BBC NEWS | Technology | Social network sites face US ban I wonder what the real impetus is behind this. I’m not buying into the “hunting ground for predators” BS. With 100,000,000 kids online at these various sites has the crime rate spiked? What’s the evidence? Who has the most to lose and who want them to lose it? The only political entity in this is Fox owner Rupert Murdock who owns MySpace. He’s been showing some signs of turning on Bush. Maybe this will snap him back into line, eh?
Children in the US could be banned from using social networking sites in schools and libraries by a new law.
The Deleting Online Predators Act tries to limit the access paedophiles have to the networking sites which have become hugely popular with minors.
The act has already been approved by a large majority in the House of Representatives.
Critics say the act is too broad and could mean a huge number of websites are cut off from users.
The DOPA Act was introduced into the US legislative system by Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick. It passed 410 votes to 15 in a vote on 26 July.
Wow, I’m just reading the headline because that’s where the big facts are! So all social websites will be banned in the US. So they all have to all close down huh?
Or perhaps a better headline should be “Social Websites face US ban in public schools.”
Granted, it’s a stupid law and congress has much more important things to do and it’s also more proof that they have no clue as to how the Internet works. But on the flip side, kids should be in school LEARNING things…not gabbing with their friends on how they didn’t know Lance Bass was gay or cruising Myspace or whatever. Come on. But again, we don’t need a law against this, it should be common sense.
John C.
I’m not buying into the “hunting ground for predators” either.
Congress needs to be better educated.
Soon Children will not be allowed to do anything with out thier parents holding thier hands.
Now you need to register with myspace in order to view profiles.
I think an online moderator would be a better alternative than just shutting it down.
huh – shouldn’t the libraries and schools have to themselves shut down? between pervs in the stacks, pedophile teachers and wierdos hanging around the playground, they are an in-person “hunting ground for predators.”
Everytime I read and article like this, I think again that we need a new network that is designed, from the ground up, for privacy, security and resistence to government regulation.
I used to think the Internet was too wild to be controlled but China has proven me wrong. The Intenet can be manipulated and companies like Microsoft and Google are happy to help.
There is a new network…It’s called your mind. And it is the only thing that will remain free and unregulated. Welcome to the club.
two words: BAD PARENTS
Q: you don’t let your kids wander the streets of NYC alone at night, why would you let let your kids wander aimlessly around on the internet?
A: because you suck as a parent and you want the government to babysit and raise your children for you.
it’s ironic that political conservatives who otherwise preach how government should stay out of people’s lives sign right up for this sort of crap
This sort of thing should be left to the local library and school to regulate, perhaps maybe even the local school district. But what the heck does the US federal government think it’s involvement will do?
Forrest,
Simple answer, get midterm votes for being tough on media created fear.
Ahhh… the great Bush bashing is back. Thanks John, I just read one article today and I must have missed it in that one. No way the democrtes in congress (or even the man who created the internet) would ever support this kind of stuff. You’re right. Good thinking.
Ahhh… the great Bush bashing is back. Thanks John, I just read one article today and I must have missed it in that one. No way the democrtes in congress (or even the man who created the internet) would ever support this kind of stuff. You’re right. Good thinking.
Comment by rwilliams254 — 8/1/2006 @ 6:57 am
Doesn’t look like someone read the article. If they had they would have seen this line IN THE INTRODUCTION
The DOPA Act was introduced into the US legislative system by Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick. It passed 410 votes to 15 in a vote on 26 July.
Almost the entire House, including Democrats, voted for the bill. The only Bush bashing is in your paranoid mind. Damn, it must be frightening to think that Bush screwed up again every time some bill makes it through the house.
The only reference to Bush was the point that mySpace owner, Rupert Murdoch, might change his support from Bush if this measure goes through. In case you don’t get it, Murdoch owns FOX. Fox has been very good to Bush and the Republicans.
#6 two words: BAD PARENTS
Q: you don’t let your kids wander the streets of NYC alone at night, why would you let let your kids wander aimlessly around on the internet?
A: because you suck as a parent and you want the government to babysit and raise your children for you.
it’s ironic that political conservatives who otherwise preach how government should stay out of people’s lives sign right up for this sort of crap
Comment by ken ehrman — 8/1/2006 @ 4:47 am
Yes. Bad parents. I think we should all jump on that bandwagon. Never mind that we aren’t talking about any specific cases, don’t have any details, don’t know 99.999% of the kids on MySpace, and know even less about the parents.
The old “blame the parents” routine is a lazy fallback cruch which translates into, “I don’t know a damn thing about this but I sure do like to be judgemental about strangers because it fuels my sense of self-righteous indignance.”
Congress sure does seem to want to ban these sites, but I don’t see or hear very many stories at all about bad things happening to kids as a result of these sites, aside from of course the very small, statistically insignificant abberational anecdotal non-stories that rarely ever happen to the vast majority of users.
I even have to call foul on the swipe at conservatives. I love swiping at conservatives, but as has been pointed out, this measure has broad support across the right and the left.
Sure hope we get this and gay marriage and violent games are all cleared up soon. Then we can go back to run of the mill issues like poverty, the war, erroding civil rights, and health care. You know, the small stuff.
9 No way the democrtes in congress (or even the man who created the internet) would ever support this kind of stuff.
10 Almost the entire House, including Democrats, voted for the bill.
11 …but as has been pointed out, this measure has broad support across the right and the left.
…broad support…?
You expect our Representatives to vote against a bill titled “Deleting Online Predators Act” in our era of sound-bite attack ads? …when they can then publicly blame the Senate for not taking-up this vital issue?
What are you smoking?
With the other DU entry on the social-networking site for people aged 50+ starting-up, my first thought was: “When will they pass a law to block access at nursing homes, so the financial scammers won’t be able to prey on our elders?”
#12 – I said11 …but as has been pointed out, this measure has broad support across the right and the left.
Then Mike Said…
…broad support…?
You expect our Representatives to vote against a bill titled “Deleting Online Predators Act” in our era of sound-bite attack ads? …when they can then publicly blame the Senate for not taking-up this vital issue?
Comment by Mike Voice — 8/1/2006 @ 9:25 am
You raise a very good point. But yes, I do expect them to vote against an act called the “Deleting Online Predators Act” if the act doesn’t actually delete online predators. It’s sort of like the No Child Left Behind Act – which actually manages to leave many, many, many kids behind.
What I really want is legislation that bans Congress from creating cute and misleading legislation names. I mean, really, taken out of context, what the hell does that title actually mean?
It’s been maybe 10 years ago, and I don’t recall the details, but in a similar forum I got flamed pretty hard for saying that I was opposed to a bill being voted on in California that would make it illegal to post and download child pornography on the Internet. But my point was that it was already illegal. Very illegal. All kinds of illegal. This legislation was redundant, and because it was directed at the Internet I saw it as the edge of a slope from which future regulations (not entirely unlike this one) on the Internet would spring from. Now, I don’t actually recall my point in this paragraph as I’ve answered two phone calls and an email since I started typing, but I typed it so I’m not going to erase it 🙂
that picture is making me dizzy.
#6…Ken….It’s not *political conservatives*, it’s *right wing conservatives*….yes…there is a big difference.
#10…Mr. Fusion…..thanks, I was going to point that out to.
#13…What it means is this…..votes and the apperance of doing something that Congress thinks parents want. This is the usual feel good, useless bull sh*t that gets passed in an election year…….
We need to nourish the tree of Democracy with some blood.