Comments on: More on the MySpace Law

By: Dwight Silverman

Dwight Silverman — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:36:00 +0000

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 . . . ?

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:12:00 +0000

Someone hears me! Thanks. "DOPA" - HR 5319, Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:49:00 +0000

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.

By: Kent

Kent — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:48:00 +0000

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.

By: Dwight Silverman

Dwight Silverman — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:14:00 +0000

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.