Gah, the DM needs jet-washing off the face of the earth. More rubbish in there than my local tip.
1) If you don't want your child being seen online, why give them access to a webcam in the first place
2) If your child is under the legal age for the site, why are they on it / why are you letting them on it?
3) If you are not supervising your child's online activities and/or exercising the parental controls available then you have no right to complain
4) If you have not educated your child about the dangers online and how to avoid them then you have no right to complain
5) Everyone with any amount of sense knows the internet is not a safe place; if you let your child wander freely around it, sooner or later they will see something you don't like
The writer's daughter seems to be the one with some sense in her family when she says "if you dont like something, you just click 'next' and move on'.
This is the world we live in now, and for me, the only shocking thing about that article is how shocked that mother/writer appears to be.
Do these people live in their own bubble of denial, plainly ignoring the world around them as it changes and then becoming increasingly horrified at how un-horrified our newer generations are by things that overly-horrify the older generations?
I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!
1. You are SLOW [ Daily Fail ] to catch on to this site.
2. teenage website? Who said it's for teenagers?
3. You state yourself that it is not for under-16s, and that there is a report button...So shut the hell up.
4. Any child or teenager is quickly going to get bored of this site, much like most users.
5. OMG! Most of the people you encountered were FOREIGN!
6. Your daugher and her friends weren't shocked? Maybe that's because they know that there are bad eggs on there, so they click past them and move on without writing an 'article' on the issue.
7. The article goes on to talk about completely unrelated issues.
8. What the hell has Ashley Cole got to do with this story?
9. Quote from Fred Wilson (dotcom company guy): 'The internet is this huge network with over a billion people worldwide on it. Chatroulette feels like a cool way to take a quick trip around that network, meeting people and talking to them.' That's not a negative statement, so why even include it. If your going to write biased articles, at least write biased articles that make sense.
10. Chatroulette is rubbish. But shove the Daily Mail where the sun don't shine. I'm surprised they didnt manage to reel videogames into this article too.
I hope she does not have this reaction to all websites.After my daughter first told me about it a few weeks ago, I decided to investigate the site for myself - and, even for a technophobe like me, the ease with which I was able to access it was terrifying.
2) I was under the legal age when i started drinking, but that doesnt mean my mum let me do it.
3) My mum didnt watch me every second of everyday, believe it or not i used to go outside and play football or go for adventures down the woods. Would my mum have not had the right to complain if a paedo had taken me no?
4) Most teachers and parents dont know the dangers themselves...
5) Yes they will, but in real life kids generally cant walk into a place and be presented with an endless supply of paedos penis's. Parents are still catching up
Personally i couldnt give a rats ass what i see on the web, infact i dont even see the endless onslaught of "want a bigger penis" & "want to meet girls" etc, but i dont really see what you are all complaining about. All newspapers exagerate, but this article is no worse than anyother, and infact makes a very valid point.
Last edited by j17sparky; 26th April 2010 at 05:37 PM.
Instead of writing these long, monotnous, useless articles about the perils of the web, why don't papers start helping parents out with actual solutions, such as K9 Web Protection - Free Internet Filtering and Parental Controls Software?
It's really a rhetorical question, as papers like the Daily Mail wouldn't have anything to write about if they didn't write rubbish.
"There are too many unacceptable cultural and moral boundaries that are crossed - like random and unpredictable exposure to nakedness - for it to persist in its present state. This brings up interesting questions of governance"
I've got an answer, you can't govern the internet. DON'T TRY.
Okay so this thread peeked my interest and I logged on to ChatRoullette last night to see for myself what all the fuss is about. Sure enough, this time, the DM has something of a point - with this site that is. I can't say I ever wanted to see so meny 30+ year old men pleasuring themselved in my life, I think I've been scared and mentally damaged by it. Certainly saw enough to realise that this sort of thing doesn't interest me and I won't be going near the site again. Still each to their own - as with anything on the .net - if you like this sort of stuff it's out there for you!
But of course the DM made that point within the first paragraph. The rest of the poorly written 5000word essay with nothing more than the usual tripe the DM spout about the evil internet. Poorly made links to other infamous internet grooming stories that bare little or no relevance followed by a call for tighter internet controls. Yawn.
I'm sure nothing would please them more a great internet firewall or blighty and a keylogger in every computer making sure you don't stray too far from the realms of what is deemed safe.
Its hilarious how they focus on the bad aspects of that site, when there are some good aspects too - such as people improvising songs based on what they see etc...
The simple fact is, the DailyMail write articles to pander to their market - the technophobe, 'omg immigrants', 'it didn't used to be this bad' brigade. Writing it properly, outlining the dangers and then outlining the advantages and also including details how how a responsible parent can block the site is just not within their market.
They like whipping people into a frenzy.
So, child is tricked, coersed or just plain had a lala-brain-fart moment and does something stupid on the internet, and parents are shocked that their children fell pray to it.
On the reverse, child is sensible enough to ignore the stupidity, and parents are shocked that the child is desensitized to the world!
So basically children should be not too smart, not too dumb, just the way parents want them.
The only way any of us learn, is to experience things and decide and make decisions accordingly. When a negative experience happens, people need to be supported in learning from it, Not wrapped up in warm blankets and cuddled till the "Badness" goes away.
And the less said by, and about the daily mail the better. They all too often go by the rules of "Any publicity is good publicity."
You knew what the site was, had been forewarned about the content, and you chose to click "next" enough times to see multiple cam's of content. As I said before, from my POV people have no right to complain if they know what they are getting into and choose to proceed anywaySure enough, this time, the DM has something of a point - with this site that is. I can't say I ever wanted to see so meny 30+ year old men pleasuring themselved in my life, I think I've been scared and mentally damaged by it
Best sum-up of the DM's attitude I've ever read!Originally Posted by localzuk
tech_guy (27th April 2010)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)