After chasing children back into their homes to live in protected isolation from all possible contact with unauthorized adults, society/government now insists that they be completely shielded from social media (which may include possible contact with unauthorized adults) even though they probably do so while safely ensconced within their own living rooms or bedrooms.
This is a perfect example of "mission creep" in which we continue to move the goalposts of acceptable risk closer together to define an ever-smaller field of existence which kids must then content themselves to occupy.
This tendency is also described as "The Precautionary Principle" which posits that all risk, no matter now minuscule, is unacceptable.
Except that, of course, its not "all" risks. Only those risks corresponding to the most lurid possibilities with which society has become obsessed, namely, stranger abduction and the ostensibly explosive combination of kids and sex, are addressed by the social fortresses in which children are now held in protective isolation.
These stated concerns for children leave unaddressed the actual dangers they face as a result of these policies: social isolation, frustration, obesity, inexperience and ill-preparation for adulthood, loneliness, depression, a distorted view of the world, etc.
But none of those concerns are all that interesting or sensational, are they?
Where's the excitement and, well, the catharsis in those?
The problem is, real problems are just so damned boring!
It's like the difference between watching, say, Nightmare on Elm Street on the one hand, and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, on the other. Which would you rather watch?
http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2011/07/11/60667/social_networks_thinking_of_the_children?category=technology
This tendency is also described as "The Precautionary Principle" which posits that all risk, no matter now minuscule, is unacceptable.
Except that, of course, its not "all" risks. Only those risks corresponding to the most lurid possibilities with which society has become obsessed, namely, stranger abduction and the ostensibly explosive combination of kids and sex, are addressed by the social fortresses in which children are now held in protective isolation.
These stated concerns for children leave unaddressed the actual dangers they face as a result of these policies: social isolation, frustration, obesity, inexperience and ill-preparation for adulthood, loneliness, depression, a distorted view of the world, etc.
But none of those concerns are all that interesting or sensational, are they?
Where's the excitement and, well, the catharsis in those?
The problem is, real problems are just so damned boring!
It's like the difference between watching, say, Nightmare on Elm Street on the one hand, and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, on the other. Which would you rather watch?
http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2011/07/11/60667/social_networks_thinking_of_the_children?category=technology
Posts
1 comment:
Parents must protect their children from sexually abusing. However we must keep in mind that the children must become adults and they must get understand how to spend their lives according to an acceptable sexual lifestyle.
Post a Comment