<<<< If parents were to give their kids only access to these sites it would limit
there intellectual development because they would see a very narrow view of the world.
Excuse me, but they are children. Their view of the world should be limited
to content that parents deem time-appropriate. I have no desire to show my child
certain images, for one, for which I feel she is not prepared. You call that oppressive.
Even if you maintain your belief, there are a myriad of people
out there who disagree for whom .kids, properly run, might offer at least a partial
answer to the Internet dilemma.
Furthermore, I hardly think that if there are 10
million .kids sites, that the child will be limited in content, as you put it. Additionally,
one would imagine that there would be redundancy within .kids from the better aspects
of .com, .net, .org, etc.
Consider that some parents might allow their child on
the Internet ONLY if something like a viable, properly run .kids TLD were to exist.
In such a case, these children might have NOTHING to do with the Internet if .kids
denied. Hence, the inclusion of .kids gives them a good piece of the Internet, obliterating
your notion that the existence of .kids will only limit options.
your comment above sounds as though you want to force parents to expose their child
to all the content on the Internet because you value it as all inherently valuable.
Sorry, but I think the parent, not you individually, should make that choice. And
.kids expands the options; it doesn't limit it.
Oh, and I disagree with you. There
is plenty of offensive and inoffensive blather online that children won't be edified
by, merely because it is a part of our world. That notion is nothing more than
<< Even though the rules are not 'global' in that they would supposedly have local
standard Dotkids is still going to have their own global standards of what type of
content they are going to allow. >>>>
Agreed. This has to be addressed.
What is going to result is your going have children who are going to be very naive
about the world because they have seen such a narrow view of things. >>>
CHILDREN. They SHOULD be innocent. My 5 year old niece sits on her father's lap and
together they explore the Web. Precisely what content do you want them to come to
that will rip down this innocence you call "naivete." Children should be afforded
a fair amount of naivete; and then it should fade from them by degrees--not ripped
from them at the earliest stage possible, under the misconception that it is for
<< Another problem that any such system has is adjusting to the age
of the children. There is no debate that what a child should be allowed to
see should be based upon their maturity level and with a TLD your going to be setting
standards for the entire system. >>>
Agreed. This has to be addressed.
web site provided information about safe sexual practices would be appropriate for
a 16 year old >>>>
Sez you. I happen to agree with you, but then, sez me and you
both. Not ALL parents. Let them make the decision when their minor child should be
exposed to even matters of safe sex. We can disagree with them until the cows come
home; but it ain't our business to impose anything.
You were talking before about
relativism in morality as it relates to child-rearing and appropriate content. Now
be careful before declaring now what is "objectively" appropriate for a 16 year old.
Another major flaw in the reasonig for a .kids TLD is the suggestion on the part
of it's supporters that it would allow parent to let their children roam free on
the .kids TLD. This is flawed because in order for a child to properly develop
they need to have some form of guidance from their parents on what is socially acceptable
behavior. A parent who doesn't do this will raise a child who doesn't think
their parents care and will grow up accordingly with values that accept most vices
as being acceptable. If parents are having enough trouble keeping tabs on their
children now, how can we expect parent to keep their kids on .kids. >>>
don't have children, do you?
A child has to be allowed to play on the web, leaving
the parent free of worry such that they can go into the other room. A parent cannot
and SHOULD not lean over the child's shoulder every moment. They don't stay with
their child every time they go out to play ball, play Monopoly or read a book. Why
then, do you expect a child has to be accompanied every time a child uses the Web.
If there is a relatively safe TLD, they won't need to.
You make very broad-sweeping
statements. You say that a parent who leaves his/her child to roam on the Internet
is a bad parent, one who doesn't care.
<<< Any one thinks that an
effective rating system can be created would probably be surprised how difficutl
that would be. >>
Yes, agreed. So lets improve it to the best level possible.
is perfect. I don't think most parents expect perfection. If they do, someone should