Yesterday I started an article about Internet safety for kids, which was intended to present the curious case of Internet business people involved at the highest levels to determine what to do about child safety issues. If you are like me, that sentence contains just about everything yesterday’s draft (which a thunderstorm lost for us) did. In short, what is wrong with putting the foxes in charge of the hen house?
The news which prompted me thinking about the “who” of “who’s in charge of making the Web safe for kids”, came from one of the most respected advocates on the Web, Larry Magid. In his article via the San Jose Mercury, essentially plopped himself firmly in the camp of those people who “believe” the Internet is simply not that dangerous for children. So, what’s the big deal? The big deal is, Majid and other business people, even Internet business ones, are the ones making the decisions about your kids.
The Business of the Internet
Face it, the business of the Internet is to promote all things Internet. In the case of very savvy people like Magid, this includes reviewing, expounding and evangelizing products and businesses, which at their core, depend on users. So, I asked myself a logical question on reading Magid’s stance on Internet safety; “Would having any kind of vested interest in the expansion and adoption of the Web as a communication medium skew someone’s view?” Sexting, Cyberbullying, child predators, pornography, violence, and a whole range of parental concerns are about users in the end, at least in a business sense.
Parents Need Expert Advice – But Who’s?
Majid is without a doubt one of the most experienced and respected names in online journalism, it is true. However, in the aforementioned post (and many others) Magid takes the position (and as you will see a lofty one) that most of the concern about child safety is over stated. Understand, Magid is now an integral part of President Obama’s administration’s efforts in this area via his seat on the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, which reports to the Department of Commerce. Here is a short excerpt from Magid’s account of their first meeting in which Obama’s special assistant for science, technology and innovation policy, Susan Crawford gave the opening comments.
Her (Crawford) opening remarks helped set the tone for the group by admonishing us to “avoid overheated rhetoric about risks to kids online,” pointing out that “risks kids face online may not be significantly different than the risks they face offline.” (full pasted text from Magid’s article)
Magid is thrown into the mix via his Co-Directorship of the non-profit Connect Safety in part, and via his technical expertness as well. The problem for me, and perhaps for many parents is (or should be), Magid’s and his associates’ left wing stance on everything child safety. This stance is solidly prominent at Connect Safety, in articles by Magid at CNET and elsewhere as well. In essence, the power to eradicate dangers online for our children has been put in the hands of people, who at the very best, believe the dangers are minimal. Does that make any sense? Only if you discern these facts from a business standpoint perhaps. Are there no experts out there how have am more impartial view?
The Wizard Behind the Curtain
To sum up this first in what I know will have to become a series, front runners like Magid and Crawford do not always reveal the underlying intent of action. Looking at Crawford for example, reveals a professor of Law, and a seemingly flawless resume for leadership and even trust for parents. In short, no apparent vested interest one way or another. However, looking behind the scenes at her “Web footprint”, so to speak, other implications arise.
Take Crawford’s OneWebDay for example. Once Crawford left for DC, the chair was turned over to Mitch Kapor, a notable Web celebrity of sorts, and someone instrumental at Mozilla, SecondLife, the Wikimedia Foundation (uh oh), XMarks (browser add ons, free SMS :)) and many others. I will let the reader play house detective with those links, but I think my point is well made. Please understand, I am not trying to vilify these people, I expect their beliefs are in good order. The question for us as parents is; “Are these wise choices for Protecting Children in the 21st Century. I won’t even get into Mozilla Firefox’s so called” ‘porn mode‘”, but will leave it as is for now.
About Phil Butler
Like all wonderful new tools of the past, the Internet has the potential for good and evil. Sadly, most politicians in both parties put self-interest ahead of public interest.
Great article. Blessings
Thanks so much Doc! Self interest would not be so bad if the interests led to something good for everyone else. The problem for these people and their intent is that when they get what they want, most people suffer.
Always,
Phil
Australia is currently running a government initiated trial of filtering ALL internet content and blocking sites that are deemed not suitable for children (and adults), which seems to me to be based on the belief that the internet is a very dangerous place.
Having an interest in expansion and adoption of the Web as a communication medium, which is safe for children, seems a more sensible approach to me – of course the interest does not have to be a “vested” one. Investing in methods of improving safety methods,filters, parental knowledge and the development of child suitable content and browsers is a more progressive way than using resources to just block sites.