More on the MySpace Law

by Kent on 29. Jul, 2006 in Tech

Dwight Silverman thinks I’m wrong about HR 5319 being a good idea.

Maybe, but here’s my thinking- as succinctly as I can describe it.

Yes, in theory, it would be great to have these decisions made at the local level, as Dwight suggests. The thing is, though, that I simply don’t trust the local educators to make the right decision. Plus, I know that kids are very, very clever when it comes to getting around obstacles to their desires, and if the blocking was done on some ad hoc basis, kids would find a way around it within the first day.

Let’s say it was handled on the local level, and let’s say that the principal at my kids’ school decided that since her kids are so responsible and all, that she would trust them to police themselves. I know that’s not going to work. So what would my choices be? To gut it up and deal with it or yank my kids out of the school they love and move them somewhere else? What if the principal at the new school leaves in a year and the new one changes the policy?

What if changing schools is not financially or geographically feasible?

Again, I simply don’t trust local educators to make the right decision every time. Particular when it comes to technology. And I’m unwilling to cede control to them to that degree, regardless of whether they see things my way or not. If you accept the fact that kids shouldn’t be hanging out on MySpace at school, then there is no compelling argument against HR 5319.

Now, if I could conceive of one good reason why a kid should be on MySpace at school, then maybe I’d have second thoughts. But I can’t. Not for a second.

So while there is some paternalism going on here, on both my and the legislators’ part, the overriding good of protecting our kids far outweighs the mild fear that this is the fist step in some Orwellian plan to take away all of our rights.

Kids shouldn’t be on MySpace at school. Kids don’t always know what’s good for them.

The MySpace Law is a good thing that will make schools safer and more productive for our kids.

P.S. Although I suspect he will line up on Dwight’s side of the debate, I really want to hear Seth Finkelstein’s thoughts on this.

Update: As he mentioned in a comment, Seth posted his thoughts and, as always, makes a lot of good points. I hadn’t thought of the Republicans vs Fox angle, but that might just prove to be a very interesting by-product of this debate. Having said that, if the vote was 410-15, a bunch of Democrats must have voted for it too.

Tags: ,
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags:

  • Yes, Seth nails it w/point No. 4 in his post -- it's election year posturing (which is similar to the point in my original post about the act's doublespeak title). Maybe it should be called the "Pandering to the base act of 2006," except I think the flag-burning constitutional amendment was already called that . . . Or was it the anti-gay marriage amendment . . . ?
  • I think the biggest issue isn't whether kids can go to certain sites (or even any sites) while at school or public libraries. Going to Myspace is probably a bad idea for students during school. Wearing Megadeath t-shirts was a big deal when I was in junior high. It was a distraction, etc, etc. But federal government did not pass a law banning wearing them. It is also a bad idea to talk in class when you shouldn't be talking, but the government isn't going to pass a law saying you can only talk when called upon.

    The federal government should not be making laws against anything just because it is a bad idea.

    The politicians are trying to say that this will help protect children from bad people. Fine. Show me the percentages of kids that have bad things happen to them because of Myspace, etc. as compared to going to a park, the movies, or church. If the percentages are higher, than let's talk. I haven't seem any stats on the number of kids that use Myspace and the number of kids that have had any problems because of their use of Myspace.

    Everybody just keeps saying it's a bad idea because it seems like it should be a bad idea.





  • I can understand both the "baby with the bathwater" argument as well as the problem with selective blocking (which is a "who decides who decides" issue, which I talk about sometimes).

    That makes it a hard issue for sure, but the reason I am uncomfortable relying on the Graham Nash approach (Teach Your Children) is because for every good habit a parent teaches, two bad habits are learned from peers.

    One compromise I could go for would be to:

    1) Prohibit kids from giving ANY personal information. No sign-ups and no log-ins (even to existing accounts). You can read, but you can't add any content that requires personal information, such as names, passwords, etc. There could be school-wide accounts for legitimate news-related sites that require passwords.

    2) No campus wide access, wi-fi or otherwise, to these sites. Computers with access would be limited to a designated computer lab, etc., where some teachers are charged with monitoring activity. Sort of like the all computes must be used in the family room at home rule.

    The real problem here is that MySpace has not done nearly enough to address the predator issue. It has tossed out empty jargon and deleted a few blatant accounts, but it has not policed itself sufficiently, and now it may lose the right for itself and other sites to self-police.

    Not ideal, but there is a real problem here that needs to be solved one way or the other.











  • Kent:

    It's bad because it doesn't just ban MySpace. It bans social networking and chat sites -- which is overly broad. Who's to say what's a "social networking" site. Many harmless sites offer chat -- would they be banned?

    As mentioned in the comments in my entry, blogs could be construed as social networks.

    Several large, mainstream media companies are working adding social networking to their properties. Do you want those banned?

    What about sites like NewsVine? That's a social networking site built around news. Frankly, I want my daughter, who's interested in journalism in high school, to have access to that site whenever she wants it.

    And you know what: the "safe" social networking site you and I blogged about would also be banned.

    I couldn't get behind a ban that singled out MySpace -- picking and choosing specific brands is an even more slippery slope than whole categories -- just because I don't think saying what content is good or bad is government's business. But vague, broad legislation is not just a bad idea -- it's dangerous.

    If you're teaching your kids what to do and what not to do online, they'll be fine. Parents should be at the core of this, not the government.













blog comments powered by Disqus