Ahem. Major ranting ahead.
Jan. 14th, 2004 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quidditchgrrlDear members of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fandom_scruples,
Since you seem to live in a world of opposites kind of reality, go to hell. We've saved the seats at the top of the shiny purple triple-decker bus just for you. Leave your 'WWJD?' bracelets with the driver.
Sincerely,
PBG
P.S. Thanks also for the author recs. I'm always looking for new and interesting people in the fandom, and you've made it that much easier for me.
It's called parenting. Five minutes with the parental controls or filter technology saves the rest of the world fromidiots smarmy do-gooders people like you. You'd better believe that I'd punch your lights out if you tried to tell me how to raise my kids. (shellyk, I can put you on retainer when I start a family, right?)
I'm not apologizing for the language; I'm telling it to you straight. If you think it takes a village to raise a child, then consider that "the Internet" isn't a fecking village. A village, people - a small assemblage of houses, smaller than a town or city, but larger than a hamlet - not the entire online fandom. Ain't no one looking out for me online, nor am I particularly concerned with online content unless it breaks the law.
(And if they're going to get picky with the notion of village, then consider that in social science, a village can be considered as a group of people interconnected by a common set of values, not the entire population of an area. Villagization - the resettlement and rehousing of a population in new villages outside of their own area, often achieved by force (emphasis mine) is not something that can be imposed over a vast network of intellectual property.)
I do filter my journal as appropriate, since I have underaged people on my flist. I am bothered that I have to do it, but there is no other way to prevent underagers from viewing 'inappropriate' entries. I considered asking said underagers to remove me from their friendslists so I could have no compunction about posting. But that seemed unfair, so I filter when I have to.
Anyone who thinks that the internet can be 'policed' and that there is any kind of sure-fire, non-organic way of keeping minors from finding 'inappropriate' information/materials/pictures/whatever is fucking nuts. I mean that. Do you honestly think that no one under the age of 17 clicks 'yes' when confronted with that question button at FA? Or that it's impossible we might have underagers in the bedchamber at Checkmated? It's possible, since we take those people at their word. We've had kids using their parents Yahoo! ID in some of the adult HP groups (*cough*nice parenting*cough*).
Librarians on thefandom_scruples friendslist, shame on you. You are the first line of defense for all people in the pursuit of free, accessible information. Would you turn away a twelve-year-old searching for books about human sexuality? If so, you're the last person I'd want to have as a portkey for information. It is, quite simply, none of your business. Where I work it's also unethical.
My favorite quote of the moment is from none other than Larry Flynt, who said, "Murder is illegal; writing about it isn't. Sex isn't illegal, but writing about it is. Why?"
Obviously these people were not at Nimbus 2003 (and gah, some of them were there). The attendance requirement was that all attendees be either 18 or have the permission of their parents and an adult chaperone. The content was PG-13 at worst. Nobody was passing out excerpts of their fanfiction works, for crying out loud. *pulls hair and tries to calm down* Nimbus was, and is, a highly professional conference, worthy of every accolade it's received. It was a place where adult HP fans could come together and analyze the books, characters, and other topics of importance in an open environment.
*shakes head* Here's to hoping most of the folks who have friended the journal are merely misplaced in their high drama. I hope they aren't clinging to the idea of 'relatively moral smut' either. *beats dead horse*
That's all. I think I need to cheer myself up by looking through the 'black list' and making some new friends! :D
fandom_scruples,Since you seem to live in a world of opposites kind of reality, go to hell. We've saved the seats at the top of the shiny purple triple-decker bus just for you. Leave your 'WWJD?' bracelets with the driver.
Sincerely,
PBG
P.S. Thanks also for the author recs. I'm always looking for new and interesting people in the fandom, and you've made it that much easier for me.
It's called parenting. Five minutes with the parental controls or filter technology saves the rest of the world from
shellyk, I can put you on retainer when I start a family, right?)I'm not apologizing for the language; I'm telling it to you straight. If you think it takes a village to raise a child, then consider that "the Internet" isn't a fecking village. A village, people - a small assemblage of houses, smaller than a town or city, but larger than a hamlet - not the entire online fandom. Ain't no one looking out for me online, nor am I particularly concerned with online content unless it breaks the law.
(And if they're going to get picky with the notion of village, then consider that in social science, a village can be considered as a group of people interconnected by a common set of values, not the entire population of an area. Villagization - the resettlement and rehousing of a population in new villages outside of their own area, often achieved by force (emphasis mine) is not something that can be imposed over a vast network of intellectual property.)
I do filter my journal as appropriate, since I have underaged people on my flist. I am bothered that I have to do it, but there is no other way to prevent underagers from viewing 'inappropriate' entries. I considered asking said underagers to remove me from their friendslists so I could have no compunction about posting. But that seemed unfair, so I filter when I have to.
Anyone who thinks that the internet can be 'policed' and that there is any kind of sure-fire, non-organic way of keeping minors from finding 'inappropriate' information/materials/pictures/whatever is fucking nuts. I mean that. Do you honestly think that no one under the age of 17 clicks 'yes' when confronted with that question button at FA? Or that it's impossible we might have underagers in the bedchamber at Checkmated? It's possible, since we take those people at their word. We've had kids using their parents Yahoo! ID in some of the adult HP groups (*cough*nice parenting*cough*).
Librarians on the
fandom_scruples friendslist, shame on you. You are the first line of defense for all people in the pursuit of free, accessible information. Would you turn away a twelve-year-old searching for books about human sexuality? If so, you're the last person I'd want to have as a portkey for information. It is, quite simply, none of your business. Where I work it's also unethical.My favorite quote of the moment is from none other than Larry Flynt, who said, "Murder is illegal; writing about it isn't. Sex isn't illegal, but writing about it is. Why?"
Obviously these people were not at Nimbus 2003 (and gah, some of them were there). The attendance requirement was that all attendees be either 18 or have the permission of their parents and an adult chaperone. The content was PG-13 at worst. Nobody was passing out excerpts of their fanfiction works, for crying out loud. *pulls hair and tries to calm down* Nimbus was, and is, a highly professional conference, worthy of every accolade it's received. It was a place where adult HP fans could come together and analyze the books, characters, and other topics of importance in an open environment.
*shakes head* Here's to hoping most of the folks who have friended the journal are merely misplaced in their high drama. I hope they aren't clinging to the idea of 'relatively moral smut' either. *beats dead horse*
That's all. I think I need to cheer myself up by looking through the 'black list' and making some new friends! :D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:02 pm (UTC)*sigh* I really dislike all this. But I kinda wish I was on the list. It would really make my morning before having four teeth yanked.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:29 pm (UTC)These kinds of wank do serve to bring together people who may not have met up before, though, so that's a good thing.
Like Amy posted, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - the team for 2005 may have to *limit* attendees! :D
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-15 09:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:04 pm (UTC)You know your quote by Larry Flynn, that is so right on. People will let their kids watch violent movies, play horrible video game, but god forbid, lets not let them find out anything about sex. Then they scratch their heads and try to figure out things like Columbine.
When exactly did sex and violence get grouped together, anyway? On is an expression of love the other is an expression hate? huh?
Anyway, is jealous. . . I wish I was on the black list ::Whines:: That's two CM people on Gold and one black. We're sort of bronze-ish color I guess :)
Kele
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:27 pm (UTC)You are so right about the violence aspect of society. It's fine to buy video games where you can shoot police officers, but goodness knows that an honest story about two people growing through a relationship is something sacrosanct and should be hidden from the eyes of all.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:08 pm (UTC)Anyone who thinks that the internet can be 'policed' and that there is any kind of sure-fire, non-organic way of keeping minors from finding 'inappropriate' information/materials/pictures/whatever is fucking nuts.
That says it all. You are absolutely right. There is only one way to police the Internet. It's done on an individual computer, site by site, page by page. The only way to make sure your kids are only looking at what you want them to see is to put the kid, the computer, and the modem in a room where you are present. That's pretty much it.
All this nonsense does is draw negative attention to the fandom. Again. And again. Well, that and provide endless hours of entertainment for Fandom_Wank readers. ;o)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:18 pm (UTC)Isn't it funny that people don't bother parenting their kids? Mine will *never* have a computer a) in their room, which will be bare of any electronic equipment aside from a clock, or b) without parental 'spyware', which logs all the sites the computer visits to the hard drive and can block sites page by page if necessary.
And if they do access pornography, we'll sit down and have a little 'surfing session' with mom and dad. Nothing like looking at porn with your parents. :>
Gah, you'd think we were soliciting kids to look at this stuff. "Not work-safe" is warning enough for me. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:54 pm (UTC)*the horror*
That's the thing, no one is advertising this stuff. It's not as if it is out there being squished in their bright and shiny little cherub faces. In fact, it's best if we were a bit quieter.
Look, I know it's not easy being a parent. That's one of the reasons I am not a parent. It's damn hard work. You are responsible for everything that happens to, for, and with that person for at least 18 years - If you are lucky. But, if someone chooses to be a parent, that is the responsibility that they have chosen.
I did not choose that responsibility. I knew I couldn't deal with it. Why should I be responsible for someone else's kid's Internet viewing? That isn't fair. Not at all.
What ever happened to, "No, it's for grown ups."?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 10:47 pm (UTC)And if you breed, you chose to be a parent. I chose not to breed (at least, not now), so I only take the responsibility as far as I want to (mainly extending it to family and such).
You just can't police morality. :P
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:36 pm (UTC)I hope I wouldn't see any of those folks in 2005, but maybe they'll be there. Or all of a sudden, the conference is overbooked and they can't register (a girl can hope). :>
(Kind of interesting to see that many folks on the flist are ex-GTers and other GT hangers-on...)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-14 10:12 pm (UTC)Anyways- point is, despite my insane babble- go you. A well conceived response, good job.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-15 12:58 am (UTC)Kele
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-15 02:58 am (UTC)That is a clear indication that it's all very prejudicial. I read all ships if they are well-written, and I see no reason to try to police the internet. As Donna said, it's impossible.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-16 04:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-15 03:27 am (UTC)I find it funny that this person wasn't even able to write your name straight. Such a shame. *shakes head*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-16 04:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-15 09:59 am (UTC)Gosh, I have NO idea what you're ranting about (obviously a branch of fandom I'm not in on) but whew! You go with that whole "parent your own damn kids" 'tude!
As a librarian, it increasingly pisses me off when parents get up in arms about the fact that we aren't policing their offspring when they're in the library. Knowing full well that filtering technology is inexact at best and prejudicial at worst, it irritates me when we are compelled to use it anyway. I have every intention of supervising Hari's net use when she gets old enough. But there is no way I would expect some overworked, underpaid library employee to do the same. That's not their job.
And, just as an aside, I did write a paper last summer on the pros and cons of controlling the Internet. If you're interested, Lawrence Lessig's book Code is a really good primer on all of that.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-16 07:51 am (UTC)Judith Krug spoke at Nimbus 2003 this summer about the Internet Child Protection Act and explained exactly why filtering and blocking sites doesn't work and isn't constitutional. I was practically pumping my fist!
Wisconsin doesn't use filtering technology, does it? I thought they transferred away from federal money so they wouldn't have to do it?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-16 05:15 pm (UTC)Um, I'm leaning towards "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
I know that Peter Hamon, the head of the South Central Library System (and former circus clown and fire eater, I kid you not, his wife taught my cataloging class and he came in one day and taught us to juggle and make balloon animals) asked ALA if they could have someone develop a "transparent" filter i.e., one that looked like a filter but did absolutely nothing just to shut all those filterphiles up. He's one of my heroes.