Friday, September 26, 2003

Abdication of Responsibility

Microsoft's decision to shut its chat rooms has caused much discussion, perhaps best typified by the letters and comments in the Guardian from Clint Witchalls and Emily Bell. Witchalls claims that he doesn't "give a jot what Microsoft's motivation is" as long as the "outcome is good". He also accuses Bell of being a "chatroom apologist" for pointing out that Microsoft's actions will not make children one jot safer.

The problem with people like Witchalls is that they apparently do not realise that the Internet is entirely a communication medium. One chat service more or less makes no difference - there are still ample opportunities for children to meet dangerous people online. ICQ, IRC, chatrooms, email lists, instant messaging (which Microsoft is still pushing heavily...), newgroups - the list is endless.

The danger from the Internet is vastly exaggerated - the majority of abused children are abused by people well known to their parents - and the danger can be reduced by careful parenting. When I was a child, education about "stranger danger" was normal and effective. Now parents would apparently prefer Microsoft to protect their children rather than pass on the simple advice of "don't give out personal information on line" and "if you must meet someone you only know from online, meet them somewhere public, and tell several people where and when."

[<< Ironic State Visits] [That Revision Thing >>]

3 comments so far.

Clint Witchalls wrote :

If it "more or less makes no difference" if Microsoft shut their chatrooms down, why is it such a hot topic?

Yes, "the Internet is entirely a communication medium" and cars are entirely a transport medium. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ban joyriding. To take my analogy further, Bell's argument is the equivalent of saying, "don't ban joyriding because now kids will go train surfing." That just doesn't make sense.

12:31 pm, 30/09/2003

Graham Robinson [e] [w] wrote :

If it "more or less makes no difference" if Microsoft shut their chatrooms down, why is it such a hot topic?

Whether Microsoft shut down their chatrooms or not is irrelevant. It is not, to my mind at least, the topic. Far more interesting is the attitude of parents who would rather rely on the benevolence of corporations than take steps to protect their own children. What steps have you taken to protect your children from strangers? (Online or otherwise.) What steps have you taken to protect them from the people you know? After all, adults known to the parents (or the parents themselves) account for the vast majority of abuse.

The problem with the Microsoft chat room case is complacency. Parents think their children are safer - they are not.

To take my analogy further, Bell's argument is the equivalent of saying, "don't ban joyriding because now kids will go train surfing."

Now you're just being ridiculous. Using chatrooms is entirely legal, and not in the least anti-social. Whereas joy-riding is entirely illegal and anti-social. Now joyriding is undeniably dangerous, but most children involved are aware of the risks (and indeed, there is evidence that the risk contributes to their enjoyment).

Your analogy breaks down further - you are not asking for joyriding to be banned, but cars to be banned in general. We already have laws governing the behaviour of adults towards children.

A better analogy of your position would be "ban the scouts, ban the church - sometimes scout leaders and priests are abusers".

In the end, the point remains. Microsoft has simply dropped a loss making part of their website. They are continuing to push instant messaging technology, which allows children to talk to strangers just as easily as any chatroom, but which is harder for the company to moderate, and almost impossible for the police to monitor. (Unlike a public chatroom, instant messaging is private.) Microsoft's actions will not make the web any safer for children, but people who are ignorant of the technologies involved believe it does. That's the real danger.

01:15 pm, 30/09/2003

Scrubbo [w] wrote :

Hey, I'm all for banning the churches and the scouts. The hosers!

03:02 am, 03/10/2003