board77

Excellent post, The Watcher. Amen.

I'm sorry but that whole anti-internet mentality seems very antiquated. The Real World is vastly more dangerous than the internet and unless you plan on never letting your kid out of your door unsupervised, I can't see why you'd be more worried about a MySpace page than, say, dropping kids off at a park or at a friends.

yovargas wrote:

I'm sorry but that whole anti-internet mentality seems very antiquated. The Real World is vastly more dangerous than the internet and unless you plan on never letting your kid out of your door unsupervised, I can't see why you'd be more worried about a MySpace page than, say, dropping kids off at a park or at a friends.

I am only speaking for myself here, but I am not anti-internet for younger teens or pre-teens, I merely do think that they should not have complete and unfettered access to things and that parents need to know what sites their kids are involved with. TJ is a member on the Lego site and some kids gaming sites, we have the computer set up in such a way that he can get onto these sites and I know they are safe. He has not even shown any interest in social networking, and Andrew had far too many RL friends for it to ever be of interest for him either.

But, yovi, there ARE lots of mean and cruel people out there. Yes, the chances of you finding about a bad RL friend or manipulative parents are common, but there at least you are dealing with absolutes. You can talk to these people, you can deal with something real. And for the record, even TJ is not allowed to go to a park or an event unsupervised unless it is going to one of our neighbor's homes, or just being outside, and I always need to know where he is and have an address or phone number, unless it is riding his bike. The one place he is allowed to go with permission is the Walgreen's next door so to speak, and he goes there and needs to report home right away. There is a pedestrian/bike path that leads directly to it and it is one half block away and in plain sight.

But, there are far too many similar cases of young people being harassed or conned for exploited by sociopathic persons on the internet, they are not urban legends, they exist, and these people plan their actions in calculated deliberately deceitful ways. I am not even getting into peer harassment by juveniles to other juveniles. Part of being a parent is being aware and knowing when to step in and say "now I need to be involved." and "enough is enough" and "yes, there are limits to what you will be allowed to do."

I think it's an "everything in due time" type of thing, yovi. At least, it is for me. I think 13 is too young for my kids, at least for Katie. She is 12 now and entirely too immature to handle the internet in a situation like MySpace or a messageboard. She plays around on Webkinz, Neopets, howrse (yes, that's how it's spelled ) and Bellasara. This allows her a bit of interaction with other people, mostly people we know in RL, but it's been very benign so far. There was another site they all liked (Marapets, I think) that I wouldn't let her be on once I saw the ads they put on it. (Adult-oriented crap.)

I wouldn't and don't have a problem with her internet interactions with people we know (emails, games with friends in Webkinz, etc.). I still spot check her emails from time to time, though, and check her internet travels as well. She wants a computer in her room. That's a no. It's in a public place so everyone can hold everybody else accountable (myself included).

I know one 14 year-old mature enough to handle stuff. I know a 13 year-old less mature than Katie. So it's on a case-by-case basis, imo. I have to decide for my kids. In due time, she'll get more freedom. Right now, though, she hasn't even expressed an interest in anything like MySpace.

Lali

ETA: Cross-posted with Watcher. Yep, what she said.

The computer invites that dangerous real world right into your home, yov.

I always hated when I first joined TORC and a friend's little sister got ahold of my address. She gave out so much personal information in the conversations. At least I knew most of it from being close with her sister but still... whether she knew that or not it just made me uncomfortable. And when she gave my addy to her friends, they were the same when IMing me.

So imo, there is a different between going to the park and actively talking to strangers each time you do it.

It's kind of hard to avoid on these social networking sites or instant messenger. I heard AIM is pretty bad when it comes to getting random messages from strangers or bots trying to sell your something. Another community I post at, folks are constantly laughing at the weird strangers they get messages from, and the X-rated photos that come with it. Geez, I had only been a member of Stickam for a few minutes when some guy wrote to me noticing that I was from Canada and wanted to arrange a webcam session. These kind of places are made up of people who know exactly what they want and those who are clueless. If you're too young to understand that, it's best to just stay away. Which is likely what I would have my own child do.




*E*

yovargas, it should be obvious that I'm not "anti-internet"!!! Jeez, I seem to spend half my life on it!! Yet, for all that, I go to B77, HoF, Torc and 2 other sites very occasionally.

But what is suitable for an adult is not suitable for a child. I wouldn't give the kids a dozen beers with their Cheezies while they're watching TV, and I wouldn't toss them the car keys when they whine that they want to go to town. And since they have active social lives in the real world, they have no need to message people on the computer. Tay was allowed one brief foray onto MSN and it so happened that one of his schoolmates was being bullied by that very little group and that was the end of that.

I don't let the kids go around unsupervised. I wasn't allowed to, when I was a kid. My folks knew where I was going and who I was going to be with and if they found out otherwise, BAM, grounded for a week at least. The real world is NOT more dangerous than the internet, anyway. In the real world, you can see who people are. Yes, of course horrible things happen, but they are VERY rare.

"Everybody does it" is no reason to let anyone do it. And almost without exception every parent I know feels the same way.

Quote:

Part of being a parent is being aware and knowing when to step in and say "now I need to be involved." and "enough is enough" and "yes, there are limits to what you will be allowed to do."

Of course. Which sounds exactly like what this mother was doing which is why I am absolutely fine with it. These parents sound like they were extremely watchful and aware. It sounds like they monitored 100% of her Internet interactions. If they saw anything to worry about, they put a stop to it. I don't see a single thing wrong with any of this.

Quote:

The real world is NOT more dangerous than the internet, anyway. In the real world, you can see who people are. Yes, of course horrible things happen, but they are VERY rare.

They are plenty rare on the Internet as well, but more importantly you can't actually do anything on the Internet. Only see and hear things. Unlike "real" life.

For example, my very good friend Alex was just yesterday telling me about how when he was 13 he spent a lot of time at the local roller skating rink because it was the only place his parents felt safe leaving him on his own then. And while there, he would go about hitting on the girls with the express hope of getting laid. He made out with a few girls from there but it never went farther only because he didn't find a girl that would let him. Combine that story with him telling me earlier in the same car ride that when he was that young he was ignorant about protection and it's pretty obvious that "the only places parents felt safe leaving him alone" was potentially disastrous. Given that story, if I were his parents, I would've felt safer given him total unfettered access to the whole bloody internet then letting him go roller skating with friends.

I do not know the answer yovi, I wish I did.

All I can relate so well to in this original sad tale was that I too was a victim of severe bullying when I was in 7th and 8th grades, i was a stellar student, but my social life was a shambles, I had grown five inches in two years and probably put on at least thirty pounds, I was tall and definitely overweight and had serious issues with self esteem, although I tried to hide it from everyone, it only made me more of an introvert than I already had been. I tried making new friends, and got involved with a group of religious people which soon turned out not to be for me, and then I vowed the bad feelings and bad experiences were not going to get me down, and in the course of one year, I dropped fifly pounds, started using makeup, got my hair under control, which was wild and curly and totally NOT in style at the time, and when I entered high school, I was a new person, and to be honest, those were some of the best years of my life. But all I can think about is if I were Megan now, and how devastating those comments would have been to me at the time, they would have destroyed me. They would have. I am not joking, I had suicidal thoughts all of the time back during that age, and I do not know what ever kept me from acting on them. My parents did not even learn about how bad I was until years later when I had my emotional breakdown after my second son was born.

It is one thing to not know how serious the words are that one uses to attack another person, but for someone to deliberately do it to a kid who is emotionally fragile just boggles my mind. What sort of sadistic ADULT person could even entertain such a thought? Even if Lori Drew thought she was doing her daughter a service to start with, how could she knowingly and deliberately let it get so far out of control? There is no excuse for this woman, none at all. Even if she never experienced any of these feelings herself as a child or as an adult, it is still not okay. She did not do what should have been done from the get go - go over and talk to Tina Meier and Megan Meier and get to the bottom of what had started this bad blood between two 13 year olds, if it even was a serious matter, otherwise, she should have told her own daughter about learning to be mature and letting it go. The Meiers apparently had tried to install that message to Megan.. Instead, Mrs. Drew chose the WORST possible alternative - get revenge and be devious, be a friend and plotting ally of her own daughter instead of standing up to the plate and being a parent.

If nothing else, Lori Drew should have her daughter and any other children taken away for her callous disregard for her child upbringing methods - engaging young teens in this sort of action is morally reprehensible and encouraging devious behavior.

Cyber-bullying is NOT rare, but extremely common. Children, like some adults, feel far freer to be cruel on an internet site than they would ever be in "real life". And it's far, far worse if they can do it anonymously. Words hurt, much more than punches, and to let a child continue to access a place where she's been hurt is foolish at best. The mom and dad might think they were supervising things, but it would have been far better to just say to her, "No, hon, sorry, this has caused you a lot of pain and we think you should stay away from it until you're older." If they'd done that, they might still have a daughter.

Sorry, yovargas, you and I are going to have to disagree on this. I don't think the girl's mother was right in allowing her daughter to have an online boyfriend and I maintain that to "build" her child's esteem by means of comments from some "hot" stranger is just wrong. That just gives me the creeps.

So many things to say!

The internet is can be dangerous to a young child if they aren't properly supervised. The Meier's daughter was supervised as much as she could have been short of hovering over her shoulder. This story wasn't a matter of internet supervision. This is a matter of an adult taking advantage of a young girl she knew struggled with depression.

There is only so much a parent can hold back from a kid before it's considered sheltering and sheltering keeps the kid out of the know about a lot of but the end it harms them. Bullying sucks plain and simple but unfortunately it is a part of life. But now a days there's a new place to bully someone because school just isn't good enough. Hell at least at school you had to look at the person you were bullying unlike the internet. We have raised cowardly bullies I tell ya. You can't protect your kids 100% or else they'll never grow up.

Thanks for the law information Freddie! Now here's a question for the lawyers. People sue one another for "emotional distress" can't the Meier's sue the Drews for creating emotional distress to their daughter therefore causing her suicide?

It seems pretty clear to me what has happened here. I don't understand why everyone doesn't see it this way. How can Lori Drews pretend she wasn't ultimate reason Megan hung herself? I'd like to think that if Lori Drews hadn't created the alias to harass Megan Megan wouldn't have hung herself when she did.

Ax, I understand what you mean by "no there there". A town is only charming when you don't live there because you see it everyday therefore it loses it's charm and becomes ordinary.

If the Drews wake up one night panicked because of some kind of violence done to their home (arson, bricks through windows, etc.) I don't think it'll be much of a surprise. People in all walks of life are despicable.

I think I share the sentiments of fellow posters about 13 being too young to be on the internet. At least bullying in person can result in more punishment or a good left hook to the jaw. I was almost never on the internet at 13. I didn't have AOL until I was about 15 or so. Myspace should always be a no-no at 13. Myspace actually doesn't allow 13 year olds on their site. Minimum age is 14, so shame on Mrs. Meier for allowing her child on it. Secondly, what the hell is she doing saying "okay, approve the cute boy none of us know."

M: This cute boy wants to be my friend.
Mom: Who is he?
M: Josh
Mom: Josh who?
M: Josh . . . from the internet.
Mom: That's a big no. You don't know who he is, or if he is even who he claims to be.

That is safe internet monitoring.

I wonder what the Drews financial situation is after this. Hopefully Mrs. Drew is feeling the painful financial pinch of internet douchebaggery.

I agree with vison and TED. Ya know, if kids want to socialize after school, there is still the good old fashioned telephone. Most 13 year olds that I know of are simply not mature enough to be able to tell who is a real friend and who is out to deceive them.

When I was about 13 my best friend told me this elaborate story about how she started smoking cigarettes and pot and was sleeping with this guy named Denzel. This rocked my world and shattered my image of my friend. I didn't understand why she was telling me this stuff or why she was doing it to begin with. I didn't believe her and told her so but she only denied it and continued to act high. Then one day "Denzel" got on the phone and said some really mean threatening stuff to me. This went on for awhile and my Mom told me to stop talking to this girl because she was being a jerk.

For me at that age it was one of the worst times in my life. I was hurt and confused by my friend's behavior and why she wanted to hurt me by telling me all of this stuff.

This entire charade took place over the telephone.

Think how much easier it would have been on the internet.

Kids have bullied other kids and lied to them and frightened and threatened them since kids began, I would guess. But the internet adds a whole new level of availability, victimwise.

It is not the internet by itself, but combined with cruelty and vulnerability, it makes a special mix that is too potent for 13 year old girls with 'issues'. I have a lot of sympathy for her poor mother, since I have made many, many, many parenting mistakes myself. Luckily for me -- and it is luck, a lot of the time -- it didn't cost my child's life.

What will a child miss by missing MSN or Facebook?

I really really really really don't get the issue with the internet. It's not better or worse than any other form of socializing people do, it's just different with different pros and cons. One obvious pro is that it's way easier for a parent to monitor like this mother was. Another is that nothing physical can happen to you online. Another is that you can block or ignore people you don't want to be around. And one con is you can lie easier.

yovargas wrote:

I really really really really don't get the issue with the internet. It's not better or worse than any other form of socializing people do, it's just different with different pros and cons. One obvious pro is that it's way easier for a parent to monitor like this mother was. Another is that nothing physical can happen to you online. Another is that you can block or ignore people you don't want to be around. And one con is you can lie easier.

yovargas, you aren't a 13 year old girl with serious psychological issues, for pete's sake. Evidently she wasn't capable of ignoring anything, and considering how even we here at B77 have much the same problem at time, I don't know why anyone would expect a child to be able to do it.

I agree that for ADULTS the internet is a swell place, but it is NOT suitable for children.

Her mother did NOT monitor the child in any meaningful way, the poor silly mother allowed her daughter to have a "hot" internet boyfriend. This mother thought that was a good thing. I can't express how insane that is.

Would it have been insane to allow her daughter to have a hot "real life" boyfriend?

At least with a real boyfriend, the mother would have been able to meet him? Size him up. Josh on the internet could have been anyone. And he was really a mother targeting the poor girl (which is sick). Also Josh could have been a pedophile.

Also with some (not all young people). they can easily convinced into doing stupid things if a person knows how to ease the child's self esteem. Most teens have self esteem issues t that age, so it is easy to lure/convince them into doing stupid things. That is the risk with the internet for very young people. It seems harmless on the surface but it's the ability to convince a person of something that is not right, or do something stupid is what the problem is.

EDIT: to fix spelling

yovargas wrote:

Would it have been insane to allow her daughter to have a hot "real life" boyfriend?

Depends. If he was her age or only a little older, and they knew him, and his family, and he was a civilized boy, then yes, a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship would be appropriate -- within the limits I would put down if she was my daughter. Do I mean "car dates"? Nope. Dropping them off at a movie together? Sure. Having him over to the house to watch TV or something? Sure. In her bedroom, with the door closed? Nope.

The fact is, this "hot" guy could have been a real person. Perhaps a very bad "real person", and here this woman was allowing her daughter to have this "relationship". Suppose this "hot" guy had asked Megan to meet him somewhere?

It sure as hell ain't my idea of monitoring my kids' activities, I can tell you that.

Wilma: exactly right.

I've read through this thread several times, but wasn't sure whether to post because I agree with everyone. In a sense, at least. There are some great points being made on every side of this discussion.

I agree with vison, Lali, Freddy, et al., about the dangers of unsupervised Internet use. Children and teenagers often make very poor decisions involving the Internet, which can have horrendous RL consequences. Apart from bodies being found in parks, youth can still encounter some really unscrupulous adults online...or the adults can end up interacting with youth that have misrepresented their age. I once caught my then-12 year old sister chatting online with someone who claimed to be a 21-year old male. She represented herself as an 18-year old female, and they were about to move on to cybersex (at least he was, from looking at the transcript), when I put an end to the matter. Both my parents were at work.

In addition to unscrupulous adults, there are unsavory ideas and problematic groupthink online. Imagine the teenager who struggles with anorexia or bulimia, and turns to the Internet for information - only to find "pro-ana" or "pro-mia" sites out there which provide her (or him) with "thinspiration," encourage regular purging, and promulgate ideas like the "200-400-600-800 diet," in which you consume 200, 400, 600, or 800 calories a day in a four-day cycle. Imagine, too, the teenager who discovers pro-cutting groups, which encourage and glorify self-injury as a cathartic release for emotional pain. As an older teenager/young adult, I also had to figure out how to deal with these sites' pull on my younger sibling - while confronting the dual realities that (1) I couldn't share what was going on with my parents (who would have come down hard on her and probably made the situation worse) and (2) those sites probably coul not be shut down legally (even aside from my own strong belief in First Amendment rights, which suddenly got trampled by pragmatism when it was my loved one's well-being at stake.)

As for cyber-bullying, that is something I have little personal experience with. The Internet has always been a recourse (since I was younger than Megan Meier) for airing my grievance with RL bullying (or other wrongs) and finding sympathetic community. There have always been idiots saying stupid stuff on the Internet, but I've easily been able to discount cruel text appearing on my screen...much more so than cruel words spoken in person. It surprises me to learn that others have had such a different experience, but I will try to educate myself more about cyberbullying, which I hadn't realized was a problem.

As for MySpace and Facebook, I think there is little for kids (or anyone else) to gain from those sites. Perhaps I'm behind the times, but I genuinely can't understand the point of those sites. I recently joined Facebook, but...I don't get it. Writing on people's "walls"? Joining more and more "communities" based on work and alumni status? Gaining dozens of "friends" that I know little about? Updating my status every time I get coffee or use the bathroom? Those sites seem so clearly to me to LACK any point that I'd find it hard to berate a parent or guardian that decided not to allow their children access to either site.

There are, however, a couple of reasons I am torn between vison et al.'s position and the more...libertarian? youth rights? early responsibility? position that I see reflected in parts of Pips', yov's, *E*'s, and TM's posts. I will give a couple of specific examples. These examples apply more to teenagers than to children 12 and under. Under normal circumstances, I think it is difficult to contend that 12-and-unders should have unsupervised Internet access. Obviously, there are many pre-teens who can make good online decisions and come out unharmed - Pips, I think you are probably one example of that (and I think I was another.) But, there are many who would make poor/harmful decisions. With pre-teen children, I'd rather draw the line in support of protecting kids., even at the expense of folks like you and me who could've protected ourselves fine. I know it would have angered me at 12 to be "protected" when I could handle myself...but I again remember my sister at 12 claiming to be 18 to flirt with a guy online, and not seeing anything wrong with giving out her personal information. SHE needed protection, and there are too many others like her.

As for the specific examples...First: safer-sex education. Particularly in light of the "abstinence-only" sex education programs that have pervaded American schools under the Bush Administration, it has become especially important to educate teenagers who decide to become sexually active on how to protect themselves. (I invite those who disagree to find and volunteer with your local organization catering to newly HIV-positive youth, and talk to them about the experience of receiving their diagnosis.) Where school districts and socially conservative parents collectively oppose teenagers' access to this information, the principal means of self-education that teenagers have is via the Internet. Obviously, this should apply much more to teenagers 15+ than the younger set, but somehow, I doubt that the parents who hover over their 13-14 year old kids using the Internet will give their children truly private Internet time at 15 or 16.

The second area with which I have personal experience where private Internet time for teenagers is important, is teenagers wrestling with their sexual orientation. In the volunteer work I do (for a national peer counseling line for gay and lesbian youth 25 and under), we often receive calls from teenagers in very conservative states who already self-identify as gay, are experiencing harassment (sometimes violent) from parents, fellow students, and/or other adults in their lives, and have no means to access any RL resources in their area (if there are any, which there often are not.) Many have 2+ years more before college. Most believe they are "the only one," and are quite flabbergasted to be speaking to a volunteer who identifies as gay. We ask if they have Internet access (some don't, and others do not have unrestricted access.) But for those who can access the Internet without a hovering adult - whether at home, at school, or finding another venue (a friend's home, a public library), learning of Internet resources where they can read stories about others like them, learn about their legal rights (esp. if public school students), plan for the future (e.g. find more liberal, accepting colleges), and yes, use messageboards and such to meet others like them - the Internet can be a ray of hope where there was none before. I always prefer to direct people (especially teenagers) to RL resources, if they are accessible, both for safety reasons and because human contact is preferable to virtual contact. I am particularly aware of the dangers in suggesting that teenagers seek out other teenagers online, and I always make sure to warn people about basic Internet safety (e.g. not giving out personal information online.) But there are times when the Internet is the only resource out there, and I believe in recommending it. Which is to say: for every teenager out there who experiences cyberbullying, I believe that there are one or more teenagers out there who find a respite from real-life bullying and discover the others like them. For every teenager who becomes suicidal or engages in high-risk behaviors because of the Internet, I believe there are one or more teenagers who become less of a suicide risk because they find hope and support online.

I have spoken of these two groups - teenagers seeking safer-sex information and gay and lesbian teenagers - because these are the two groups to which I belonged (and benefited from uncensored Internet access), and because these are the two groups that I continue to have contact with as a volunteer even though I am no longer a teenager. But, I am sure there are other groups of youth who would similarly be served by unfettered Internet access - where supervision might in some cases harm rather than protect teenagers.

I think that the line between protection and freedom is more and more clearly drawn in favor of freedom as a teenager approaches 18. I think that supervision is ideally, over time, replaced with free and honest communication between parent and teen. With respect to teenagers 13 and over, I think it is fair to state that the notion that the teenager has an increasing right to privacy (less so at 13, but more fully developed at 18, 21, when the teen moves out, when s/he becomes financially independent, whatever the standard should be.) And, I think there should be some recognition that:

(1) There are areas in which prioritizing "protection" over "freedom" can actually do a great deal of harm. For instance, my example in which a teenager might make a less informed choice to have (unprotected) sex based on insufficient information about safer sex practices. The same teenager, if able to access safer-sex information online (even at teen-specific sites, see e.g. scarleteen.com), might have been able to make more informed decisions - whether to decide not to risk having sex at all, or to use adequate barriers, contraceptives, etc., to reduce the risk of negative physical consequences to sex.

(2) There are areas in which the Internet provides the exact opposite of cyberbullying - the opportunity to find relief from real-life bullying by networking with others like you. I gave the example of gay and lesbian teenagers above, but don't think that it's only limited to those folks. What about the Jewish or Muslim or Hindu teenager in a WASPish suburb who feels like he is the only one who looks different, has different religious practices, or has certain ethical and spiritual values? What about the interracial high school couple in the rare, backwards area of the country that still has segregated high school proms? Or the teenager trying to cope with and recover from parental physical or sexual abuse, while still living in the home of that same controlling parent? In recognizing the ways in which the Internet is a danger (to youth and the rest of us), let's not be too quick to forget its benefits for those at all stages of development - and those who could not access those benefits with a parent hovering over their shoulder. One of those benefits could be to decrease the risk of a youth committing suicide.