X-13 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Oh, of course. But then the problem isn't the game, its the individual's psychological state. We shouldn't ban all games, we should watch over that person. Exactly. IMO, the same applies here. I thought of this idea two minutes ago so feel free to tear into it, but it seems a more reasonable compromise to me than giving up yet more freedoms. Looks fine to me... But, I'm currently being distracted by the litre bottle of Strongbow I just got given by one of our office staff, for helping her out. [This is in addition to the litre bottle given by another member of staff and the 2 litre bottle given by our HT.] Edited June 28, 2012 by X-13
sonofsanta Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Exactly. IMO, the same applies here. Which is why it's "better the devil you know" in one respect - if you know where the dodgy sites are, you can monitor the access to them and find out who is a danger, rather than shutting them down and just driving it all further out of site. I recall hearing of one site operator who was caught whilst he was still logged into his child-abuse site, so the FBI/whoever just sat down for a week and took logs of everyone accessing it. The difficulty is that these subjects are very emotional and it's difficult to dissociate yourself and approach it knowing that people are being harmed right now, but you can prevent a greater amount of future harm if you take the harder road. None of this is an easy topic to approach, which is why the discussion and debate here and elsewhere is so important. Looks fine to me... But, I'm currently being distracted by the litre bottle of Strongbow I just got given by one of our office staff, for helping her out. [This is in addition to the litre bottle given by another member of staff and the 2 litre bottle given by our HT.] Sounds like you're getting a reputation there...
localzuk Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Looks fine to me... But, I'm currently being distracted by the litre bottle of Strongbow I just got given by one of our office staff, for helping her out. [This is in addition to the litre bottle given by another member of staff and the 2 litre bottle given by our HT.] Party at X-13's place tonight then!!
GrumbleDook Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The research on the impact of violent films / games varies and there is significant research which does show links, particularly in vulnerable adults and children ... but the media tend to spin it so that they ignore the actual science of the research (including other factors such as socio-economic, historical and latent issues) and you get "Video games cause cancer" headlines instead of dealing with support for obsessive personalities, lack of communication skills between generations, etc. General Aggression Model is a good place to start for some of this but to understand a lot of it does require a substantial knowledge of Psychology (including Child Psychology) which is passed my generally basic stuff. The last stuff I read was from 2007-8 and was talking about the difference between the impact of violent films and violent games ... as films are generally passive but games are active, which supports embedding of emotions linked with the game (both positive and negative emotions) There was a really good talk at the NAACE conference about the nueroscience of learning (as this is an area impacted by this as well) and the use of games in education, and also some of the risk. As for the needs of the few outweighing the rights of the many ... as soon as you start arguing that this is a bad thing, then you will have a wave of people pointing out that if you forget and ignore the minority then the problem can get worse ... and soon the majority are affected by the same issue.
sted Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 As for the needs of the few outweighing the rights of the many ... as soon as you start arguing that this is a bad thing, then you will have a wave of people pointing out that if you forget and ignore the minority then the problem can get worse ... and soon the majority are affected by the same issue. well yes but thats why you have to be 17 to drive a car, films have cassifications etc the risks are there but are staggered (for want of a better term) as physically a 12 year old can drive a car its just probably not a good idea. You cant always please everyone and you cant always cater to the lowest possible donominator because if you do you start to affect others in unpredictable ways (for instance just because i dont swear a lot and dont like it i dont think it should be a criminal offence but im sure other people disagree granted a silly example) But you have to draw a line somewhere that says this is your problem/responsibility not societies you sort it
X-13 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Sounds like you're getting a reputation there... hopefully, it's the reputation of "we're horrible... someone get that man a drink" and not "this guy is a 31st century Brobot. He runs on alcohol." Party at X-13's place tonight then!! If it wasn't for the fact it's my mum's house... I'd be up for that. Edugeek LAN barbecue. The last stuff I read was from 2007-8 and was talking about the difference between the impact of violent films and violent games ... as films are generally passive but games are active, which supports embedding of emotions linked with the game (both positive and negative emotions) There was something else I saw in this vein, suggesting that more realistic games [as in something they're more likely to encounter in real life, like football] lead to a higher chance of aggression. Sources: Eurogamer Gamepolitics 1 Gamepolitics 2
GrumbleDook Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The UK Council for Child Internet Safety has its summit today in London. #ukccis and #ukccis2012 seem to be the hashtags and Dr Linda Papadopoulos (Psychologist and author of Home Office Commissioned Review on Sexualisation of Young People) is there ... in her review she did mention about the internet and video games as a source of sexualisation of Young People too ... so we are not just talking about violent imagery here.
X-13 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 video games as a source of sexualisation of Young People too ... so we are not just talking about violent imagery here. Usually, these games are rated 18. Children shouldn't be playing them. It's not simply a matter of the games being overtly sexual or violent, it's a matter of parents buying them for their children.
Garacesh Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Usually, these games are rated 18. Children shouldn't be playing them. It's not simply a matter of the games being overtly sexual or violent, it's a matter of parents buying them for their children. As much as I hate the phrase.. This. If people are complaining about children being exposed to adult-rated content, perhaps (as always suggested, but always ignored) they should tackle how the children are getting said content. More often than not, it's the parents or other relatives. Just play on XBOX Live for an hour and - as much as it's something that's thrown around a lot - you'll see how many kids are playing games beyond their age range. I can go play Mass Effect 3 online and in an hour, I wouldn't run into a single child. I think over a few months I've only found one person who sounded a bit young. Swap to games like Call of Duty and HALO, that pit human-against-human, well that's a different story. Suddenly there's children everywhere. What is it that Children find so engaging about killing another person? Personally I think it's a dominance thing. Co-op doesn't interst a lot of kids today because even if they win, they don't exclusively beat someone else. I think that's also why in your typical kid-infested games they swear and curse a lot, insulting other players, trying to prove they're the biggest, the best, the most dominant. Anything an adult does, to a child, is lame. It sucks. Why would anybody ever want to do that? - Until restrictions are in place. Suddenly, doing something an adult is allowed to do, but a kid isn't, well you're now s:censored:t hot ain't ya kiddo? That's why kids brag about owning the latest Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty etc. Again, I put that down to a dominance thing. Proving you're better than someone else because you have adult things. Problem is, a lot of these kids don't fully understand it yet. They fixate on it, become addicted to it, and sooner or later that spills over into the real world a lot more than it ought to. I'm not saying CoD directly produces gun-wielding murders, or GTA directly produces muggings, car theft and the like. They're not recruitment agencies for illegal activities, but in the end, it all boils down to the same thing. Desensitisaton at an early age. It's no secret that humans - in general - want to emulate things that intrigue or excite us. That's why we have first-person videogames. That's why we have sexual fantasies. That's why there's an ever-growing community of live-action role-play. But that's the point of entertainment - to throw ourselves momentarily into the fantasy. But think about it some more. Take your 12 year old kid to see Batman, and what's the next thing he plays-pretend? You're damn right it's going to be the crime-fighting caped crusader. An adult watches it and problably thinks (hell, I know I do) "All those geeky gadgets, awesome crime-fighting skills and cool outfit would be awesome, but there's no way I could actually pull that kind of stuff off." We rationalise more than a child does. So, we can better rationalise sniping somebody in the head. We can better rationalise taking down a helicopter with a bazooka. We can better rationalise beating up that hooker we just boned to get our cash back - because these things are all within the game. That little sandbox of entertainment that is separate from our real lives. But children can't rationalise it to the same level we can. They'll want to emulate that at times when they can't boot up their game and play - so they emulate it in real life. It probably starts off as the aggression and dominance contest between children, but that soon escalites. When two children are equally dominant (i.e. the cursing and threatening), they have to step it up to the next level. That's how a dominance contest works, right? So what's the next thing they know? People are unable to contest your dominance if they're dead. I'm not saying they'll jump straight to killing, but they realise physically hurting someone has its advantages. So then we get fights and brawls. And they learn that - unfortunately - it works. They get in trouble off the teacher, but they've proven themselves to be more dominate to the other kid. Which brings us back to my earlier point of Co-Op vs PvP. Even though they got told off, they won! And for some kids, that's a worthy trade-off. That, my friends, is the moment it all begins. That's when the downward spiral into aggressive, law-breaking adult life happens. The moment a child is desensitised to violence and realises it's applicable to real-life. It doesn't happen overnight, it can take years, but it happens. Don't buy a child a game they're not old enough for. Don't leave your video games, films, graphic novels etc where younger siblings/children/etc can access them. Sure, they can probably still find it online, but if we give them less, then it will affect them less. This is why the online web filter won't work. Because it doesn't attack the primary medium for this behaviour happening - which, unfortunately, is young children playing adult video games, watching adult films, etc. Of course, none of this tackles the MP's complaint of online pornography (except maybe not leaving your copy of Playboy on your bedside cabinet where your 13 year old sister/daughter/sister-daughter-combo can find it) but I was replying to the current discussion. And yes, I rambled on more than I intended to. I'm gonna go ahead and stop typing now. tl;dr - It's okay to have it, just make sure kiddies can't use/find it. Nationwide blanket-filtering is silly. Edited June 29, 2012 by Garacesh
X-13 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Of course, none of this tackles the MP's complaint of online pornography (except maybe not leaving your copy of Playboy on your bedside cabinet where your 13 year old sister/daughter/sister-daughter-combo can find it) but I was replying to the current discussion. Actually, to some extent, it does. If people are letting their children use the internet unsupervised* then they have to accept that, at some point, they're going to try and search for something they shouldn't be. However, supervision in and of itself isn't enough. There are various ways to set restrictions as it is, but people don't use them. Regardless of whether it's because of lack of technical ability or the fact they don't know it exists, people aren't trying to restrict access themselves. [You have internet... GOTO google > "how do I restrict access to the internet" > ??? > CHILD PROTECTION!] Saying that, blanket filtering [for the reasons they've given] for everyone isn't appropriate. There are purely adult households, so this isn't necessary there at all. There are also households where the children either have no internet access [due to parental restrictions], they have their own filtering in place already or they always use the internet in full vision of a responsible adult*2. *By unsupervised, I mean allowing them access in their bedroom or in another place where you can't just look to see what they're doing. *2 A parent/carer/sibling that actively restricts age inappropriate material. Edited June 29, 2012 by X-13
Garacesh Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Actually, to some extent, it does. If people are letting their children use the internet unsupervised* then they have to accept that, at some point, they're going to try and search for something they shouldn't be. I was mainly referring to the bit about violence more than porn, but I guess you still make a valid point.
X-13 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) I was mainly referring to the bit about violence more than porn, but I guess you still make a valid point. TBH, this argument applies to everything anyone would want to prevent children seeing. Violence, pornography, hate speech, specific political/religious views... It is good practice for staff to evaluate websites before classroom use. Staff should be aware that websites, search results etc. may be safe and appropriate one day but unsafe a day later. All members of the school community should be aware that filtering software is not always effective and cannot be relied on alone to safeguard children. From the social media file provided here While it was written for educational social media use, it should also apply to general internet useage at home aswell. Le EDIT: humorous AND related. [ATTACH=CONFIG]14463[/ATTACH] Edited June 29, 2012 by X-13
flyinghaggis Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Oh look.... Policy resurrection .....anyone would think there was an election coming up! Porn sites must have age checks, say Conservatives - BBC News "Pornography websites must adopt age-restriction controls or face closure, the Conservatives say."
free780 Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Good luck with that given the fact the internet is global not national.
Dos_Box Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) 'Dear UK Govt, We are not going to do what you tell us. Kind regards, US* Companies' I think that about sums it up. *Adjust country as applicable. Edited April 4, 2015 by Dos_Box
featured_spectre Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Well sky have put filters on everything already. Tried websites about drugs, adult content etc and all blocked. You have to either call or unblock it via the Web panel on the customer portal...which only does it for 3 days.
localzuk Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 It was inevitable to be honest. The last "won't someone think of the children" technological solution to a parenting issue failed, so they must carry on with their dictatorial way of doing things. If parents won't enable filtering on their devices for kids, then the government obviously has to attack the issue from the other end. But, like all technological solutions to non-technological issues, it'll fail. Again. I have no problem with there being age checks on such sites though, shouldn't actually make *that* much difference (well, other than increased credit card fraud). My issue is that it actually ignores the real issue. Again.
sparkeh Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 So the idea is that unless a porn site has some kind of effective age verification method it will be closed (UK based) or banned (non-UK based). How on Earth is that a viable proposition? The key thing is, it's not for me or politicians to decide what's effective. Ah, translation: "We have no idea how to do this but want to throw some child protection policy out there before an election"
CAM Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Well, this is a natural follow up to the mandatory filters. There are already have filtering systems in place (there are numerous sites I've been blocked from on Virgin looking for GW's game rules to decide if I should buy a Codex book or not, even though I have removed parental filters). It is a short step to say "This site isn't locking out 18+, add it to the filter list until we deem them 'safe' enough to do business in the UK." Also consider other services like IRC or Second Life (what about the drug/sex/violence references in GTA Online?). They can contain very adult content, would they get dropped into the filter as well?
Arreks Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Also consider other services like IRC or Second Life (what about the drug/sex/violence references in GTA Online?). They can contain very adult content, would they get dropped into the filter as well? Exactly.. unless they plan on blanket blocking pretty much *everything* that connects to the Internet then they're wasting their time with a losing battle.
pcstru Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Stupid policies, by stupid people, for stupid people.
JJonas Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) Oh look.... Policy resurrection .....anyone would think there was an election coming up! Porn sites must have age checks, say Conservatives - BBC News "Pornography websites must adopt age-restriction controls or face closure, the Conservatives say." Yeah good luck with that. a few issues I can see The Internet is international What about the hundreds of new sites released every day? What about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Snapchat, Kik etc? They cant even successfully block PirateBay, people are using Tor to access it which leads them into much seedier territory. This is just a headline done by campaign managers who dont know IT for people who dont know IT, to win votes. also How far can a government police internet porn? Edited April 7, 2015 by JJonas
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now