logo Sign In

Congress may clamp down on MySpace

Author
Time
By Stokely Baksh
UPI Technology Correspondent
May. 11, 2006 at 1:39PM

New legislation from Congress would block access to social-networking sites like MySpace and Facebook in schools and libraries, including instant-messaging services.
The bill known as the "The Deleting Online Predators Act" introduced by Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., aims at protecting minors from online child predators.
According to the bill, it "prohibits access to commercial social networking Web sites or chat rooms through which minors" can access obscene or indecent material, be subject to unlawful sexual advances or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults, or access harmful information.
The bill terms a social-network Web site as one that allows users to create Web pages or profiles about themselves as well as offers communications including a forum, chat room, e-mail or instant messenger, while a chat room is termed a site that allows multiple users to communicate in real time via text.
"Sites like MySpace and Facebook have opened the door to a new online community of social networks between friends, students and colleagues," Fitzpatrick said. "However, this new technology has become a feeding ground for child predators that use these sites as just another way to do our children harm."
Specifically, it would require schools and libraries to implement security systems to prevent students from being exposed to obscene and objectionable material, according to Fitzpatrick.
It would strengthen existing Web-surfing filters for indecency or obscenity.
Moreover, it also mandates that a Web site be created by the Federal Trade Commission to educate adults about the dangers of such online child predators and at the same time provide information on how social-networking sites are used and what should not be included in a user's profile.
"As the father of six children, I hear about these Web sites on a daily basis," Fitzpatrick said. "However, the majority of these networking sites lack proper controls to protect their younger users. Also, many parents lack the resources to protect their children from online predators. My legislation seeks to change that."
While some schools have already banned access to MySpace, which has some 72 million users, a raging Internet battle has been brewing between children, parents, law enforcement, Internet-freedom proponents and Congress over different issues in the debate, such as the legality of a ban vs. educating youths vs. stricter protections against online child predators.
Still, social-networking sites are cleaning up.
In March MySpace announced it had removed some 200,000 "objectionable" profiles from its network to address fears of Internet security.
The site removed profiles contained either hate speech or risque content as one way to deal with the problem.
Maintaining a reputation for appropriate content isn't a bad thing either, making sites more attractive to advertisers who are already flocking to sites like MySpace because of their growing user base.

Thoughts?? I'll wait to post my own.
Author
Time
My school filter already blocks out myspace.

But if they want to touch access to forums, well screw them! I like my obscene material!*

*Disclaimer: not meant to be taken literally.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Parents need to educate their kids on the how STUPID it is to give out personal information to someone you don't know. Congress should keep their nose out of it. Blocking all access to forums on the grounds that some kids might maybe possibly have the potential to be harmed by online preditors is just stupid.

4

Author
Time
Along the same lines; "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
I've never used MySpace either. facebook, however, is an abomination to all things good and holy. At Ole Miss, that's all anybody ever talks about. Facebook this, facebook that. It's as irritating as the idiotic tradition of dressing up for football games! Oy!

But despite my hatred for fecesbook... er, I mean facebook, it shouldn't be up to Congress to relegate Internet usage. The government should keep its slimy noses out of it. It should be up to parents to actually educate children, not for the government to limit freedom. I'm seriously beginning to worry about this country.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
It's as irritating as the idiotic tradition of dressing up for football games!


Indeed, if one should be required to "dress up," it shouldn't be for sports, but that is entirely another topic in which I would rant about the casualness of society.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
I only recently joined myspace because it allows me to upload my music for others to hear, but i don't think I would ever use it for anything else.

But as for these proposed restrictions - bullshit. The internet is not evil or dangerous. Stupid people are. Admittedly, young kids can't always be blamed for their actions, so parents need to step in.

Chaltab has summed it up:

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Parents need to educate their kids on the how STUPID it is to give out personal information to someone you don't know. Congress should keep their nose out of it. Blocking all access to forums on the grounds that some kids might maybe possibly have the potential to be harmed by online preditors is just stupid.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: TheSessler
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
It's as irritating as the idiotic tradition of dressing up for football games!


Indeed, if one should be required to "dress up," it shouldn't be for sports, but that is entirely another topic in which I would rant about the casualness of society.


I totally agree. I'm not a huge sports fan, but sports are supposed to be casual and fun, not... formal. But Mississippian logic isn't exactly the same as normal logic. It's a "southern tradition" supposedly. The reasoning is that the players are giving their best for the game, so the spectators should dress their best. My response to that is, the day the football players start putting on a button-up shirt and tie over their shoulder pads is the day I'll dress up for a football game!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Well, it appears I get to be the decenting voice...

In terms of the bill as it stands now, I am against it. It does far too much (technically, it blocks forums like this one and I'm all against that).
However, as a person working in a library, I watch kids on Myspace and in chat rooms or IM windows about 90% of the time I'm there.

Here's why I am in favor of the general idea:

1. It would make my job easier. I cannot watch every kid when 6 of 7 computers I monitor have myspace being accessed on them. I have work of my own, besides play babysitter, to do.
If I had wanted to BE a babysitter, I would have taken a job doing it...and I might be getting better pay doing it too.

2. Its not censorship as far as I am concerned (not that anyone here has brought that up yet). If it was disallowed regardless of where you were (home, work, school, library), that would be censorship and I would be opposed to that.

3. Its not a good use of bandwidth. A college in Texas recently blocked myspace usage because 60% of its outgoing traffic was people using the site. It was slowing their system down for the students trying to do legitimate school work. I feel as though I've seen this myself at the library just this past weekend.

4. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. You can educate the parents all you want, but it is never enough, not until they're kid becomes the victim. If I were to tell the parents of these kids what they do on the computers, they would probably not allow them at the library anymore, but that wouldn't stop the kids from lying about where they are going or sneaking in here.

5. This is my BIG reason:
Main Entry: li·brary
Pronunciation: 'lI-"brer-E; British usually and US sometimes -br&r-E; US sometimes -brE, ÷-"ber-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -brar·ies
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin librarium, from Latin, neuter of librarius of books, from libr-, liber inner bark, rind, book
1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale b : a collection of such materials
2 a : a collection resembling or suggesting a library <a library of computer programs> <wine library> b : MORGUE 2
3 a : a series of related books issued by a publisher b : a collection of publications on the same subject
4 : a collection of sequences of DNA and especially recombinant DNA that are maintained in a suitable cellular environment and that represent the genetic material of a particular organism or tissue

I was kind of hoping it would include the word "education", but I digress. A library is a place for learning, not a hotspot for you to socialize with friends, whether they are with you, on the phone or on a computer.

Myspace is not learning, unless you consider learning who dumped who, or who is dating who, learning.
Author
Time
Well, I think it should it be up to individual libraries or schools then, to institute bans on material from within their walls. It is within their rights to restrict access to whatever they want. I personally don't think an occasional check would do much harm, but I'm sure I agree that its use is probably overblown. So it should be at a local level. It shouldn't be for Congress to decide.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Normally I would agree with you, Gaffer, but a few months ago, my library LIFTED a ban on chatting.

A little background:
The library where I work has 2 branches, one very large and one small. I work at the small. The large branch has roughly 40 computers that it watches over. Some are strictly word processors, some are quick internet (15 minutes or less) but the majority are internet and word processing. They probably have 3-4 staff present at any given time.
My branch has 9 public computers. 1 is a 15 minute PC (in another room) while the other 8 are Word Processing/Internet. At any given time, there is 1 or less people monitoring the computers. The decision-makers...all at the main branch. I don't think they can truely understand what things are like at my branch. A little inside joke we use at the branch is that they are 'Mother Russia' and we are the 'Siberian Goulages'.


The explanation given to me for lifting it was "businessmen/women needing to chat for their work." In the 7 years and 10 months I've worked here, I've NEVER seen a person come in and chat for business. 1 deaf person that chats for tech support, but for that kind of thing I make an exception to the rule. Haven't seen her for quite a while...

Some day, I know it, a kid is going to get into some kind of trouble in a chat room and a hysterical parent is going to blame the library for it. I just hope its not my job on the line when it happens.
Author
Time
Your mention of deaf internet users reminded me of something a deaf friend of mine once told me. He said that technology, expecially text messaging and MSN messenger, have changed his life dramatically for the better.

However, I can totally see your point. It's a tough one. But you only talk about the burden on library staff and other library users (reduced bandwith, etc). What are you opinions on the actual reason for the proposed clamp down - danger to children from paedophiles, etc? Will this help? Is there another, less drastic, way to protect them?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Myspace is stupid anyway.


Here! Here! Waste of internet, I say.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Your mention of deaf internet users reminded me of something a deaf friend of mine once told me. He said that technology, expecially text messaging and MSN messenger, have changed his life dramatically for the better.

However, I can totally see your point. It's a tough one. But you only talk about the burden on library staff and other library users (reduced bandwith, etc). What are you opinions on the actual reason for the proposed clamp down - danger to children from paedophiles, etc? Will this help? Is there another, less drastic, way to protect them?
I believe it can help, absolutely.

Maybe a 2-3 months ago, I had a group of 3 10-12 year old girls on the computers. They logged into the chatroom of a boy band that I had never heard of (B5, if I remember correctly) and within minutes, one of these girls had singled out (or been singled out) by someone using a name that I have to guess (based on how she reacted) was that of one of the members of the band. (I think she thought it WAS the band member.)
What she wrote progressed, almost verbatim, as follows:
Are you from ~suburb of Cleveland where I live~?
How old are you?
Do you have a girlfriend?

This morified me, I went to get my supervisor and we both tried to explain to this girl the potential trouble with what she was doing. (What made it worse for me was that SHE was asking the questions...could she had opened to door for this person anymore?)

Who knows where things could have gone if I hadn't been diligently watching what they were doing, and who knows what goes on that I don't catch because I haven't got 8 sets of eyes.

If a law like this had been in place, or if my libraries rules regarding chatting had not been changed, this would not have been an issue.

Is there a less drastic way? If there is, its not coming to me. If you leave it to individual libraries, there will invariably be some that choose to allow this kind of stuff and someone will eventually get hurt. Then the parents will complain that there needs to be something to protect their kids (DUH!? THEY could try). After that, maybe we get legislation and we are in the same place as we are now, except that someone has been hurt by the inaction.