MPAA Tells The FCC: If We Don't Stop Piracy, The Internet Will Die

from the moral-panic dept

Never let it be said that the folks in Hollywood aren't good at coming up with a totally fictional horror story. I just have a problem when they use it not to entertain, but to create a moral panic to push the government to pass laws in their favor. In discussing the recent 60 Minutes piece that was really nothing more than an MPAA scare tactic, some suggested that it was really just a first step in the process of getting the government to make sure net neutrality rules had a special Hollywood exception. So, it's interesting to note that just before that 60 Minutes episode aired (and just before Halloween), the MPAA sent a "scary" filing to the FCC warning it how the US would always be a broadband laggard if it didn't stomp out piracy. The full filing (warning:pdf) claims, repeatedly, that piracy is sucking up all our bandwidth and getting rid of that would somehow make it cheaper to install faster internet connections.

The Commission has projected that it could cost $350 billion to ubiquitously deploy broadband networks capable of delivering 100 Mbps, which is rapidly becoming the international standard. The Commission, however, should not ignore that illegal content accounts for a vast amount of online traffic. Thus, it could generate substantial savings in this tremendous build-out cost -- to be borne by both government and private sector investment -- by encouraging construction of networks that are designed not on the basis of accommodating capacity-hogging transmissions of unlawful content but rather with the goal of providing consumers a rich broadband experience.

And, of course, it pushes for kicking file sharers off the internet (it hides this by calling it "graduated response," of course, rather than the more common term "three strikes"). The filing also goes on about how the MPAA is just so sure that ISPs can stamp out piracy, and because of that, it thinks the government should force them to get on it.

The MPAA wastes little time mocking those who disagree with its position, and suggesting that the FCC "pay no heed" to consumer concerns:

[The] Commission should pay no heed to assertions by some members of the advocacy community that the problem of content theft can be ignored because some amount of legitimate e-commerce already occurs through vendors such as iTunes.... The same holds true for the preposterous notion that the law should be ignored unless a property owner can demonstrate that a thief, in the absence of stealing, otherwise would have legitimately purchased a stolen product. A shoplifter who steals a DVD from a store in a mall is not immune from security intervention, let alone prosecution, simply because he might not have planned to buy the product that he attempted to steal.

Except, of course, there's a huge difference there. If someone steals a DVD it's no longer there for someone else to buy. If someone who never would have purchased the movie views it online there's no loss. it's difficult to see how the MPAA can simply ignore this while assuming that FCC commissioners are too stupid to grasp this rather simple economic concept.

But where the filing really comes into its own in being laughably funny is where it tries to claim that if the FCC doesn't do this, the internet will effectively die. How does it get there? Well, first, it claims that the reason people use the internet is to view content from Hollywood. And, if file sharing keeps up, there won't be any of that content left, and then why would anyone use the internet? Think that's an exaggeration? How else do you interpret this:

Quite clearly, it is the promise of access to the content flowing over the Internet's network architecture that motivates Americans to adopt broadband. The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware; a series of computer links and protocols with great capacity to communicate but nothing to say. Television once was unfairly derided as little more than a toaster with pictures. In the absence of compelling content, the Internet would offer consumers even less value than that proverbial toaster. It is the content that flows over and through the Internet that makes the breakthrough technology so potentially powerful.

Yes, because even though the internet existed for decades before the folks at the movie studios had even heard of it, they had nothing to say, at all, until people could start sharing the latest camcorded blockbuster. Do they really think people are this stupid? Sorry, Hollywood, but it's not "the content" that you're thinking about that makes the internet so powerful. It's the ability to communicate. Sure, the content is a nice-to-have, but the internet grew and grew because it let people talk to each other, not because it was another broadcast medium. This fantasy story by the MPAA also leaves out the fact that more content than ever before is being produced today, even as "piracy" numbers have gone up. And, oh yes, once again, the movie business is hitting record highs at the box office. Funny that the MPAA seems to spend so much time insisting that its industry is dying, while leaving out the record revenue bit. Instead, it just keeps jumping out and yelling that piracy will kill the movie business...

And then it gets into rewriting history, by insisting that every new technology is only successful if the big media companies support it:

Throughout history, whenever transformative communications technologies have captured the imagination of consumers, compelling content has been the vehicle for forward progress.

Apparently, the MPAA is unfamiliar with the telephone. Hopefully, the FCC is a bit more familiar with that particular technology.

The filing goes on and on like this, designed to "scare" the folks at the FCC with a bit of a moral panic, but only inducing laughter (good show, Hollywood) from anyone with any actual understanding of technology, history and copyright. Another favorite tidbit is the MPAA's demand that the FCC not pay attention to how incredibly screwed up every single attempt at using technological measures to stop piracy has been in the past:

MPAA does not want the Commission's consideration of the important overarching issue of unlawful online conduct to be derailed by backward-looking debates about the pros and cons of any given technology, particularly those that already have been surpassed by new innovations. MPAA firmly believes that future developments will yield an entirely new generation of ever-more-sophisticated online protection technologies.

In other words, please ignore how badly we've screwed up in the past. Don't worry about things like rootkits and security vulnerabilities we've created. Also, ignore the fact that DRM doesn't work and only punishes our legitimate customers while driving more people to piracy. That would be a waste of time. Really.

And finally, I leave you with the most stunning statement of all, along those lines. One that I'm amazed the MPAA lawyers let go through in this filing, because it absolutely has to come back to haunt the MPAA in the future. In responding to concerns from lots of different people, including consumer advocates and consumer electronics firms that the various technological protection measures the MPAA wants to force on ISPs will harm, the MPAA states:

That a tool intended to stop unlawful conduct could be put to ill use, however, is not an argument for prohibiting the use of the tool....

Wait... isn't that exactly the argument that the MPAA has used for years against every new file sharing technology out there? Wasn't it the crux of the Grokster lawsuits? That because the tool could be put to ill use, it needed to be prohibited? Yet, now, suddenly it doesn't want its own technologies prohibited just because they can be put to "ill use." Double standard, much?

This is nothing but a typical moral panic from Hollywood. They are storytellers out there, and they know how to craft a horror story. Hopefully, though, the FCC reviewers of this particular fantasy will give it the thumbs down for simply being totally unbelievable.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Latest Techno Moral Panic: Texting Is 'Rewiring Young Brains'

from the mmm-hmm dept

There have been a whole series of alarmist studies that get lots of press lately, with titles about how social networks or other technologies are somehow negatively impacting people's brains. Nearly all of these didn't hold up under much scrutiny, as they almost all took things out of context or greatly extrapolated a finding and misinterpreted the results. The latest to add to the pile? A report claiming that texting may be "rewiring young brains." The evidence? Kids who used mobile phones a lot finished a variety of tests much faster, but tended to be "less accurate." That's about it. From there, the guy who did the study concludes that it must be the fact that many mobile phones use "predictive texting" that's training kids to be fast, but inaccurate, assuming something else will come in and fix the mess. Now, perhaps that's true, but it seems like the study doesn't actually show that at all. Also, it's not clear from the report what sort of mistakes are being made. The article talks about spelling mistakes, which are common in texting, but the real question is whether or not that really matters? It may very well depend on context. In a text message, a spelling mistake isn't a big deal. In a resume, it's a different story. But where on that spectrum did these tests land? But more importantly, even if we grant the premise that kids who text a lot are a lot sloppier on certain tests... how do you go from that to immediately concluding that their brains are being wired differently? It sounds a lot more like what they've been trained to do, rather than any serious neurological shift.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Video Games, Why Aren't Politicians Complaining About Chess?

from the sedentary-occupations! dept

President Obama is the latest in a rather long line of politicians to start calling out video games as being something that is bad for kids and should be taken away from them, as encouragement to go outside and play:

The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.

Of course, there's been very little evidence that playing video games alone somehow leads kids to be less active or to play less outside, but it may also be worth putting this into a historical context. Tom sends in a look back at some old quotes from Scientific American, where the last one on the page, written in July of 1859 -- yes 150 years ago -- sounds quite similar to Obama's comments on video games, but is in reference to that pernicious child-obesity-causing monstrosity we call "chess":

"A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship."

You heard them! No more chess playing, you kids!

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some Quotes Of Note: Politicians Damning New Technologies/Cultural Artifacts

from the have-fun-with-it,-people dept

In my post earlier about Rep. Robert Wexler's misguided remarks at the World Copyright Summit, an anonymous commenter added a wonderful comment highlighting similar politically misguided sayings throughout the years that was too good not to share. The anonymous commenter didn't say where it's from, but it appears that it was mostly from a Wired article from a few years ago. So, one could make an argument that the original comment was infringing, but aren't we all better off for having had the chance to read it?

Is it the only lesson of history that man is unteachable?

-- Sir Winston Churchill

The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder ... I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control.

- US senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2005

The effect of rock and roll on young people, is to turn them into devil worshippers; to stimulate self-expression through sex; to provoke lawlessness; impair nervous stability and destroy the sanctity of marriage. It is an evil influence on the youth of our country.

- Minister Albert Carter, 1956

Many adults think that the crimes described in comic books are so far removed from the child's life that for children they are merely something imaginative or fantastic. But we have found this to be a great error. Comic books and life are connected. A bank robbery is easily translated into the rifling of a candy store. Delinquencies formerly restricted to adults are increasingly committed by young people and children ... All child drug addicts, and all children drawn into the narcotics traffic as messengers, with whom we have had contact, were inveterate comic-book readers This kind of thing is not good mental nourishment for children!

- Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, 1954

The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?

- Reverend Enos Hitchcock, Memoirs of the Bloomsgrove Family, 1790

Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy? Does [it] break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?

- Survey conducted by the Knights of Columbus Adult Education Committee, San Francisco Bay Area, 1926

This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'

- The Annual Report of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1909

The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.

- The Times of London, 1816

I particularly like the last quote. That darn Waltz. Destroying society.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Today, It's Good Manners Being Killed By Texting

from the what-next? dept

Some grumpy old editor at the New York Times must really be upset about all these damn kids and their cell phones. First, earlier in the week, it ran a story in its health section talking about how texting is destroying teenagers' thumbs and ruining their minds; now, it's got a piece on how texting at the dinner table is the latest epidemic of bad manners. There's the obligatory quote from a mental-health professional, as a therapist weighs in to say that texting while eating has become "a major issue" among couples in counseling. It also has etiquette writers keen to push their latest book by touting the need for proper gadget etiquette, as if being rude or inconsiderate has somehow changed since we got cell phones. It seems like for years, people have been saying how American families never eat dinner together anymore, but apparently that problem's been solved. Now if it weren't for those damn texts...

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Texting Is Wrecking Your Teenager's Mind, Destroying Their Thumbs, Killing Puppies, Etc.

from the doom-and-gloom dept

The New York Times says the growing use of texting among teenagers "is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists". Apparently all the texting kids do creates anxiety, keeps them from getting enough sleep, and causes repetitive stress injuries. Sure, texting could have some some negative impact on some kids, but like with so many things, for every citation of some horror texting causes, you can find studies touting texting's benefits, too. And finding one girl who texted so much it made her thumbs hurt really isn't a sign of an epidemic, either. It certainly makes for some good headlines, but is the rise of texting among teens really any different than the growth of any other technology, none of which seem to have killed us off yet?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Move Over, Craigslist: Twitter Gets Prostitution Ads

from the didn't-see-this-coming dept

Craigslist has been catching a lot of flack, but Twitter might be next in line for the blame game. A British tabloid discovered that a brothel in England was using the site to advertise its services, and got a quote from a member of parliament labeling it "cynical and inappropriate". It's hard to imagine that this is the only business of its sort using Twitter to stay in touch with its customers, and it just goes to show that whatever media emerge -- from printed flyers to web sites to social-networking sites -- they'll be used to promote any sort of business, including sex-based ones. The brothel's response to the newspaper article is pretty amusing, though: a Twitter coupon, using the paper's name as the discount code. In the meantime, expect to see law enforcement officials start attacking Twitter for "enabling prostitution" in 3... 2... 1....

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

95 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Video Games... Look At The Evil Influence Of The Board Game Monopoly

from the i-mean...-seriously... dept

While hardly a month goes by without yet another indignant opinion piece arguing about how video games are corrupting our youth, it seems that some are now exploring the moral panics around other sorts of children's entertainment. Jedipunk points us to a brilliant tongue-in-cheek parody of all those anti-video game "think of the children" stories... but applying the same logic to the board game Monopoly.

For all the modern angst about violent computer games, this innocent-looking board game has probably had a more corrosive influence on western morals. For starters, Monopoly brazenly encourages players to plunder their savings and put every last penny into property.... Most pernicious of all Monopoly's venal influences, however, is surely the Community Chest card that says, "Bank error in your favour, collect £200." There's no suggestion you should alert the bank to its mistake when you can buy a couple more houses and profit by some idjit's error.

Indeed. Alert the politicians!

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait A Second, You Forgot The Moral Panic

from the no-fear-mongering-here dept

A new study is out saying that the number of people arrested for soliciting sex with juveniles (or at least law enforcement posing as juveniles) online leapt fivefold from 2000 to 2006 -- but instead of using the stat to start a moral panic, people behind the study say the sharp increase doesn't signal a growing danger to kids, but rather better enforcement by police. During the same time span, arrests for solicitations of actual children increased 21 percent, from about 500 to about 600. The report's authors say that had the increase in arrests for online solicitation been due to an increase in the number of offenders, the two growth rates would have been more similar. This report goes along with an earlier one from the Berkman Center at Harvard, which found that as internet use has grown, the number of sex offenses against kids has dropped, once again highlighting that much of the moral panic over kids' safety online is overhyped and misplaced.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Create A Moral Panic: Ask A Question, Get Opinions, But Ignore Facts

from the neat-tricks-for-journalists dept

Well, here's a fun one. Despite study after study after study after study after study, all showing that various text messaging and "txt speak" hasn't harmed kids reading or writing skills in the slightest (and, in fact, kids today read and write significantly more than in the past), how would you go about creating a moral panic around the idea that the internet is harming kids language skills?

It's easy.

1. Ignore all the evidence.
2. Send out a survey to parents asking them if they think the internet harms the ability of kids to write well
3. Report the results of that survey of what parents think without actually backing it up with facts or evidence.

Bingo. You're done. Forget push polling, this is push reporting. The reporting itself is designed to plant the idea that kids are having trouble writing well, due to the internet, despite a near total lack of supporting evidence (and plenty of evidence to the contrary).

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Politicians Overreacted To Terrorist 'Threat' Online

from the moral-panic dept

It seems that with every new communications tool online, we get some politicians absolutely freaked out about how "terrorists" will use it to communicate, and how that must be stopped. In just the past few months, we've seen politicians freak out about terrorists supposedly using Second Life, YouTube and Twitter -- and how each of these need to be stopped. Every time this has come up, it has seemed pretty ludicrous for a variety of reasons. First, these are communication tools. They can be used for good or bad purposes -- but it seems pretty ridiculous to freak out over the fact that some might possibly use them for bad purposes. But, even more importantly, the idea that these tools would help "recruit" new terrorists seemed particularly silly. If someone is going to be convinced to become a terrorist based on a YouTube video, there's a bigger problem.

And, in fact, that's exactly what a new report is finding. The whole "freaking out about terrorists online" thing is totally overblown. The study found little evidence that terrorists were effectively recruiting people online, and even if they were, they found no conceivable way to stop such tools from being used by terrorists at all -- and pointed out how pointless it was to even try. At best, they would get some content taken down from a few websites, which would only serve to draw more attention to the content, which would quickly appear on other websites instead. But, of course, most politicians don't care. They need to create such moral panics so it looks like they're actually doing something to "protect the children" in order to get re-elected.

In the meantime, if they were really concerned about "terrorists" using technology, they might actually want to focus on getting the folks who hate us to use the technology even more. At least that's the feeling I get after reading this article about a Taliban leader and former Guantanamo prisoner, who's now obsessed with his iPhone. I have to admit, most of the article reads like an Onion-style parody ("'It's easy and modern and I love it,' Zaeef said as he pinched and pulled his fingers across the iPhone's touch screen last week. 'This is necessary in the world today. People want to progress.'"), but it does show that perhaps using enabling technology to allow people to better their lives, gets them a lot less focused on looking for ways to kill us.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Now Facebook And Twitter Will Melt Your Mind

from the evidence-please? dept

It's been quite a week or so for people with fancy titles and no actual evidence to spout off about just how evil and dangerous social networks are. First, there was the totally ridiculous claim that Facebook could increase your likelihood of cancer. Then, there was the news that using Twitter meant you had no identity, and now a "professor of synaptic pharmacology" is claiming that Facebook and Twitter are threatening to "infantalize" our brains. This is based on what... exactly? Well, it appears nothing more than a hunch. There isn't any actual evidence presented, and some of the facts appear to just be wrong. For example, she claims that these services mean kids read fewer books, and that means they'll empathize less. Well, there are a couple problems with that... such as the recent research that showed that people are reading more books than in the past. And... I'm curious as to the proof that actually communicating with real human beings online is less likely to create empathy than reading fictional books?

Oddly, while she complains about less empathy due to less reading, she then complains about people showing empathy via social networks, saying that social networks encourage bad behavior by providing people "constant reassurance -- that you are listened to, recognised, and important." Confused? You're not the only one. Then she pulls out the same old line that's been trotted out for years about how since these interactions are all online (gasp!) they seem to count less... and somehow that will lead people to no longer want to interact in person. This is an argument we've heard for over 15 years online, and it's never been supported by the slightest evidence to back it up. Most people who actually use the internet to communicate have found that it's increased opportunities to meet and talk to people in person, not diminished them. It's amazing how many experts can be trotted out who so fear a technology it's clear they've not really used it very much.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NY Politician Demands Ban Of Video Game... Not Available In The US

from the moral-panic dept

There was a flutter of controversy last week, when someone realized that a rather despicable video game, where the goal of gameplay is apparently to rape someone, was available for sale via Amazon's marketplace (where 3rd party sellers offer items, rather than Amazon itself). Amazon was quick to block the sale of the game, but that hasn't stopped a politician in NY from using the story as an opportunity to grandstand. New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is demanding US publishers boycott distributing the game, which seems pretty silly since no US publishers are distributing the game (it's only been released in Japan), and there's no indication anyone wants to distribute the game in the US. But why should that stop a good opportunity to create some moral panic?

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Now It's Twitter That's Evil

from the we-fear-what-we-don't-understand dept

It's amazing how much people fear what they don't understand. Every few years, there's something new to "fear" online -- and it's often backed up by quotes from clueless "experts" who buy into the fear rather than understanding what's actually happening. When the internet was first becoming mainstream in the 90s, there was the hilariously wrong Rimm Report, which had politicians and the media in a big frenzy about how the internet was just a massive den of porn that needed to be stopped. And, of course, more recently there's been similar attention paid to things like violent video games, despite the lack of evidence of any actual damage done to people playing such games. A few years ago, it was blogs that were evil ("an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective"), according to Dan Lyons, who at the time worked for Forbes, and later became famous thanks to his blog

Now, it seems that the main target of today's moral panic is the various social networking sites. Obviously, there's been a lot of trumped up complaints about sexual predators on social networks (despite the fact that, as social networks have become more popular the number of sexual offenses against children has been dropping). However, in the last few months, we've been seeing various weak attacks on social networking from a variety of other perspectives -- often clearly written by folks who haven't actually used the sites in question very much.

There was the claim that girls who used Facebook more often were more depressed, with the implication being that Facebook made them depressed, rather than the fact that those who were depressed may have turned to Facebook to talk to people and relieve their depression. Then there was the ridiculously misleading reports last week, implying that social networks could be harmful to your health, though the real story turned out to be a lot more benign.

The latest is a bit of fascinatingly yellow journalism out of the UK, where a reporter found a bunch of "experts" to opine on why Twitter was only home to insecure losers. There are a bunch of hilarious quotes from people who apparently have never even used the service:

"Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity." -- clinical psychologist Oliver James

"Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won't cure it." -- cognitive neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis

"a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It's like when a parent goes into a child's room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor." -- book author Alain de Botton

The author of the article then goes on to whine about how "mundane" messages on Twitter tend to be -- which is reminiscent of the old complaints about bloggers just blogging about their cats. It's pretty clear that none of these folks have ever really used Twitter -- because they all seem to interpret it as being a broadcast mechanism, rather than a conversational one. This isn't to say that Twitter is right for everyone, but most of the people who find value in it, find value in the conversational aspect of it, not that it "broadcasts" mundane facts of their lives. I know that I've used it to become a lot closer to a number of people, because it allows me not to find out what they had for lunch today, but to converse with them more frequently and with much more depth and insight than I would have had the opportunity otherwise. Sometimes, that's because of direct communications via Twitter, but often it's because of connections created because of Twitter -- such as realizing I'm in the same city at the same time as someone else I'd like to meet. There are still plenty of people who hate Twitter, but it's difficult to take seriously people complaining about it when it seems quite clear they've never even bothered to use it.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Kids' Openness About Risky Activities Good Or Bad?

from the just-wondering... dept

There's a moral panic style study being released that claims that many teens "display risky behavior" on MySpace. Of course, when you look at the details, it's not quite so fear-inducing at all. Basically, some kids talk about drinking, drugs and sex online. That's nothing new. But the way this study is being presented, it makes it sound as if the risky behavior is the fact that kids are talking about this stuff. The article doesn't talk about the actual drugs and sex so much as the talking about it, as if that's the problem:

Many young people who use social networking sites such as News Corp's MySpace do not realize how public they are and may be opening themselves to risks

That seems backwards to me. It would seem a lot better to find out that kids are actually talking about this stuff openly, where they can (hopefully) get good advice to keep themselves safe, rather than keeping quiet and experimenting totally in secret. Yes, there definitely are some risks involved in talking about this stuff publicly. For years, we've wondered what will happen when the MySpace generation runs for office, and we've also seen how social networking profiles can be used against an individual in pursuing a career. Of course, there are some who wonder if this widespread openness will lead to a more accepting population. For example the fact that Barack Obama used cocaine at one point in his life was barely mentioned at all during the campaign -- in part because he had openly admitted to it years earlier. It's only the surprise "gotcha" type info that seems to cause real problems.

That isn't to say that kids today shouldn't be at least aware of the potential consequences of over-sharing information, but I worry that a study like the one being discussed here leads to eventual misplaced blame and worries over a problem that might not be nearly as significant as some make it out to be.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Overhyped Fear Of Child Predators Leading To Real Concerns About Child Privacy

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Once again, we have a situation of unintended consequences due to politicians trying to make headlines for "protecting the children." As you probably know, the press and politicians have been pushing for a bit of a moral panic over the idea that kids are at great risk from predators online. The truth is that the risk has been blown way out of proportion. Most child abductions come in cases where the abductor knew the child, and most children know better than to talk to random strangers online. Yet, because of all the scary articles in the press, plenty of politicians went around demanding that various social networks put in place age verification systems in order to "protect" the children. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal led the charge in insisting that predators on social networks was a huge problem.

Of course, now that the social networks have started putting in place age verification systems, child safety experts are realizing that this actually creates some serious privacy issues, most likely bigger than any threat of predators. The various companies that are providing age verification tools are building up databases of info on children, and many of them are using that info to market stuff specifically to children. So, now, rather than being mostly anonymous online, various marketers have a bunch of info -- including name, age, address, school and gender -- that they wouldn't have access to otherwise.

And, of course, even though he's partly responsible for this turn of events, Richard Blumenthal is quite upset. After first claiming that he's only just been hearing about such privacy issues, he claims:

"The attorneys general would be very concerned about using age verification to promote marketing or any other kinds of promotional pitches or gimmicks aimed at specific age groups. Targeted marketing may have its place, but it should not be coupled with the issue of childhood safety."

Perhaps he should have thought of that before demanding that social networks hire companies to collect that kind of information.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Press Not Buying Google Street View As A Threat To Children

from the good-for-them dept

A few months back, we pointed out how ridiculous it was that a child advocacy group had put out a scary press release claiming that child predators could use Google Street View to prey on children. They could also, you know, walk up and down the street. It's nice to see that the mainstream press is at least calling the group, Stop Internet Predators, out on how ridiculous this is. Nationally syndicated columnist Larry Magid sarcastically slams the group for such pointless fearmongering, not only pointing out that it's easier for predators to just walk up and down the street, but also making the following point:

Instead of banning Google Street View, maybe we should put up walls between streets and sidewalks so that predators can't see children walking home from school. And while we're at it, let's ban public outdoor parks and recreation areas or at least find ways to hide the children playing there. Or just keep children away from churches, schools and other places where pedophiles have been known to operate.

Considering how often we end up seeing the mainstream press simply parrot these sorts of press releases, it's good to see them hitting back against these more questionable attempts at creating moral panics.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Time For Another Technology Moral Panic? Digital Drugs! Be Afraid!

from the thank-you-USA-Today dept

USA Today got us talking about the concept of technology moral panics with their fear mongering article about predators using game consoles -- and now it's back with a big warning about "digital drugs" in a column by Kim Komando. It's actually just an article about binaural beats, which are hardly new. And, yes, there are those who believe that there are certain binaural beats that can have an effect like drugs, though there are many who believe the impact is mostly self-created.

However, while the article briefly points out that some are skeptical, it immediately moves on to suggest that even so, binaural beats are somehow dangerous as a sort of gateway drug, claiming that they "encourage drug use." Of course, the article doesn't present any evidence of that -- and you could just as easily argue the opposite: that they offer a non-chemical way for people to experience other states of consciousness (if it works, that is). If Komando believes that this somehow encourages drug use, then does she also believe that meditation is encouraging drug use? After all, doesn't that also push people to experience other states of consciousness?

But, of course, when it comes to creating a technology moral panic, all you need is a bunch of scary sounding claims in a major newspaper... and then you just wait for politicians to take over. How long until someone somewhere proposes banning these dangerous sounds?

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Police And Newspaper Say The Internet Turned 10,000 Australian Kids On To Crime

from the sensationalism-at-every-corner dept

madlep writes in to point us to a story out of Australia, where police in Victoria are blaming the internet for a recent rise in youth crimes. Of course, this seems to go against almost all other evidence, but why let that stop a little fear mongering:

The head of the police youth affairs office, Inspector Steve Soden, said too many children were viewing inappropriate content on the internet and this, coupled with boredom due to a lack of community services on Melbourne's fringes, was behind the alarming rise in youth crime.

Does he have any evidence of this? Nope. But it doesn't stop the newspaper from going with the headline: "Net blamed as 10,000 kids turn to crime." In fact, buried way down towards the end of the article, is the news of an actual research paper that looked into what was causing the growth in youth crime:

The paper says social factors, including unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse and homelessness, contribute to youth crime. But the two key factors influencing young offenders are poor parenting and schooling.

Notice that the internet is totally absent. Yet, why is this fact buried in the 13th paragraph, when the headline and the first few paragraphs blame the internet?

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Technology Moral Panics: But Think Of The Children!

from the everyone-panic dept

Recently I wrote about a dreadful article in USA Today hyping up the "oh-no-think-of-the-children problem" of predators using console games to seek out kids. This followed similarly bogus news articles hyping up the threats of predators on social networks. Yet, all the "panic" raised by those articles has politicians practically shoving each other aside to introduce legislation against those social networks, or just various Attorneys General threatening those social networks without any evidence that there's a significant problem, other than a few totally hyped up news articles.

It turns out that a PhD Candidate at NYU, Alice Marwick has recently published a paper discussing exactly this type of "moral panic," focusing on the situation in 1996 in which Time Magazine famously published a scare mongering article about porn online, now known as the Rimm Report. Sean Garret, who pointed me to Marwick's paper has a good analysis of the Rimm Report's ripple effects as well (as does Adam Thierer). Basically, the report, which claimed that 83.5% of images online were porn was based on ridiculously faulty premises and research. It was almost entirely wrong.

And while Time Magazine came out of it looking bad, it didn't stop politicians from using the "moral panic" created by the article to push through the Communications Decency Act -- which after many years of wasted taxpayer money was eventually declared unconstitutional. What's scary though, is how this process works: newspaper basically overhypes a non-story into a "big scary trend" and almost immediately politicians start pushing for questionable "save the children!" legislation:

This paper is about moral panics over contemporary technology, which I call "technopanics." I use two examples, the cyberporn panic of 1996 and the contemporary panic over online predators and MySpace, to demonstrate the links between media coverage and content legislation. In both cases, Internet content legislation is directly linked to media–fueled moral panics that concern uses of technology deemed harmful to children. This is of particular interest right now as a new Internet content bill, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), is being debated in Congress. The technopanic over "online predators" is remarkably similar to the cyberporn panic; both are fueled by media coverage, both rely on the idea of harm to children as the justification for Internet content restriction, and both have resulted in carefully crafted legislation to circumvent First Amendment concerns. While both panics have their roots in legitimate concerns, I am not primarily concerned with the extent of the purported harms. However, my research demonstrates that the legislation proposed (or passed) to curb these problems is an extraordinary response; it is misguided and in many cases masks the underlying problem.

The paper goes on to rip apart the media in blowing up these technopanics, often using outright incorrect or made up data, such as the idea that "50,000 sexual predators are online at any given time," a favorite of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The problem is that this number was made up out of nowhere. In tracking down where the number came from, the sources basically admit they pulled it out of thin air, with one saying that the number 50,000 is a:

"Goldilocks" figure -- "Not small and not large." He added that it was the same figure that was used by the media to describe the number of people killed annually by Satanic cults in the 1980s, and before that was cited as the number of children abducted by strangers each year in the 1970s.

But that didn't stop Dateline NBC from using it repeatedly -- leading to politicians claiming it was fact. Marwick systematically goes through the various stats like this one used by politicians and destroys each one as being false or misleading. But, of course, neither the press, which popularized them, nor the politicians using them to push through legislation, are interested in the truth. They want sensationalism, because that helps both of them.

The paper concludes that this new law, DOPA, is targeting exactly the wrong thing (i.e., not the actual problem) and is merely a response to yet another moral panic that is likely to die out as people realize it's not as big a deal as the press and politicians are making it out to be. In the short term, though, passing the law could be quite harmful. Beyond wasting millions in taxpayer dollars (like the CDA and COPA did), it could make it more difficult for kids to use social networks and certain web services for beneficial purposes.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..