Do you have a right to privacy (and to call Obama a "nigger?")

[dah]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

I don't know. I guess for members of a writers community to think this kind of retaliation is okay just confuses the hell out of me. Hopefully none of us will write anything that doesn't sit well with ... well, whomever decides they can tell others what to think write.

Anyway...

This part is really perplexing: "Hopefully none of us will write anything that doesn't sit well with ... well, whomever decides they can tell others what to think write."

The tweeting/blogging teens were not just writing things that "doesn't sit well with" others. Saying so is blatantly downplaying their words.

They were involved in hate speech and threats.

This is not a case of debating the nuances of opinions. The hate was clear.

[icerose]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

This just made me think of something. I have to sign a permission form every year for the school, to say it's okay for my kids pictures to be taken and/or posted in newspapers or yearbooks or whatever. If someone publishes a picture of my minor child without my permission, I think that would be illegal, yes?

Yes, because it's original publishing. These "kids" (and I use the term loosely) put it up there themselves. Their posts were then copied. They weren't published in that sense. People don't understand how much control they lose over things once it's "out there".

Like for example the newspaper. A total stranger could then take that newspaper and plaster it all over without recourse. They could make a digital copy of it and post it all over the internet. Now the newspaper could go after them for copyright infringement possibly, but that would be it. Reproductions are a very grey and murky area.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by mccardey

Probably depends on whether your child put that photo up on the internet first...

I would think. I don't know about this stuff.

I suppose. (ETA: thanks icerose, I see.) But a minor child can't actually give the permission in the first place. It has to be the parent. Which makes me wonder how minors having facebook pages at all is appropriate, unless the site has the parents' permission?

It's kind of amazing that there aren't more problems than there have been. I guess most people don't think it's a big deal. I'm FB friends with my kids, so I see what's being posted.

A few weeks ago, I said to my oldest, "That friend of yours shouldn't call people "fags," it's rude and disparaging to LGBTs. Tell him your mom thinks he's probably secretly gay, ha." And Nate said, "Mom, he's openly gay." And I was like.... "oh." I mean, what to say to that?

Anyway, I monitor. Parents should be monitoring!

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Parents should be monitoring!

This.

Clearly some of them aren't, though.

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by dah

This part is really perplexing: "Hopefully none of us will write anything that doesn't sit well with ... well, whomever decides they can tell others what to think write."

The tweeting/blogging teens were not just writing things that "doesn't sit well with" others. Saying so is blatantly downplaying their words.

They were involved in hate speech and threats.

This is not a case of debating the nuances of opinions. The hate was clear.

I really have to agree with this. Turning the question into an issue of whether writers should be censored is - well - fatuous. If these were writers in the sense that we speak about writers here, their first defence wouldn't be "Hey - I'm just a kid!"

And the goodreads argument doesn't set the paradigm for whether or not hate-speech is okay. It isn't okay.

[K.L. Bennett]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

I suppose. (ETA: thanks icerose, I see.) But a minor child can't actually give the permission in the first place. It has to be the parent. Which makes me wonder how minors having facebook pages at all is appropriate, unless the site has the parents' permission?

It's kind of amazing that there aren't more problems than there have been. I guess most people don't think it's a big deal. I'm FB friends with my kids, so I see what's being posted.

A few weeks ago, I said to my oldest, "That friend of yours shouldn't call people "fags," it's rude and disparaging to LGBTs. Tell him your mom thinks he's probably secretly gay, ha." And Nate said, "Mom, he's openly gay." And I was like.... "oh." I mean, what to say to that?

Anyway, I monitor. Parents should be monitoring!

I think part of the problem may be that the parents don't understand the way the internet works. Unlike their kids, they didn't grow up with it, for the most part. People in my generation (I'm 26), who are just starting to have babies, did grow up with it, and so maybe our kids will have it a little easier in a few years. But right now, it really is analogous to the wild west.

ETA: Just wanted to add a little anecdote. My sister in law, who is about 12 years older than me and has several kids, the oldest of which is about to graduate high school, didn't even know her 12 year old son could categorize his FB posts to exclude her when he wanted to say shit he knew he wasn't supposed to say. She is generally a smart lady, and truly an excellent parent, but she isn't able to stay on to of all this changing technology.

[missesdash]

Well the school example is different because the school needs permission from the parent. But if a teenager takes photos of themselves, they don't need parental permission to hand them out on street corners. I think there is an assumption that parents are monitoring. But most of them aren't. They don't know how.

for example, my mom is my friend on Facebook too, but there is a setting on each item that allows me to selectively hide it from whoever I want. Meaning the only way you can really *know* what's going on is to log into the kid's Facebook yourself. But that's shitty.

So it all comes back to fostering an open relationship and hoping they'll talk about it. Spying isn't as easy as a screw driver and a diary anymore.

[Chrissy]

What?!?! You can block certain friends from individual posts? I'm going to have to ask my teen about that one.

[fireluxlou]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

What?!?! You can block certain friends from individual posts? I'm going to have to ask my teen about that one.

Yes on Facebook you can sort people into 'Lists' and then post status updates only so those people in those lists can see.

[Chrissy]

Well, hell.

Sometimes being a mom is really haaaaard.

[Bebop]

Originally Posted by missesdash

Well the school example is different because the school needs permission from the parent. But if a teenager takes photos of themselves, they don't need parental permission to hand them out on street corners. I think there is an assumption that parents are monitoring. But most of them aren't. Try don't know how.

for example, my mom is my friend on Facebook too, but there is a setting on each item that allows me to selectively hide it from whoever I want. Meaning the only way you can really *know* what's going on is to log into the kid's Facebook yourself. But that's shitty.

So it all comes back to fostering an open relationship and hoping they'll talk about it. Spying isn't as easy as a screw driver and a diary anymore.

Don't know how or don't disagree? Those traits go so well together-- or maybe they're the same thing? Hatred/Stupidity... Hatredity? I have a hunch that it wouldn't matter who was in the White House, as long as they were different enough to be a target.

[Williebee]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

If someone publishes a picture of my minor child without my permission, I think that would be illegal, yes?

Not a lawyer, haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in a couple months, but it depends on where and how the picture was taken. In a crowd at a baseball game? No. A picture just of that kid, or with that kid as the primary focus? Maybe.

But, as indicated earlier, that's not relevant to this situation. These kids put themselves in public. Their public statements are being repeated, not made public.

As for Facebook privacy, here's a good start.

For that matter, a trip to Youtube and a search for "securing privacy Facebook" will garner you a series of video "how-to's". Here's one from Consumer Reports.

[missesdash]

I just made a new Facebook. It wasn't worth the effort of going back five years and setting privacy for each post. Or worrying I left something out. To hell with it.

Of course my new one isn't even remotely interesting because it's so tightly guarded. But yeah, my mother only sees "mom-appropriate" material. But that's more because I'm adult and not everything is her business.

I really think social networks should have the kind of settings TV'a have where the young person'a log-in is controlled by ther parents and the actions are limited accordingly. But it's difficult to reconcile the "well they'll come across it sooner or later" attitude with the need to spare them as long as possible.

I do think parenting in the Internet age is much more difficult. Letting a kid sign online without guidance is like dropping them off in an empty parking lot and hoping for the best.

[CrastersBabies]

I kind of get a kick out of people who think their information, posts, and such are 100% private on the internet.

The thing is, I doubt that any of them would care that their hate-mongering has been put on display for America to see. They don't realize what this sort of thing can do in regard to getting a job or going to college.

It's a hard lesson, the same lesson teenage girls learn about posting half-naked duck-face pictures online and then seeing them pop up on rape-a-bitch reddit areas.

Kind of sad in a way, but maybe it's the only way they'll learn that being a racist isn't something that will help you easily move ahead in life here. Unless, of course, you plan on working for some KKK type organization that will reward you for this kind of behavior.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by missesdash

I just made a new Facebook. It wasn't worth the effort of going back five years and setting privacy for each post. Or worrying I left something out. To hell with it.

Of course my new one isn't even remotely interesting because it's so tightly guarded. But yeah, my mother only sees "mom-appropriate" material. But that's more because I'm adult and not everything is her business.

Right. And the biggest problem for me is that with my teenager (he'll be 15 in March), I already feel like some things aren't my business. Just basic privacy and stuff. It's not like I'd listen in on his phone calls to his friends, so why should I demand to see his written conversations? Well because it's the internet, okay, but... still. Ugh. I'm just going to ask him if he blocks me, see what he says, and take it from there.

I really think social networks should have the kind of settings TV'a have where the young person'a log-in is controlled by ther parents and the actions are limited accordingly. But it's difficult to reconcile the "well they'll come across it sooner or later" attitude with the need to spare them as long as possible.

Yeah, it's a conundrum. And as a kid who was sheltered way, way too much, I'm of the personal opinion that too much restriction is, at best, useless, and at worst, harmful.

I do think parenting in the Internet age is much more difficult. Letting a kid sign online without guidance is like dropping them off in an empty parking lot and hoping for the best.

So true. I just recently finally stopped questioning my teen about who he was talking to online. Who are you talking to? Do you know him? Is he from your school? Why does he want to know how old you are? Is he asking for your address? Is he a pervert?

*sigh*

[Williebee]

Originally Posted by missesdash

Letting a kid sign online without guidance is like dropping them off in an empty parking lot and hoping for the best.

And doesn't that just sum it up?
Thanks!

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Right. And the biggest problem for me is that with my teenager (he'll be 15 in March), I already feel like some things aren't my business. Just basic privacy and stuff. It's not like I'd listen in on his phone calls to his friends, so why should I demand to see his written conversations? Well because it's the internet, okay, but... still. Ugh. I'm just going to ask him if he blocks me, see what he says, and take it from there.

Yeah, it's a conundrum. And as a kid who was sheltered way, way too much, I'm of the personal opinion that too much restriction is, at best, useless, and at worst, harmful.

So true. I just recently finally stopped questioning my teen about who he was talking to online. Who are you talking to? Do you know him? Is he from your school? Why does he want to know how old you are? Is he asking for your address? Is he a pervert?

*sigh*

I'd hate to be raising a kid today, I really would. But that said, I think every generation would feel the same way. In the end, I suspect it will always be about communication.

thebloodfiend - and other under 30s - I'd love to hear your take on this. Would you like to be raising a kid today? Is it different? Harder?

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

What?!?! You can block certain friends from individual posts? I'm going to have to ask my teen about that one.

And this is exactly why I said "kids" these days know more about social networking than you. Possibly me. They grew up with it. They use it all the time. They have classes on it. They know about privacy settings and "friends" circles and setting picture permissions so a friend can't tag you without your permission. There is simply no excuse for not knowing.

Example -- got wasted at a party last week and a friend tags you drunk out of your mind? You can set whether or not that picture goes back to your timeline. Or if anyone but select friends can see it. Want to say "hooked up with greg last night," but don't want mom and dad to see? Make a special circle of friends who can see your stupid posts. Want to say "I hate fags"? You can set a circle of friends who can only see that post. Twitter works the same. You can make it private. Tumblr, I'm unsure about, but Blogger also works like that. You can set your blogger blog for up to 100 private readers last time I checked so that it requires a password. This is nothing new. There are hundreds of teen book bloggers younger than these idiots who know that.

Originally Posted by mccardey

thebloodfiend - and other under 30s - I'd love to hear your take on this. Would you like to be raising a kid today? Is it different? Harder?

I don't like the idea of raising kids at all. But I don't think it's necessarily harder now. Different, sure. Things my grandparents had to deal with raising my parents, they don't. And vice-versa.

And, let's face it, if a teen wants a private facebook, they'll make a private facebook. I did. I know other people who've done it. There's not much you can do besides make facebook require valid driver licenses to sign up (never happening), restrict internet access and prevent your child from ever using a computer but the one you provide (not possible), or raising them with the amish.

My dad was really, really hard with computer access (he has a degree in computer science and he knows his shit) and there was still so much I got past him. Just don't be a douchebag with your kid. Talk to them, but don't act like they're an idiot. For every girl/guy who gets into creepy situations online, there are thousands who don't. There's internet safety and there's being overbearing to the point of creepiness.

And if you don't know your kid is an asshole racist online, well, you've got a lot more to worry about than internet safety.

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

And if you don't know your kid is an asshole racist online, well, you've got a lot more to worry about than internet safety.

Remarkably sensible.

[Torgo]

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

And this is exactly why I said "kids" these days know more about social networking than you. Possibly me. They grew up with it. They use it all the time. They have classes on it. They know about privacy settings and "friends" circles and setting picture permissions so a friend can't tag you without your permission. There is simply no excuse for not knowing.

I would just mention that research I've seen suggest kids don't always know quite so much about the internet as we expect. For example, lots of children think Wikipedia is written by an authoritative person or team of people, a la encyclopaedias in the past, and think that if something's online it's authorised ("it can't be copyright infringement if it's on the web.") And we've all heard stories about people who unwisely advertised their house party on social networks when their parents were away, and ended up with the party crashed and the house trashed by strangers. I'm not disagreeing that children are often what we would call, in the jargon, 'digital natives', but we can't legislate/moralise as if they all are.

[missesdash]

I kind of dealt with this in my WIP because ten years ago when I got grounded, I wasn't allowed online. But now the Internet is everywhere, and I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect a teenager to stay off of the Internet completely. You'd have to lock them in their room, not allow them at school and even take their phone.

And it's hard to "ground" someone when they have Internet access. Do kids even get grounded anymore?

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Torgo

I would just mention that research I've seen suggest kids don't always know quite so much about the internet as we expect. For example, lots of children think Wikipedia is written by an authoritative person or team of people, a la encyclopaedias in the past, and think that if something's online it's authorised ("it can't be copyright infringement if it's on the web."

These aren't children. And that's still no excuse. Ever since we were allowed to use Wikipedia in school, in every single school I've been too (and I've been to a lot in various socioeconomic neighborhoods) we've been taught that it is not to be used as a source. And we have been taught over and over again about copyright infringement to the point of ridiculousness. If you don't know, that is your problem. Idiots like that are why I've had to sit through a million different stupid lectures on what plagiarism is and why Wikipedia shouldn't be cited definitively. It's ridiculous. They're fucking high schoolers about to be applying to colleges.

But during those lectures, they're probably facebooking on their phones.

And we've all heard stories about people who unwisely advertised their house party on social networks when their parents were away, and ended up with the party crashed and the house trashed by strangers. I'm not disagreeing that children are often what we would call, in the jargon, 'digital natives', but we can't legislate/moralise as if they all are.

These are not children if they're throwing house parties when their parents are away. After a certain point, you've got to take responsibility for your own actions. Deliberate ignorance, when the information is right there, a click away, is no excuse. Especially when it's being spoonfed to you all the time.

If you can't expect someone to take care of themselves online, when it's so damn simple, how can you expect them to function in the real world?

Just two weeks ago, I had my third mandatory college "how to use the internet" class. After a certain point, you've got to get it on your own. Grow up and learn how to use the internet or don't use it at all. Simple. But the "they're just kids" excuse doesn't work in regards to internet safety anymore. I will maintain to the end of time that most teens know more about social networking than most adults, and if they don't, they've had much more instruction on how to use it since their fingers have been able to type.

[icerose]

Originally Posted by mccardey

I'd hate to be raising a kid today, I really would. But that said, I think every generation would feel the same way. In the end, I suspect it will always be about communication.

thebloodfiend - and other under 30s - I'd love to hear your take on this. Would you like to be raising a kid today? Is it different? Harder?

Have three. I think each generation, especially during this rapidly progressing technologically expanding era we have unique challenges. There are individual challenges that are new.

However, it falls back to the basics.

Love and respect your kids. Spend time with them. Be involved in their lives. Earn their respect by being a good parent. Be a rolemodel. Set boundaries and ground rules. Have conversations. Ect.

Those have never changed and hopefully never will. A good parent 90 years ago could still be a good parent now.

[Torgo]

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

After a certain point, you've got to get it on your own. Grow up and learn how to use the internet or don't use it at all. Simple. But the "they're just kids" excuse doesn't work in regards to internet safety anymore. I will maintain to the end of time that most teens know more about social networking than most adults, and if they don't, they've had much more instruction on how to use it since their fingers have been able to type.

Sure, but society has to draw a line somewhere about who we treat as children - and thus not entirely responsible for their own actions - and who we treat as adults. Whatever the age of majority is wherever you are, that's when you have to start owning your words and your actions yourself.

With the internet pervading everybody's lives, I can't see how we can draw a line between the internet and IRL and apply different rules to each. We have to be consistent about what we expect from people as part of society. It's going to be messy, and we're going to find people who are technically children who are much more clued-up and responsible than other people who are technically adults; but we made a decision to cut people under 18 a bit more slack, because how else are we going to write laws?

I get that schools and governments and parents are making an effort to define these new boundaries, and I get that if someone isn't paying attention to those boundaries it's on them to some extent. I just can't get behind the idea that, given that we have a valuable and kind-of workable distinction between adults and children in everyday life, we have to suspend that on the web. We give kids a bit of latitude to be dumb, because we all did dumb things when we were supposedly old enough to know better. (Christ, there's terrible teenage poetry of mine archived on some godforsaken poetry USENET group that I wish would go away, and I published that back when my online handle was a ten-digit Compuserve number and I barely understood the concept or the permanence of publication on the internet.)

I think the vile racists posting stuff online deserve to get upbraided by the decent majority, because I think that's how a society ought to deal with hate speech - by disapprobation. I just think when it's vile racist kids we're talking about - however technical or arbitrary the label 'kids' is - that needs to come from, or be addressed to, the people responsible for them, and not mobs of people on the internet.

In some jurisdictions - like mine - the hate speech and the privacy breach are both probably criminal offences, and while I'm not a huge fan of laws restriction freedom of speech I can see both sides of the issue. On balance, then, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I just don't approve of shaming kids in a way that exposes personally identifying information in public.

[Chrissy]

Update: my 22-year-old son (gamer nerd, internet wiz, computer engineering major, social media participant) did not know that you could post in FB to a subset of friends. So HA!