taking preventative measures themselves (if the other parents would say no- would you want your kids with theirs at all?)
Just another case of someone trying to pass their own problems onto someone else out of their sight.

And daresay, there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too. Sadly I think it's exactly as CJ said- pollies obsessively pandering to the minority of wowsers.

And daresay, there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too. Sadly I think it's exactly as CJ saidPosted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 December 2009 2:28:34 PM

Thank you. You have made my point for me again. Now, listen to this. What is the base line for all of society? Yes, that's right! the upper class. From that line we can draw the picture of where the right and wrongs begins and ends, and thats why they - pollies obsessively pandering to the minority of wowsers.

That line is where we look up to and this is where targets are formed for the height-level,s one can achieve. You know the pecking order, so dont use that as your base line for your argument. That said,

"there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too".

No! there,s a lot of understanding on the young developing mind, but the question is, how will they perform as adults in the future is still yet to be seen. Have a look at the cartoon the family guy, psycho stewie, hell bent on killing his mother and taking over the world. Peter griffin, and I wonder how a child see,s that as a roll model along with homer Simpson and you can go on until the sun comes up. So Its a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

I,ll finish with saying, Its a risky old world today. Maybe your right. Things will just work out just like we worked it out, and its the same way, just another day.

rstuart
You are talking about internet filters not a clean feed. My understanding is that ISPs that offer a clean feed/filter are still using the same Internet feed and screening at the distribution point. This is not a perfect system.

I find when talking about these issues that as soon as the words prudes or wowsers come out for lack of cogent argument the debate is already over.

Particularly annoying is when some posters liken the internet filter to anti-democratic practices such as in China. It misses the point.

How do we make the Internet safer for younger people given that the Internet is now a major educational tool?

It is almost farcical at how any issue of child protection on these forums is turned into a demonisation exercise. This is not about being populist but being pragmatic about how we can get around these problems. It might not be a problem for you but it is for others.

What is your argument against two feeds?

Pelican “It is almost farcical at how any issue of child protection on these forums is turned into a demonisation exercise.”

Any parent who buys a child a computer can also afford to by the appropriate management software.

My VET licence covers 3 PCs for $99 pa. and includes a comprehensive site vetting system to block chatrooms and adult sites etc, unless exempted by the parent..

Thus VET software resolves all the parental issues which can ever be considered for $33 pa.

So why do we need the government to act as VET and ban adults from making free adult choices?

Answer – we do not

I protested conroys proposals months ago and got a letter telling me why he knew best

Get this – no politican, least of all a socialist politician, knows best for what suites or interests me.

No politican has the elected right to limit my internet choices.

If Conroy manages to set this system of institutional censorship up, I can only pray that the next (non-socialist) government has the sense and respect for the electorate to dismantle it

pelican: "You are talking about internet filters not a clean feed. My understanding is that ISPs that offer a clean feed/filter are still using the same Internet feed and screening at the distribution point."

Hmmm. This is an issue. I can't visualise what you think a clean feed is, so I am having trouble understanding your comment. I'll put my reply in general terms and hope we can progress from there.

You can think of the internet as being like our road system. The web sites in this analogy are the houses and business on the roads. The internet is the thing that connects you to them. And just as when you build a driveway to your house you become part of the road system, when you connect your computer to the internet you are become part of the internet.

There are no feeds on our road systems. Yes, there free ways that are faster than normal roads and there are secluded quiet roads, but there is no "feed" than only connects you to kid safe roads, or will only take you to schools and playgrounds. The best you can do is set up a gated communities with someone guarding the gates. The internet is no different. There is no "clean" version of the internet that will only take you to kid safe sites as by definition the internet, like our road system, connects every site to every other. In fact just as the entire point of the road system is to connect everybody to everybody else, the entire point of the internet is to connect every computer to every other computer on the planet. And like our roads, if you want a clean internet the best you can do is erect a guarded gate - or a filter as they are called on the internet.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

All the Australian government is proposing to do is to implement mandatory guarded gate. Their proposed "clean feed" is just the internet seen through their filter. Lets put censorship concerns aside for a moment, and look at this proposed in terms or what you want versus what it will do. Unlike books, movies and so on which are graded by age, this mandatory filter will apply to _all_ Australian's - kids and adults alike and must be suitable for both. But that is an impossible ask. It must allow adult sites through that aren't suitable for kids - sites that show condom use, give advice on reducing harms from recreational drug use, show news reports of abuse animals, war victims, homosexual sites, self breast examination .. the list goes on and on.

And of course, that assumes a filter that actually removes all R18+ sites and only those sites is possible. As I have explained before, it isn't. There are 1 trillion web pages out there. Technically and economically it is certainly possible to filter of say 1% of them. What isn't possible is creating that list in the first place. The government is proposing all banned web pages will be personally viewed by a bureaucrat, but as I said that takes an absurd amount of time to do. Anybody can do the simple calculation that shows it will take (very optimistically) a 100,000 man years to rate the likely 1% of "unclean" web pages out there. Even rating 10% of those 1% unclean pages is likely beyond us. That means 90% of the pages you want filtered will still be freely available on the "clean feed".

Have you got that? Not only will the mandatory filter not achieve why you want, putting it together is impossible. It doesn't take a genius to see this. The reasons should be understandable by the biggest internet Luddite out there.

(cont'd...)