Children, computers and the Internet
Evan
knows) about getting a computer for his kids to use, and about making
it safe on the Internet and all that guff.
It made me think that this could be an interesting topic for a 15
minute presentation at MXUG. Anybody think they might find this
interesting?
I thought we could either have someone do a usual presentation if they
have some expertise (or know someone they could invite in to talk on
the subject), or the other alternative would be to have it like a 20
minute panel type format with four or five willing participants to sit
up the front and share their experience, opinions, etc.
I would be willing to be a panelist, and/or facilitator to keep it on
track.
What do people think? Are there enough MXUG members who are parents
or would otherwise be interested?
E.
Alec Clews
a panel. Be warned that I have a very simplistic approach to this
topic
2009/10/23 Evan <evan....@gmail.com>:
Alec Clews
Personal <alec....@gmail.com> Melbourne, Australia.
Jabber: alec...@jabber.org.au PGPKey ID: 0x9BBBFC7C
blog:http://alecthegeek.wordpress.com/
Steve Hayes
Steve
Composed (with typos) on my iPhone
Brian Mills
Cheers,
Brian Mills
Donal
generational problem with the tech being sooo abstract, esoteric and
black box voodoo. The current opt-out internet censorship is not the
answer however an opt in local software/CPE and cloud solution *could*
work.... kids can surf from other premises though too!
Here is one simple straightforward video (below the censorship one!) we made:
http://www.nodecity.com/empower
Also there is a vast array of software but an ISP that offers an opt
in clean feed is the best localised solution, however the ISP can
never see inside armored/encrypted tunnels and kids spinning up
proxies in the cloud :(
Comes back to engagement and eduction with parents/kids as the long
tail of fetishism/violence becomes more mainstream on the largest
human mirror known, the internet. Have a look @
http://nocleanfeed.com/ and follow #nocleanfeed on twitter!
I would LOVE to partake in this debate/discussion.
Donal
________________________________________________________________________________
Donal
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move
in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
Clifford Heath
> I would LOVE to partake in this debate/discussion.
So would I, but (a) I can't get to MXUG meetings and (b) I'll be
overseas anyhow.
However, as someone who's raised three rather nice boys (youngest is 19)
who've grown up with ubiquitous Internet, I can record a couple of
things I
*don't* recommend. It comes down to this: kids need to learn that
computer
usage is a *social* activity, not an individual one.
As such, wiring CAT-5 to the bedroom is a bad idea. Not sure what you
do in
the wireless age, but I'd strongly recommend that parents arrange a
family-room
environment where the computers live, keeping them out of the bedroom
and
private study places.
Regarding filtering; I had none. Instead I forced all HTTP through a
proxy that
keeps logs, and I occasionally ran a couple of simple 'grep's through
the logs.
The boys knew that everything they did was subject (at least
theoretically) to
scrutiny, so they learned to self-monitor. And *that* was the true
training. As in
real life, you can get away with most things for a while (like
speeding in your car)
but sooner or later you *will* be caught. Once you know that, you can
moderate
your own behaviour, and that's what kids need to do.
As it turns out, I think I only had to speak to each of them *once*
about them
accessing inappropriate sites - and I actually checked the logs less
than twice
a year.
However; I an sorry I put a computer on their study desks. They're too
much of
a distraction and suck away the kid's social time as well as study time.
Clifford Heath.
Sadat Rahman
> A friend was asking me advice yesterday (being the local techie-guy he
> knows) about getting a computer for his kids to use, and about making
> it safe on the Internet and all that guff.
I am not sure I could sit through such a lengthy discussion on this
topic when the answer is so simple: Buy a mac! ;-)
*Dons flame-proof suit*
Richard Jones
My wife's old iBook is just waiting for my daughter to ask to use it :)
Having said that I know several kids who have EEEPC 701s and love
them ;)
Richard
Evan
Bloody geeks. Always trying to apply a technical solution to what is
essentially a people problem.
Gareth Townsend
Gareth Townsend
http://www.garethtownsend.info
http://www.melbournecocoaheads.com
Andrew Bruno
Paul Cowan
> I've got younger kids, 5 & 7 and they both use Ubuntu, iMac and XP.
Likewise, my 7 & 5 year-old daughters are both Ubuntu wizzes, and can
find their way around Vista on my laptop if required.
Have a regular set of websites they visit (ABC Kids, the BBC kids'
website CBeebies, sites for some favourite toys etc), and will play with
TuxPaint (http://www.tuxpaint.org/) for as long as we'll let them.
The oldest one also knows apparently knows her way around OpenOffice
Calc -- I set her up a spreadsheet which keeps track of which Rainbow
Magic Fairy books she's read (sigh) and recently discovered she's been
expanding + customising it, so there you go. An exciting career in
middle management awaits.
> Anyway, I think the most important part is that the computers should be
> in an open environment, and not in the rooms.
+1, absolutely. This, honesty, and education. All far more valuable than
covert monitoring or punishment.
> My next task is to teach them how to program...hehe... any tools/hints
> out there?
I'm looking into this as well. I thought I was precocious learning to
program at 9, but I think Alice (my 7-year-old) is well and truly ready
to start.
I thought of starting with Logo or similar, but haven't found an
interpreter that seems suitably kid-proof. Probably start with KTurtle
(http://edu.kde.org/kturtle/) and see how she goes. If anyone has other
recommendations, shoot.
I have started reading "Hello World!: Computer Programming for Kids and
Other Beginners" (http://www.manning.com/sande/), which introduces kids
to programming in the form of Python. It's probably targetted at older
kids (11 or 12, I'd say) but she's so insanely curious + intelligent
I'll probably get a copy and start working through it with her.
> Remember your first program? That was true fun.
Hell yeah. I think I was the only person in Australia unfortunate enough
to cut their teeth on a Commodore 16 -- the poor man's Plus/4. That fact
that the Plus/4 was, in turn, the
weird-cousin-we-keep-locked-in-the-attic of the Commodore family should
tell you something about the Commodore 16.
Paul
Andy Trigg
I am also in an interesting position of where my daughters school has
a compulsory lap top policy for all students from grade 4 onwards.
This raises a few interesting issues with regards to some of the
suggested thoughts posted on this thread's discussion.
1. Removing the computer from the bedroom and study desk is a liitle
hard when there is an expectation from the school that they will be
using it very heavily for study.
2. I have very little control over the software / hardware used at
home since the requirements are dictated by the school. Unfortunetely
that means a windows vista laptop :-(. The lap top that is paid for by
me is also locked down by the school so they control the software
installed on it.
3. If my daughter is allowed/required to have her computer in the
bedroom/work desk I can not deny her brothers from the same privledge.
The computers are only part of the picture. There are the kids PSP's,
PS3, Wii, mobile phones all of which have Internet access. Should we
monitor all of these?
There is a simple solution that works best for me. Education and trust.
My kids are aware of the dangers of the internet. We talk about these
issues and teach them what are acceptable and safe practices for home
computer use.
Then we trust them. We do not do any Internet filtering or logging of
the sites that they visit.
I think spending a little more time in educating your kids in what is
acceptable and safe usage practices is far more effective than any
technological and/or draconian solution.
Andy Trigg
Andrew Bruno
There is a simple solution that works best for me. Education and trust.
My kids are aware of the dangers of the internet. We talk about these
issues and teach them what are acceptable and safe practices for home
computer use.
Then we trust them. We do not do any Internet filtering or logging of
the sites that they visit.
I think spending a little more time in educating your kids in what is
acceptable and safe usage practices is far more effective than any
technological and/or draconian solution.
Evan
has veered into discussion (which is great, by all means continue).
To get a clearer indication of interest in a presentation, click on
the issue URL below and star it.
http://code.google.com/p/mxug/issues/detail?id=56
It it looks like a go, and no one steps up in a week or so to do as a
regular presentation, I'll solicit volunteers to be panel members to
start getting things organised.
E.
Duncan Bayne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1cSrq3Gbd4
Not as an alternative to a modern PC, but possibly a fun introduction
to programming. I picked mine up from a junk shop for $20, and spent
15 minutes rewiring it. Hours of fun :-)
Older machines like this have several advantages, in particular a lack
of internet connectivity, meaning that you _can_ allow your children
to have them in their rooms unsupervised. Plus the scarcity of
software means that if they want a program, they'll have to write it
themselves (that's pretty much how I got started).
If you enjoy projects, you could buy a kitset computer like this:
http://www.apatco.com/products.php
... and assemble it with your kids, hopefully sharing a bit of the joy
that can be found in computing.
Oleg Kiorsak
so I'm very interested in the topic...
the younger one just "advanced" recently from ruggedized handheld PDAs (which I get as part of my work - CN3, MC75, etc ;)
to iPhone (as I bought one recently)
the older one is quite proficient with computers, "google", "youtube" etc (helps that in grade 1 she reads quite fluently in English)
I have MacBook(+Apple Cinema 20" LCD) - with all the "parental controls" etc,
BUT
the problem is that in primary schools they are exclusively WINDOWS and MS centric
all stuff they do at school they do in Windows and MS Office (mainly Word, PowerPoint )
so I have to run WinXP in "Parallels" - so she can school projects and her own projects...
the supposed "parental benefits" of Mac did not quite materialize yet...
and I think Cliff got very good point - it's best when things are in a living room, so you can always keep an eye on
(of course that is easier to arrange with younger kids than teenagers! ;)
anyway, just my 2 cents ;)
cheers,
O.K.
Sam Watkins
> A friend was asking me advice yesterday (being the local techie-guy he
> knows) about getting a computer for his kids to use, and about making
> it safe on the Internet and all that guff.
It's interesting. If it's not coming down as a policy from government I think
this stuff can be useful and valuable.
I figure there are two scenarios - protecting innocent kids who aren't looking
for porn, and attempting to stop kids who are actively looking for porn.
I can't see a way to achieve the latter and still have proper internet access
with email/chat/https/ssh etc, but there may be methods that can improve it.
I am interested in opt-in white-list DNS based internet filtering. I don't like
black-list filtering, you collect a list of bad sites which people can then use
as a directory of bad sites, and it will never be comprehensive or up to date.
The whitelist system would be maintained by the community, not a government.
I don't think logging / accountability is a general solution, because it's an
invasion of privacy. It might be ok within the family though.
Sam
Alec Clews
> BUT
> the problem is that in primary schools they are exclusively WINDOWS
> and MS centric
>
> all stuff they do at school they do in Windows and MS Office (mainly
> Word, PowerPoint )
> so I have to run WinXP in "Parallels" - so she can school projects and
> her own projects...
>
> the supposed "parental benefits" of Mac did not quite materialize
> yet...
We get around that by using OpenOffice (both on Mac and Linux). It works
fine for homework provided they remember to use MS Office file formats
between home and school (you can make it the default)
--
Alec Clews
Personal <alec....@gmail.com> Melbourne, Australia.
Jabber: alec...@jabber.org.au PGPKey ID: 0x9BBBFC7C
Blog http://alecthegeek.wordpress.com/
Andrew Bruno
Also, I am against this whole censorship/dictatorship thing for mature individuals, but...
What does concern me is chat rooms, social networking sites, etc. You can trust facebook, twitter, myspace, etc.. but you cant trust the people who try to connect to your children as "fake" friends, or even chatting via skype, msn, etc, and the sending of files/images between these tools. Blocking is not the way forward.
I think our challenge as parents/citizens is to embrace the technology and discuss the topics of predators with your children, but how the hell do you do that with a 5 year old?
Julian Doherty
Sam Watkins
> How does white-based DNS filtering work with sites that were good once, but
> turned evil later on?
They get removed from it.
> I think our challenge as parents/citizens is to embrace the technology and
> discuss the topics of predators with your children, but how the hell do you
> do that with a 5 year old?
Don't let them chat with random adults on the internet unsupervised, any more
than you'd let them play with random adults unsupervised IRL. I think there's
no need to tell them about rapists, just keep a close eye on them or make sure
that someone trusted is doing so at all times!
Public communication channels such as forums can be white-listed by the
community, post-by-post, change by change, image by image. In real time a
couple of random trusted people in the community must check the content and say
"yes that's ok for kids" before the child can see it. Semi-private content
such as chat rooms and posts on facebook within a certain group can be
moderated by the people who are allowed to see it.
It is not appropriate for private communication among children such email and
instant messages to be monitored. Personal details such as addresses might be
present, and some communication between friends is very sensitive.
In this case, it might be best to limit a child so they can only communicate
with friends and peers. This would be a good thing anyway to avoid spam.
Parents could be involved in approving and perhaps monitoring interaction with
new or untrusted friends.
The alternative is to make a conversation public. Writing to someone at the
museum about a school project doesn't need to be a private thing.
If parents must give permission for every interaction, it might give parents
too much control over a child's friendship group. I think it would be no good
if a parent can say, "I won't let my daughter talk to that boy" just because
they don't approve of him.
So perhaps there could be some sort of trust-network so that children of the
same age (and maybe in the same area) are automatically approved to
communicate.
There is the possibility that an adult could use a child's online identity to
talk to other children. If strong methods are used for authentication, this
could be mostly prevented, and suspects would be limited.
Sam
Tal Rotbart
didn't grow up with that sort of regime.
Korny Sietsma
next few years!) I'd be quite interested - it seems an intensely
complex subject. And I just got friended on facebook by a 14-year-old
niece, so I probably need to apply some thought to the whole subject -
at minimum, I'll need to think about the appropriateness of what I say
on facebook, to the 14-year-old audience!
- Korny
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys on twitter/fb/gtalk/gwave www.sietsma.com/korny
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part
that wonders what the part that isn't thinking
isn't thinking of"
Mark Ryall
old and a 3 year old
I hadn't given much thought to internet access and monitoring - my
plan was probably to naively hope they would talk to me if anything
upsetting or confusing happened while they were online. I know they
will have internet access when I'm not around so would want to educate
them about the sorts of unwholesome people that might be out there.
It certainly seems like we should have a 15 minute time slot dedicated
to the discussion at the next meeting.
I also have a 12 year old twitter follower who I don't know at all -
she happens to share the same name as my 3 year old daughter. It
makes me consider what I say a little more carefully. Since there's
nothing stopping all 12 year olds reading your twitter feed, perhaps
it's worth keeping in mind regardless of your followers.
Mark.
Korny Sietsma
public - anyone with a random search might see what you say.
Facebook is a *bit* more private, as it's opt-in; however given I now
have both a 14-year-old niece, and a 70-year-old Mother, potentially
watching my facebook status, in reality I probably have to be more
careful there than on twitter :)
Actually, the main thing I can't control is other people's comments -
if I write "w00t, had an awesome party last night" and someone else
comments "yep, you really seem to love that Windows 7", then everyone
will see, and I'll never be able to live down the shame...
- Korny
Evan
> It certainly seems like we should have a 15 minute time slot dedicated
> to the discussion at the next meeting.
indicates to me that while the email has stirred up lively discussion,
perhaps not that much interest in an actual time slot at the
meeting...
http://code.google.com/p/mxug/issues/detail?id=56
E.
Mark Ryall
to me now - I might just delete the google code project.
As long as there is a variety of topics, 15 minutes really isn't a long time.
Anyone who volunteers to do a talk will get to do so.
I went to trampoline yesterday which completely blew my mind - another
unconference/barcamp style get together with a great variety of people
- activists, social commentators, students, entrepreneurs, geeks,
media people, philosophers, ...
We should get to hear whatever anyone has on their mind.
Mark.
Sam Watkins
> I went to trampoline yesterday which completely blew my mind - another
> unconference/barcamp style get together with a great variety of people
> - activists, social commentators, students, entrepreneurs, geeks,
> media people, philosophers, ...
>
> We should get to hear whatever anyone has on their mind.
I agree it's better to let anyone talk about whatever rather than having to
book slots, so it's like an unconference. But it's fun to talk about ideas in
advance, and if someone wants to say "I'll do that" can write it on a list.
Re Tal's "Draconian", what part of my suggestion is worse than the normal
internet filtering that is used to protect children at most schools?
They already have (and pay for) site filtering, content filtering, they block
IM and chat, many schools block sites like facebook and myspace, even webmail
providers. They keep full proxy logs, so kids have little privacy.
My proposed system would be considerably more permissive, while achieving the
goal to keep out undesirable material, perhaps more effectively.
I'm assuming a parent or school wants to prevent their kids accessing porn.
If you already trust your kids not to go after porn (and you trust joe random
internet user not to send them goatse in spam email or chat, or you're not
worried about that), you can give them full access. What's the problem?
I'm not making a judgement about whether using this kind of system is actually
a good idea, and I'm not sure whether I'd use it at home with my own kids.
If the government were bringing this down on everyone, I can see why you would
call it "Draconian", but I am talking about a free, opt-in system for parents
and schools who want to use it to protect their children without cutting off
their internet access entirely or monitoring them.
Here are the ideas I mentioned before so you can tell me what's wrong:
* whitelist DNS / hash based filtering
* Don't let them chat with random adults on the internet unsupervised.
* Public communication channels such as forums can be white-listed by the
community, post-by-post, change by change, image by image.
* It might be best to limit a child so they can only communicate (privately) with
friends and peers. The alternative is to make a conversation public.
* If parents must give permission for every (private) interaction, it might give
parents too much control over a child's friendship group. So there could be
some sort of trust-network so that children of the same age (and maybe in the
same area) are automatically approved to communicate.
Sam
Brian Mills
I think there is 2 separate issues here. I have 2 kids and a third on the way. The oldest at 3 is very proficient at using the computer at least using sesame street.org anyway.
One is when they are really young, and need more supervision and perhaps more limited access to ensure their safety and innocence. The later is once they are older and in high school and probably need unfiltered access as they will have more and more through mobile phones and other Internet sites. I'd much rather them learn how to use the Internet under my roof than elsewhere. I don't know at what age they start to cross over.
I think keeping Internet access PC's in a shared family area still allows kids to have some privacy, as you are not reading over their shoulder constantly, but allows you to keep an eye on the general appropriateness of what they are viewing. I think you have to discuss what is out there as they get old enough to start just googling and surfing for stuff they are interested in, and keep the conversation up, just like you would any other topic (drugs, alcohol, sex, and rock and roll). Outside that, I think you have to build trust with your kids. I'm undecided on weather a proxy to log all sites viewed is worth while, maybe, but I would think the kids should be fully aware of what you are doing, and shouldn't be something you do without telling them.
I'm certainly interested in the topic being a presentation.
Cheers,
Brian
Daniel
notes about his approach:
* I didn't like him having the logs, but I had no real grounds to
argue the point.
* We behaved marginally better on the net due to logging, and it let
him spot anything really bad and talk to us about it.
Don't let kids have computers in their rooms so they can study - the
distractions of the internet/gaming are substantial.
As for invasion of privacy, we're talking about your children who live
in your house. As the adult, you should generally be in charge.
If they want private, unrestricted internet access, they can get a job
and pay for it themselves.
> old and a 3 year old
>
> I hadn't given much thought to internet access and monitoring - my
> plan was probably to naively hope they would talk to me if anything
> upsetting or confusing happened while they were online. I know they
> will have internet access when I'm not around so would want to educate
> them about the sorts of unwholesome people that might be out there.
>
> It certainly seems like we should have a 15 minute time slot dedicated
> to the discussion at the next meeting.
>
> I also have a 12 year old twitter follower who I don't know at all -
> she happens to share the same name as my 3 year old daughter. It
> makes me consider what I say a little more carefully. Since there's
> nothing stopping all 12 year olds reading your twitter feed, perhaps
> it's worth keeping in mind regardless of your followers.
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Korny Sietsma <ko...@sietsma.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, despite not having kids (nor planning them, at least not in the
> > next few years!) I'd be quite interested - it seems an intensely
> > complex subject. And I just got friended on facebook by a 14-year-old
> > niece, so I probably need to apply some thought to the whole subject -
> > at minimum, I'll need to think about the appropriateness of what I say
> > on facebook, to the 14-year-old audience!
>
> > - Korny
>
dan
Duncan Bayne
whatever they choose with each other. I am not one of the 'moral
police'; bear that in mind when I say that there is a substantial body
of evidence that use of pornography by children causes developmental
harm (Google "developmental effects of pornography").
Children simply do not have the cognitive capacity of adults, nor in
most cases the emotional maturity; what is appropriate (or at least,
not harmful) to a well-adjusted adult may have long-term negative
repercussions for children. In addition, it's not reasonable to
expect a 12 year old to report questionable content to his or her
parents for discussion; hell, at that age, most kids are uncomfortable
telling their parents they have a crush on someone.
Finally, one should consider the dangers of adult online chat.
Stories of 'Internet predators' are exaggerated by the media & 'moral
authorities' but they do exist, and do represent a real danger to
children.
I'm not disputing your assessment of your girlfriend's character &
state of mind, just saying that by my understanding she's reasonably
lucky to be so well adjusted, & I think that allowing children
completely unsupervised access* to the Internet at the age she was is
verging on negligence.
* I don't mean you need to hover over your kids' shoulders; at 12, I
think a "trust but verify" approach with thorough logging would work
well.
Evan
Before the days of widespread broadband our work had a bank of dial-up
modems for employees to use to dial in so they could work remotely.
Our actual Internet connect was also pretty slow, so it wasn't unusual
for me to check the proxy log if the Internet was really slow to try
and diagnose what is going on.
On one such occurrence, I found someone logged in from one of the dial-
up modems was looking up URLs that were obviously porn sites. I
thought to myself, "I don't think she would be the type of person to
be doing that" (she had left the office for the day). So I rang her
house and the teenage son answered. "Hello, is so and so there?" "No,
I'm the only one here at the moment." came the bored reply. So I said,
"No worries. By the way, if you don't stop doing that you'll go
blind." and hang up. Didn't say who I was or where I was from or
nothing. That modem line dropped in five seconds flat.
Oleg Kiorsak
> "...if you don't stop doing that you'll go blind"
ah! _now_, I know why I got thick glasses - I always thought it was because of too much programming...
;-)
Korny Sietsma
didn't have access to porn at 12, by 14 I was getting all that I could
get my hands on. Of course, this was well before the death of print
media, so involved rather more effort, and a *lot* less actual porn,
than it would these days...
- Korny
Oleg Kiorsak
Oleg Kiorsak
looks like this thread is derailing from original topic...
Duncan Bayne
> media, so involved rather more effort, and a *lot* less actual porn,
> than it would these days...
behavioural effects of online porn, and conventional print media (e.g.
the Playboy you stole from your older brother and hid under matress).
It's known as the 'skinner box effect' (Google it) and is based on
operant conditioning work originally performed with pigeons. What it
boils down to is that the type of random-delay reinforcement
experienced by people surfing for internet porn is far more effective
at reinforcing surfing behaviour than the fixed-delay reinforcement
experienced someone fishing a magazine out from under a bed.
Basically, you are more likely to develop behavioural problems as a
result of internet porn use when a child, than you would be from
reading Playboy.
On a related note, there is also evidence that playing first-person
shooters normalizes violence against other people. The evidence here
is not as clear-cut as it is for pornography, but it's worth noting
that the changes wrought in military training since WW2 nicely
parallel the evolution of video games.
Soldiers during and before WW2 were often reluctant to actually shoot
other human beings; some studies put the number of those willing to
shoot others as low as 20%. Many steps were taken to improve this; in
particular, the change from learning to shoot at bullseyes to "figure
11's" (a silhouette of a charging soldier). This type of
normalization of otherwise socially unacceptable behaviour led to the
number of soldiers prepared to shoot others rising to as high as 90%
during Vietnam.
I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that 1st-person shooters are
bad for children; I don't think there's sufficiently clear evidence
for that (or if there is, I haven't found it). But if I'd certainly
be doing some more research in that area if I had kids wanting to play
them, and suggesting that in the meantime they play Sonic the Hedgehog
on MEKA instead.
Paul Fenwick
> ok!, here some from good old days ;)
>
> <link deleted>
I'm very sorry. Last I checked, MXUG was a *technology* user-group, not a
place for swapping porn links and locker-room humour. I'm disgusted that I
have to point this out, and quite frankly I'm furious that I should have to
do so after similar remarks were challenged by Brianna, Richard and Alec
only four days ago[1].
I don't care if it was intended as a joke. I don't find it funny, and don't
believe that MXUG should tolerate this sort of behaviour.
Paul
[1] See the last few posts in "MXUG meeting tomorrow?" at
http://groups.google.com/group/mxug/browse_thread/thread/cd30219102a1b64d
--
Paul Fenwick <p...@perltraining.com.au> | http://perltraining.com.au/
Director of Training | Ph: +61 3 9354 6001
Perl Training Australia | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681
Sam Watkins
Maybe Paul needs my proposed content whitelisting system turned up to
mega-puritan setting... personally I think that content was a fair bit less
sexist / erotic than your average women's magazine, but anyway, whatever, not
looking to start a flamewar just my 2c.
I've been enjoying this list so yeah let's keep it non-sexist/non-sexual if
people are bothered by that. I don't see it as a big problem myself.
Sam
Jacinta Richardson
> I've been enjoying this list so yeah let's keep it non-sexist/non-sexual if
> people are bothered by that. I don't see it as a big problem myself.
Your email rather missed the point.
I've been to MXUG meeting; I'd like to go to more. I was excited to meet a
whole new segment of Melbourne geeks I hadn't encountered before.
I was the only woman there in a room of about 40? 50? people. I know that
Brianna often goes too, but she wasn't there that night. It was mildly
surprising to see no other women present. I'm used to LUV, Perl Mongers,
OSDClub meetings and OSDC, LCA, SAGE-AU and similar conferences where women are
encouraged to be part of the community. Interestingly, I don't recall any
incidences of posts to porn links to mailing lists of these pages.
Posters should keep in mind that, strangely enough, most people don't find
stories of your sexual exploits, explorations or even your sexual preferences
anywhere as interesting as you do.
Keeping it non-sexist/non-sexual sounds great.
All the best,
J
--
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ | Jacinta Richardson |
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) | Perl Training Australia |
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' | +61 3 9354 6001 |
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' | con...@perltraining.com.au |
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' | www.perltraining.com.au |
Korny Sietsma
<jar...@perltraining.com.au> wrote:
> Posters should keep in mind that, strangely enough, most people don't find
> stories of your sexual exploits, explorations or even your sexual preferences
> anywhere as interesting as you do.
Sorry if I (at least) caused any offence - I was attempting to make a
serious comment about the availability of porn to teenagers, and I
made my comment in a joking way, not least because I'm still somewhat
embarrassed by such things, even if they were several decades ago :)
I do think the ascii-art porn link was inappropriate - it's all about
context; if this were a more gender-balanced group, if there had not
been some discussion of this sort of problem on the list recently, and
if there hadn't been some wildly offensive behaviour at several geek
conferences lately, I might toe a softer line - but when folks are
already hurt and upset, there's all the more reason to think twice
about what you send to a list full of semi-strangers. Even if it
seems funny to you.
- Korny
Oleg Kiorsak
Definitely, I did not meant it for it's "content"
(I wouldn't thought it would "cut it" as such these days ;)
but more as amusement (e.g. humor) regarding what
"digital imaging" was back in the good ol' days of mainframes/etc
;)
Donna Benjamin
It's actually just inappropriate. I don't need to read about people's
masturbation habits. I don't wish to share my own. Puritanism has
nothing to do with it. This is just inappropriate in an open technical
forum.
The original topic was about supervising kids access to the net.
Questions regarding sexuality are natural, and parents usually want to
have some role in how those questions are answered. Those parents
should supervise their kids. Imagine if young children now read this
thread?
Duncan Bayne
> serious comment about the availability of porn to teenagers, and I
> made my comment in a joking way, not least because I'm still somewhat
> embarrassed by such things, even if they were several decades ago :)
thought that what you posted was appropriate to the discussion. I
took it to mean that you disagreed with me that pornography can be
harmful to children based on your own experience as a child; hence my
followup about the skinner box effect, & clarification of the
difference between media.
I think this is a very important issue, and one that most of the IT
industry seems to avoid (or alternatively profit from by peddling
snake-oil 'internet filters') ... perhaps I'm just feeling a bit
cynical tonight though.
I'd be keen for feedback from the group on this topic. Child safety
on computers (both in terms of physical safety and developmental
health w.r.t. pornography and violence) is a serious issue that
warrants discussion.
Although there's not a technical solution to it, there are certainly
technologies that can help parents supervise their children.
On the face of it, I think it's a perfectly reasonable MXUG topic. Am
I correct? Or do people not think this is an appropriate topic of
discussion for MXUG?
> I do think the ascii-art porn link was inappropriate
addition, it's disheartening to have what I considered to be a serious
discussion on the matter derailed by juvenile humour.
Evan
events I'd like to offer an apology. Any discussion about children
and the Internet is going to lead to discussion about pornography -
making it a very awkward topic for many people. And while I don't
think we should shy away from awkward topics, I think we've certainly
proved what was established at the last meeting: that email is a damn
poor communication medium.
My intent in recounting the anecdote was to lead to a discussion on
what we, as techies, do when uncovering behaviour of the children of
non-techie parents that may be of concern to them. Having been asked
by friends and associates to clean up the family PC because it is
running sooo slowly, and uncovering a stash of inappropriate material
in the process is a situation I've been in several times. Obviously I
didn't do a very good job of making that point.
I am disheartened that there have now been two incidents (that I am
aware of) that have made people feel uncomfortable. This is not a
womans' magazine, nor is it a locker room - and comments that add no
substance, and make _anyone_ feel uncomfortable have no place here.
Even if you think this is all a big overblown fuss, can we at least
try and moderate our behaviour to respect other peoples sensibilities
in this matter? There are only so many times these sorts of things
can happen before MXUG would die a quick death, and that would be a
shame.
E.
Clifford Heath
>> I do think the ascii-art porn link was inappropriate
>
> Definitely. I'm not surprised that people are pissed off; in
> addition, it's disheartening to have what I considered to be a serious
> discussion on the matter derailed by juvenile humour.
I think you've misinterpreted it. Korny and others were pointing out the
differences between porn now and then, and Oleg (it seems to me)
tried to do the same. I think it was pointless and poorly explained (*),
but I don't think it was merely juvenile humour either.
(*) You might not know that English isn't Oleg's first language, and his
cultural mores are not ours either, whether you agree with them or not.
Assuming you even claim to know what Russians expect; I don't.
So while I acknowledge that some were offended by a reference to
offensive material, I believe that their reactions were also somewhat
inappropriate, in context. After all, we *were* discussing how to manage
offensive material, and there was bound to be some reference to
examples, such as those that Korny and Oleg shared.
Clifford Heath.
Oleg Kiorsak
Yes, indeed, what I was trying to make an (ironical) comment was the difference
between the extent of "computer porn" in "old days" and now...
I admit that posting a sample link was absolutely unnecessary and
inappropriate and I could of just make a remark to "ascii porn" instead
of providing a url "sample"...
I presume it was a moment of poor judgment (exacerbated by a temptation
to commit an act of "juvenile humor", I guess, confusing a serious technology forum with "Comedy Inc" ;)
- which I actually realized very quickly later on and have in fact posted a "sorry" email
long before people started commenting on it... (although, granted, it wasn't clearly apologetic enough...)
**********************************************
I apologize again to all offended!...
and mostly for derailing forum's attention into something irrelevant and unnecessary
**********************************************
regards,
O.K.
PS: as far as your remarks to "cultural morals" and "Russians" - it's an interesting
topic - you might have a point there, but probably not to be discussed here as it might derail the forum again into some politically incorrect and irrelevant... ;)
Sam Watkins
> I admit that posting a sample link was absolutely unnecessary and
> inappropriate and I could of just make a remark to "ascii porn" instead
> of providing a url "sample"...
I think anyone who was seriously offended by this (Paul) needs to take a
reality pill and check if they have lost their sense of humour and tolerance,
or perhaps there was already a bee up their *ahem* nose on that occasion?
No one's forcing you to click a link or view any tame ascii porn! Paul is
normally very good-humoured so I guess I'm still missing something.
Personally I think we should be free to make any joke or reference that isn't
actually extremely tasteless or offensive. I feel no jury of femininsts would
convict Oleg's reference of that. If I would some time (in context) post a
link to Borat making fun of femininsts or pretending to be anti-semetic.
Do you also find that offensive? Then don't look at it! If someone talks in
support of software piracy, or links to thepiratebay, will that offend?
Perhaps someone will be offeneded if we mention politics, international
relations, homosexuality, race, religion (or porn) in passing?
Personally I get offended when people talk in an unfriendly or disrespectful
way to each other. Unfortuately many of the most vocal knowledgable people on
mailing lists, IRC and elsewhere seem to be rude and ill-tempered more often
than not, if someone disagrees with them. (I didn't notice that here.)
If you don't find something funny, I say move along. I don't mind if people
post an objection or reaction - that might help to keep the list on track -
but I think a general policy against any quasi-sexist talk is going too far.
I feel the loss of free speech is worse than having to occassionally skip over
something you find slightly offensive. We wouldn't want the list to degenerate
to the level of some others forums I could mention, but I feel there's no risk
of that. It seems to be a very friendly list from what I can see.
Maybe we all need a double-dose of tolerance (for others' posts) and
consideration (when posting our own random drivel)!
Sam
/me promises not to post any more on this (meta-/off-)topic on the list!
Sam Watkins
lol surely you are not serious, as we were saying, if young children have
unlimited internet access, they are going to be in for a hell of a lot worse
than ascii-pr0n. No young child would be able to read all this anyway.
mummy!!!! there's a link to ascii-pr0n!! OH NOES!
Sam
Sadat Rahman
LOL!!! I am following this thread with utter amusement. =P
Steve Hayes
On 27/10/2009, at 5:34 AM, Sam Watkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:19:12AM +1100, Oleg Kiorsak wrote:
>> I admit that posting a sample link was absolutely unnecessary and
>> inappropriate and I could of just make a remark to "ascii porn"
>> instead
>> of providing a url "sample"...
>
> I think anyone who was seriously offended by this (Paul) needs to
> take a
> reality pill and check if they have lost their sense of humour and
> tolerance,
> or perhaps there was already a bee up their *ahem* nose on that
> occasion?
> No one's forcing you to click a link or view any tame ascii porn!
> Paul is
> normally very good-humoured so I guess I'm still missing something.
>
I respectfully disagree - the discussion wasn't one that I personally
would have in a workplace, which is my closest analogy to this group.
This isn't a group of friends that I've invited for a dinner party -
there are strangers here. You don't know me, I'm afraid.
> Personally I get offended when people talk in an unfriendly or
> disrespectful
> way to each other. Unfortuately many of the most vocal knowledgable
> people on
> mailing lists, IRC and elsewhere seem to be rude and ill-tempered
> more often
> than not, if someone disagrees with them. (I didn't notice that
> here.)
>
That's bad too.
> If you don't find something funny, I say move along. I don't mind
> if people
> post an objection or reaction - that might help to keep the list on
> track -
> but I think a general policy against any quasi-sexist talk is going
> too far.
>
I think "move along" has been the advice to many minorities over time.
Regardless of how you mean it, it's been used as a policy of
intolerance as well. Every group has to decide what its social norms
are, and those norms will help define the boundaries of the group.
> I feel the loss of free speech is worse than having to occassionally
> skip over
> something you find slightly offensive. We wouldn't want the list to
> degenerate
> to the level of some others forums I could mention, but I feel
> there's no risk
> of that. It seems to be a very friendly list from what I can see.
>
I'm personally willing to tolerate a little less "free speech" in
order to create a more inclusive group. There are plenty of other
places I can express myself very openly, I don't need another one.
Free speech is a wonderful ideal, but it can be used to justify all
sorts of excesses - after all, they're just words!
I think having an open, clear, accessibly policy, perhaps sent to
everyone who joins the list, will reduce the need to re-norm every
time someone new posts to the group (reduce, not remove). Growing
groups can spend a lot of time covering the same ground over-and-over,
and sadly it's just waste.
Tolerance is good, but tolerance alone won't create an inclusive group.
Steve
Richard Jones
>> I admit that posting a sample link was absolutely unnecessary and
>> inappropriate and I could of just make a remark to "ascii porn"
>> instead
>> of providing a url "sample"...
>
> I think anyone who was seriously offended by this (Paul) needs to
> take a
> reality pill and check if they have lost their sense of humour and
> tolerance,
> or perhaps there was already a bee up their *ahem* nose on that
> occasion?
> No one's forcing you to click a link or view any tame ascii porn!
> Paul is
> normally very good-humoured so I guess I'm still missing something.
Yes, you are.
"Here's some porn... oh, it's just a joke, lighten up!" is not
appropriate or welcoming for a diverse technical discussion forum.
Richard
Sadat Rahman
> appropriate or welcoming for a diverse technical discussion forum.
>
Nor is it relevant or adds any value to the spirit of MXUG! :-)
Tal Rotbart
(and some others, but Steve put it clearly) seems to be, correct me if
I'm wrong - "Inclusiveness over tolerance".
Mine personally would be the other way around, especially in a group like MXUG.
The appeal I find in MXUG was the people, who are more interesting,
less conventional, brighter and more varied than what you'd normally
find at the MSUG (aka, Melbourne _Specific_ User Groups).
Nothing like groupthink 'inclusiveness' to dim these lights. Also,
some studies suggest that:
"Swearing on the job can reduce stress and boost employee morale"
[http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/17/swearing-study.html]
So if MXUG is like a workplace, it seems that this kind of behaviour
creatives more inclusiveness and encourages bonding (not just of the
male kind). This is just one study, of course, but maybe some thought
provoking is in order.
Consideration and tolerance are two sides of the same coin, and I
personally do not see a reason why one should be favoured over the
other.
Have a lovely day,
Tal
Steve Hayes
On 27/10/2009, at 9:03 AM, Tal Rotbart wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that there seems to be a value clash here. Steve's
> (and some others, but Steve put it clearly) seems to be, correct me if
> I'm wrong - "Inclusiveness over tolerance".
>
> Mine personally would be the other way around, especially in a group
> like MXUG.
>
> The appeal I find in MXUG was the people, who are more interesting,
> less conventional, brighter and more varied than what you'd normally
> find at the MSUG (aka, Melbourne _Specific_ User Groups).
>
> Nothing like groupthink 'inclusiveness' to dim these lights.
I don't follow this line of reasoning. Let me be clear that I meant
tolerance of *expression*, not tolerance of opinion. I personally
believe that a group of more interesting, less conventional, brighter
and more varied people should easily be able to find ways to express
themselves clearly without offending anyone.
I'm currently reading "Words that Work" by Frank Lutz (http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599
). Lutz stresses, repeatedly, that it's not what you say that matters,
it's what people hear. You can choose the perfect words from your
perspective, but it's how your audience understands those words that
matter, not how you feel about them.
Learning to express yourself in an effective way is a skill like any
other - it's learned, it's not a gift. We all have things that are
worth sharing, but sometimes we need how to learn how to share them
effectively. I think that is one of the promises of MXUG, and one that
we can all rise to.
Separately, I worry that it's too easy for members of the majority
(and I is one) to push inclusiveness down the list or priorities,
since the immediate impact is pretty low (the long term impact is a
different story). However I vividly remember one evening in France
where the host formally asked the table to restrict the conversation
to English in deference to the mono-lingual Australians at the table.
It was a wonderful example of inclusiveness (letting us follow all the
conversation) over tolerance of expression (since I'm sure there were
people more comfortable in French).
I agonised over whether to continue this thread but it is about
values, and values are important and they don't go away. I've tried to
add some MXUG'y value in this response :-)
Daniel
much less sensitivity to attacks on any one group.
Where any group is in a minority, there is a degree of awkwardness by
default, and any content that excludes them adds to this.
http://lafalafu.com/krc/privilege.html
I wouldn't have said the link was offensive, but it was hardly
tasteful - and apparently Oleg doesn't think so either.
Kathryn Andersen
>
> The bottom line is that there seems to be a value clash here. Steve's
> (and some others, but Steve put it clearly) seems to be, correct me if
> I'm wrong - "Inclusiveness over tolerance".
>
> Mine personally would be the other way around, especially in a group like MXUG.
>
> The appeal I find in MXUG was the people, who are more interesting,
> less conventional, brighter and more varied than what you'd normally
> find at the MSUG (aka, Melbourne _Specific_ User Groups).
>
> Nothing like groupthink 'inclusiveness' to dim these lights. Also,
> some studies suggest that:
> "Swearing on the job can reduce stress and boost employee morale"
> [http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/17/swearing-study.html]
If I have to put up with crude behaviour in order to "belong" then
*obviously* I'm not welcome here, and I won't go where I'm not welcome.
After all, it's supposed to be *fun*. Why should I have to fight for
the right to feel comfortable and welcomed? And yet, it's always this
way, over and over and over and over and over and over again:
"Oh, don't be such a prude!"
"Can't you take a joke?"
"Don't you have a sense of humour?"
"Oh no, it's the Political Correctness Police!"
"Free speech means never having to say I'm sorry."
Yes, thank you, I do have a sense of humour. I love the Goon Show, I
enjoy Douglas Adams, I smile at Wodehouse, I know what The Ministry Of
Silly Walks is. I even made a "No one expects the Dalek Inquisition!"
LiveJournal icon.
But of course, none of that counts, not if I find crudeness UnFunny.
Kathryn Andersen
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <http://www.katspace.org>
/ \ |
\_.--.*/ | GenFicCrit mailing list <http://www.katspace.org/gen_fic_crit/>
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
Tobias Sargeant
[...] Imagine if young children now read this thread?
The link that was posted aside, I think that this thread is probably
an excellent one for teenagers, at least, to read. I think it
demonstrates that there is a wide spectrum of opinions and behaviours
amongst adults when it comes to sex and sexuality, and that we're
willing to talk about it. I think it also shows that we don't have all
the answers, but we're concerned for our childrens' well-being.
And maybe this isn't the ideal way to find out about it, but I think
they should know that adults do have sex. And that we do masturbate.
And that we're human. Maybe knowing that would encourage them to trust
us as a source of information over their peers and the media, which
would be a big step forward, IMO.
Toby.
Justin Freitag
on the darker side of light humor) it's clear that some of you did. Is
that ok? Of course. Does it mean that we should discourage or disgrace
opinions that we don't see eye to eye with? No. Personally, I don't
want to be second guessing what I can and can't say at MXUG.
It's the X factor that makes this group what it is...well that's what
I'd thought until this thread filled my inbox.
Cheers,
Justin
Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Cogent Consulting
http://www.cogentconsulting.com.au
http://iridescenturchin.blogspot.com/
twitter: steve_hayes
GTalk: steve.e.hayes
Yahoo: steve_e_hayes
Mobile: 0403 902 431
SkypeIn: +61 3 9005 6695
Measure your code quality: http://iridescenturchin.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-would-you-like-in-code-quality.html
Have more things to do than you have time to do them? Use http://www.runwayapp.com
.
Runway - where your life takes off.
Tal Rotbart
<kat_...@katspace.org> wrote:
[...]
>
> If I have to put up with crude behaviour in order to "belong" then
> *obviously* I'm not welcome here, and I won't go where I'm not welcome.
> After all, it's supposed to be *fun*. Why should I have to fight for
> the right to feel comfortable and welcomed? And yet, it's always this
> way, over and over and over and over and over and over again:
> "Oh, don't be such a prude!"
> "Can't you take a joke?"
> "Don't you have a sense of humour?"
> "Oh no, it's the Political Correctness Police!"
> "Free speech means never having to say I'm sorry."
>
> Yes, thank you, I do have a sense of humour. I love the Goon Show, I
> enjoy Douglas Adams, I smile at Wodehouse, I know what The Ministry Of
> Silly Walks is. I even made a "No one expects the Dalek Inquisition!"
> LiveJournal icon.
> But of course, none of that counts, not if I find crudeness UnFunny.
>
> Kathryn Andersen
I disagree that Oleg's link was crude. While I'm sure you have a sense
of humour, maybe it is not in the same taste as the one that Oleg,
Korny, Julian and I presented. Yes, it does help to have the same
_kind_ of sense of humour to belong to a social group.
While I'm not claiming that MXUG's 'official sense of humour' has
anything to do with anything I say, these things tend to establish
themselves on their own, social marketplace and all that.
I personally would not want to see this type of uniqueness diminished.
For a breeding ground for new ideas and technologies I would prescribe
the safety of 'less value judgement' and 'less imposition of
lowest-common-denominator morality', rather than safety of 'having
personal sensibilities left unchallenged'.
I find that much more welcoming and inclusive, personally.
As always, IMHO.
Tal
Duncan Bayne
> much less sensitivity to attacks on any one group.
questionable taste and inappropriate for this forum, but it certainly
wasn't an attack on anyone. It's a big step to take to go from
tastelessness to an attack; are you sure that you think Oleg's post
warrants that?
Glen Maddern
Glen Maddern
0423 118 405
Pete Yandell
number of forums, so I'm going to provide a few suggestions for some
of the voices that always crop up. I'm going to be quite blunt, and
I'll trust that people will use their own judgement and either take my
advice or ignore it as they see fit.
To the "I don't think anyone should have been offended! Free speech!"
folks:
I always imagine someone saying "I found that post boring", and these
folks posting "I don't think anyone should have found that boring!
Free speech!"
Guess what? You don't get to decide what anyone else finds boring, or
offensive, or anything else. And it's got absolutely nothing to do
with free speech.
What you're really saying is "I didn't find that offensive, and I
don't understand how someone else could have." Before you bang on
about free speech, how about this: stop, take a breath, and quietly
approach the offended party and say "I still don't understand why you
were offended by that. Can you explain it to me in more detail?" You
might learn something!
To the "I'm sorry you were offended. I didn't mean to offend you."
person:
That's a classic non-apology apology (go on...Google it). What it
really says is "It's your fault you were offended."
Dude, nobody assumed you set out to offend anyone. In the end, it's
your job as a poster (or speaker) to make your post relevant to your
audience. If somebody points out that it wasn't relevant to them, you
can either decide you don't care about that person, or say to them:
"I'm sorry. In future I'd like to make you feel like part of my
audience. Can you please help me understand how to do that?"
To the "I was offended by your post." people:
Again, imagine the post was just boring rather than offensive. Posting
"I was bored by your post" in a public forum would be taken as an
attack by the original poster, and it's that sense of being attacked
that leads to the defensive behaviour everyone invariably displays in
these conversations.
In a lot of ways it would be better to approach the original poster
privately. If several people said to them off-list, "Good post, but
this bit of it made me uncomfortable", I'm sure they'd respond a lot
more positively.
Now this is where it gets tricky: if you're in a minority, and the
original poster offended you, it can be very uncomfortable to approach
them directly. You may also be aware of others who were offended, but
aren't willing to speak up, so you may feel the need to say something
publicly on their behalf.
So it's worth making that explicit, if you are offended: "I'm posting
this publicly because I'm not comfortable approaching the original
poster directly. It's not intended as an attack, so please don't take
it as such. I'd just like to make everyone understand how people like
me can be made uncomfortable by stuff like this, and open some
discussion on how to avoid that, if you care to do so."
And the rest of us should have a little sympathy for somebody in a
minority who posts publicly saying they were made uncomfortable by the
actions of someone in the community. Their intent is rarely to attack
anyone, even though it can come across that way.
- Pete
Kathryn Andersen
No, Oleg's post doesn't warrant that. It's the follow-up posts
defending Oleg's actions (even after Oleg apologised) that warrant that.
Again, I thank Oleg for apologising.
Kathryn Andersen
> I disagree that Oleg's link was crude. While I'm sure you have a sense
> of humour, maybe it is not in the same taste as the one that Oleg,
> Korny, Julian and I presented. Yes, it does help to have the same
> _kind_ of sense of humour to belong to a social group.
It actually wasn't Oleg's link that upset me. I didn't follow the link;
I didn't have to follow it in order to *get it*. I got that it was
supposed to be ASCII art of a pornographic nature, which is in itself a
silly idea, considering how badly ASCII art does at being
representational. I found the thought both mildly amusing and
irritating as well.
What upset me was the responses that followed, especially yours.
Oleg apologised. Thank you, Oleg, for apologising. Yet Oleg's
so-called "supporters" appear to wish that he had never apologised, and
had never needed to apologise. *That's* what makes me feel unwelcome.
> I personally would not want to see this type of uniqueness diminished.
And yet, you wish to drive me away.
> For a breeding ground for new ideas and technologies I would prescribe
> the safety of 'less value judgement' and 'less imposition of
> lowest-common-denominator morality', rather than safety of 'having
> personal sensibilities left unchallenged'.
>
> I find that much more welcoming and inclusive, personally.
That's because you are part of the majority, not part of a minority.
Tobias Sargeant
Duncan Bayne
> people are expressing. Get over yourselves. Inclusiveness is a worthy goal,
> and if all it takes is a little more consideration and care in the delivery
> of your point, then what's the problem?
Perhaps - and I stress, this is just guesswork on my part - some of
the people who are indignant value an informal environment where they
can speak their minds _without_ much forethought? I've worked with
people who are much more comfortable in a 'locker-room' setting than a
formal meeting, and been present on a number of online groups where
that tone is the norm.
You shouldn't dismiss the value of such settings with a trite "get
over yourselves." What you value in a tech. group might not be what
others value.
Personally I'm keen to keep the tone as formal as necessary to keep
membership diverse. I think it's something we need to agree on though
(hence I started a thread on a Charter or FAQ), possibly by agreeing
on a core set of values as a starting point.
If the MXUG was a software project, how would we work as mediators to
resolve the issue of a value clash between stakeholders?
Tal Rotbart
part of a minority doesn't empower me to speak for it though.
Especially as part of a minority, I find less value judgement and less
imposition of your moral code to be beneficial and inclusive.
In any case, even as a woman (I'm assuming the minority you are
referring to) you're in a majority that seems hell bent on shoving
your view of appropriate behaviour and inclusiveness down at least one
minority's throat.
Seems like textbook oppression to me.
Duncan Bayne
> referring to) you're in a majority that seems hell bent on shoving
> your view of appropriate behaviour and inclusiveness down at least one
> minority's throat.
those are only useful if you're accustomed to seeing people primarily
as members of a group, and secondarily as individuals.
What matters is that some individuals on this group don't like what
other individuals are posting, and may leave if it continues.
I'm saying that we need to work, as rational self-interested
individuals who are part of a community, towards defining our shared
values. We need to figure out what we value, and whether we want a
community culture that drives people like Kathryn off.
Personally, I don't.
Evan
> "Swearing on the job can reduce stress and boost employee morale"
> [http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/17/swearing-study.html]
talk, and in several conversations with both genders afterwards had no
indication that it was found to be offensive. As with many things,
context can be paramount. (And email sucks as a communication medium
because subtle but important context is completely lost.)
And from the above linked swearing study:
> But Baruch stresses that abusive and offensive swearing should be eliminated where it generates greater levels of stress, rather than helping to relieve it.
Which do you think has happened in this case?
There have also been a few twitter/identi.ca mutterings that this is
all political correctness crap. As someone who hates p.c. for p.c.s
sake I strongly disagree. If we were all sitting around worrying in
the abstract that someone _might_ be offended and you can't come to my
clubhouse anymore then that would be p.c. I think. But the facts on
the ground is that people _have_ been offended, and that has needed to
be addressed. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the repercussions
of what you say - and the repercussions here have been derailment of
the mailing list, people being upset, and people feeling unwelcome.
Was that anybody's intention?
> "No one expects the Dalek Inquisition!"
give me nightmares, and suspect there's a whole back-story I'm
missing, but I found that one liner hysterical. Would love to see the
associated icon image.
Peace and chocolate.
E.
Pete Yandell
I'm very angry at what you're saying, and the patronising and
antagonistic tone in which you're saying it. If I wanted to drive
women away from the group, I'd be hard pressed to do a better job than
you are doing. If you don't understand why I feel this way, I'm happy
to buy you a coffee and discuss my perspective with you.
To the women in the group:
If I ever do anything that makes you uncomfortable, or if you have any
thoughts on how we can make the group more comfortable for women or
anyone else, please feel free to approach me directly. I can't promise
to agree with everything you say, but I do promise to listen, respect
your opinions, try to learn from you, and to pass that learning on to
others when I can.
*fuming*
- Pete
dan
Korny Sietsma
Want to drive me away from a mailing list? Suggest that anyone,
anywhere, is motivated by "political correctness". :)
I remember when this was first used, as a joking term, back in the
late 80s. It was never meant seriously, and I'm not even sure if it
*ever* existed as something people genuinely expected of others.
However, it has spent the following 20+ years as a dog-whistling term
of attack - any time anyone suggests that someone has behaved
inappropriately, used language in a harmful way, or generally done
something offensive, someone says "that's just political correctness",
as if somehow that tars it with the same brush as some massive reign
of oppression and groupthink.
Ok, that's my rant-du-jour. Otherwise, I generally agree with what
Karen said, and Pete, and want to re-iterate my original apology;
especially, I want to apologise for being 1/2 of the original
conversation that dragged us down this path. :-/
- Korny
p.s. I won't really leave a discussion if folks talk about political
correctness. But it will definitely colour my opinions of the user of
the term, for a while at least.
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys on twitter/fb/gtalk/gwave www.sietsma.com/korny
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part
that wonders what the part that isn't thinking
isn't thinking of"
Duncan Bayne
fairly even split in terms of people who found the post offensive;
some are men, and some are women.
How about ignoring the groups to which people belong and focusing on
_them as individuals_?
Asking for suggestions as to how to make the group more comfortable
for women makes no sense whatsoever, unless you assume that people are
defined by their sex above anything else.
Tal Rotbart
and while I'd like to read your answers, I'm going to retire from this
conversation and avoid participating as my point of view and attitude
does not seem to cross the email boundary well.
The questions:
Why is it more important (for variety, or otherwise) to avoid driving
away women (or as I see it, certain individuals) then it is to avoid
driving away other individuals who do not appreciate informal
interactions being suppressed?
Why is consideration more important than tolerance for said variety?
Which of the above, if at all, is more conductive of ideas exchange?
Cheers,
Tal
Paul Fenwick
> And maybe this isn't the ideal way to find out about it, but I think
> they should know that adults do have sex. And that we do masturbate.
> And that we're human. Maybe knowing that would encourage them to trust
> us as a source of information over their peers and the media, which
> would be a big step forward, IMO.
Wow. You know, it would never have occurred to me that the purpose of
*technical* user-groups was to educate young adults about sexuality.
--
Paul Fenwick <p...@perltraining.com.au> | http://perltraining.com.au/
Director of Training | Ph: +61 3 9354 6001
Perl Training Australia | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681
Duncan Bayne
> *ever* existed as something people genuinely expected of others.
Once upon a time, I worked at a University (support staff, not
academic). Said University had a policy that utterly prohibited
discrimination on the basis of race - and at the same time, several
University-funded programmes and support networks explicitly offered
to members of a particular race.
To call attention to this hypocrisy (as I did during my staff
induction; apparently I was the only one reading the manual) severely
pissed people off. There was a clear social penalty for questioning
certain aspects of the community that were considered sensitive; this
lead people to adopt a policy of pre-emptive self-censorship.
I know for a fact that the hypocrisy in the policy was noticed by many
staff members, and it angered them. But they did not feel free to
express their opinions, as it was seen as career suicide to express
any criticism in that area.
_That_ is what I think of, when I think of political correctness.
Perhaps it's not the same definition you had in mind? But it
certainly exists in some circles, and certainly has a chilling effect.
Kathryn Andersen
> membership diverse. I think it's something we need to agree on though
> (hence I started a thread on a Charter or FAQ), possibly by agreeing
> on a core set of values as a starting point.
I would be relieved if a decision was made one way or another. If the
majority of this group want MXUG to be a "locker room" atmosphere, then
I would be relieved that this was out in the open and explicit, rather
than implicit. It would mean I could leave with a clear conscience,
rather than feeling bad that I didn't try harder to belong.
No, I do NOT want to manipulate people with "I'll take my toys and go
home" whining, that's not what I mean at all. It is entirely up to the
group to decide what kind of group it wants to be. But if I *knew* that
it was a locker-room-style group, I wouldn't have to fight any more; I'd
just go somewhere else.
Korny Sietsma
something that people actually demanded - i.e. it was implied (and has
regularly been implied since) that people genuinely used that term as
indicating something good.
A bit of digging on wikipedia implies that it's more complex than
that, as usual... "In the 1960s, the radical Left adopted the term,
initially seriously, then ironically, in self-criticism of dogmatic
attitudes."
Anyway, I wasn't so much trying to say that heavy-handed attempts to
enforce groupthink never happen - just that the term "Political
Correctness" irritates me, as it's far more often used to promote
offensive behaviour, than it is used to promote tolerance. IMHO.
And once again, I'm regretting writing anything. I'll just move along
and try not to post *anything* for a bit. Even if someone is wrong.
:) http://xkcd.com/386/
- Korny
Tobias Sargeant
>
> Wow. You know, it would never have occurred to me that the purpose of
> *technical* user-groups was to educate young adults about sexuality.
I think you misunderstood me. The original statement (which I quoted)
was "Imagine if young children now read this thread?". This says
nothing about the purpose of this forum, and only refers to the
content of the thread (which had drifted off-topic, but which was
originally completely relevant to this forum).
And I stand by my statement that I think that there's nothing at all
wrong with young adults reading this discussion, and that I would, in
fact, encourage it.
I think that although we don't tend to credit ourselves with it, geeks
are on the whole actually pretty self-aware in this regard compared
with large sections of the wider community.
Duncan Bayne
> home" whining, that's not what I mean at all.
belonging to the group don't outweigh the costs, then there's no point
staying. The same applies to any community; in theory at least,
communities exist to benefit their members, who are there voluntarily.
> It is entirely up to the group to decide what kind of group it wants to be.
> But if I *knew* that it was a locker-room-style group, I wouldn't have to
> fight any more; I'd just go somewhere else.
the open, and get people to commit to a core set of values for the
group. That way everything is open, honest & on the table and people
can make an informed decision about membership.
Personally, I hope the group settles on a polite & deliberately
inclusive tone.
Oleg Kiorsak
Hi Kathryn et al
First of all, I would like to thank you for your understanding of what has happened...
and, since my post has sparked such a lively discussion, I thought I should clarify few things...
as some things were getting too far stretched, IMHO...
1. As I said eariler the "sample link" was UN-necessary - it was a momentary poor judgement -
a mere reference to "ascii" would suffice for the ones who are old enough to remember that...
2. I do think that is NOT appropriate to post links to _p0rn_ of any kind (even ascii !!)
and would of never done that... the "content" on this particular "ascii grafitti" was relatively "clean"...
but what I did realize - a bit too late though - that although it's merely "bad taste" for most people (regardless of gender)
it might still been _quite_ offensive to people with certain _religious_ background... etc... !!
And I 100% understand why you did not even click on it and absolutely respect that...
so, @Pete my regret was sincere and not a "non apology" apology
and, @Steve, it was used previously in my very workplace (Toll Group IT - you hardly can get more politically correct
and HR and OHS sensitive organization in this hemisphere - were people do do get fired for passing around a _real_
"inappropriate material") - but granted it was in a smaller-sized team (but of mixed genders religion etc)
- and in a proper context - and was accepted with laughter and "stress-relief"...
and _this_ was probably the key factor why I did not spare proper time and judgement to think about
implications of posting it to a larger group of people whom I don't personally know and they don't know me)
(and I did it in 1-2 seconds of spare cycle while waiting for some c# stuff to compile...)
3. I do NOT subscribe to "locker room" style, and am not fond of any of it at all...
4. I do personally feel embarrassed when folks start using swear words (and really dirty bad ones) liberally and necessarily
at user group meetings when ladies are present in the audience (this must be an old-fashioned "Russian culture" thing ?!? ;)
I still very well remember the shock of that from some of the first Melborne Ruby on Rails UG meetings i attended in 2007
where this was very prominent... and one thing I dislike about Ruby and RoR community for example is that they deliberately
position them as such "anti social rules"... (remember the infamaous presentation recently at some Ruby conference...?!)
(btw @Cliff, @Pete and @Steve should remember that very well too - and somehow nobody stepped in to condemn or stop that ;)
5. I even find lots of XKCD dot com stuff very.. well... questioanble at least...
again, thanks for understanding and forgiveness...
cheers,
O.K.
Evan
> it might still been _quite_ offensive to people with certain _religious_
> background... etc... !!
accept Oleg's email on the whole in the spirit it was obviously meant
and avoid going off into debates on religious backgrounds being a
necessity for having been offended and all the other variations of the
arguments I can see coming.
Despite popular belief, Google only has a finite amount of storage
capacity, and I'd hate for it to be completely filled by this
discussion thread.
E.
Ashemah
window managers and other interesting technology!!
Hey, wait a minute... ;)
Oleg Kiorsak
as the one guilty of triggering it was am hoping that by writing an email I was hoping I
would contribute to a "closure" and put an end to it all...
surely, there are lot's of interesting discussion topics to hang-up upon:
- religions and "multiculturalism"
- "puritanism"
- "liberalism"
- "freedom of speach"
- "polit. correctness"
- "hypocrisy"
- and of course.. SEX !! ;)
but they all does DO NOT belong here - they belong in some other forums (sure there are plenty! ;)
In particular I am feeling very very bad that I _spoiled_ the initial - worthy and relevant - topic of discussion
which was "kids and computers/Internet"...
sorry for that again...
Have a good day!
O.K.
PS: back to real work (!!)
Sam Watkins
> I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that 1st-person shooters are
> bad for children; I don't think there's sufficiently clear evidence
> for that
This kind of thing I think is utterly obvious (that violent games and movies
do desensitise people to wars and violence in real life); but it would take
scientists 50 years to prove it is a significant effect. Then, like with
smoking, there will probably be mandatory warnings "first person shooters kill
your soul" on the game boxes. Also the false 3d makes me dizzy! :)
Back to the original topic, would anyone like to help implement, test and
maintain a community-moderated internet filter? I think it would be a fun and
useful project, and not too hard to implement. It's something I've been
thinking about for a while.
I'm a bit vague about the actual mechanism of blocking access. I suppose it
would require software on the gateway, or at the ISP, or a privileged process
on the child's machine (if the child does not have admin access). I had a
couple ideas for names for such a project: "bigsister" and "clip".
I have an idea for a slightly related project, which is a search engine called
"robin" powered by people - a bit like asking questions on IRC, but with a web
interface like a search engine, a strict "be polite and helpful" policy, and
tree + round-robin dispatch. It's slightly related because it could use the
same chat infrastructure and network of helpful people that would be needed to
moderate access to sites.
Such a search engine might also be more suitable for children. It's fairly
easy to stumble across something inappropriate on google.
Sam
--
Tal Rotbart
http://www.socialmod.com/
Mahalo: Human Search Engine:
http://www.mahalo.com/
Cheers,
Tal
Michael Rowe
I have an idea for a slightly related project, which is a search engine called"robin" powered by people - a bit like asking questions on IRC, but with a web
interface like a search engine, a strict "be polite and helpful" policy, and
tree + round-robin dispatch.
--
Michael Rowe
Tobias Sargeant
> Back to the original topic, would anyone like to help implement, test and
> maintain a community-moderated internet filter? I think it would be a fun and
> useful project, and not too hard to implement. It's something I've been
> thinking about for a while.
> I'm a bit vague about the actual mechanism of blocking access. I suppose it
> would require software on the gateway, or at the ISP, or a privileged process
> on the child's machine (if the child does not have admin access). I had a
> couple ideas for names for such a project: "bigsister" and "clip".
Can OpenWRT be installed/configured easily enough by non-technical
types for it to be a suitable development target? ISP involvement in a
nascent project seems unlikely to be possible, and there will always
be ways around something implemented locally.
Robert Postill
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:28:29AM -0700, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> Back to the original topic, would anyone like to help implement, test and
> maintain a community-moderated internet filter? I think it would be a fun and
> useful project, and not too hard to implement. It's something I've been
> thinking about for a while.
(http://dansguardian.org/) which has a following in the school IT
scene in the UK (and elsewhere). However it is interesting to note
that there can be unintended consequences from this kind of project.
In 2005 I went to a conference called LUGRadio Live in the UK and I
actually saw Daniel (the Dan in DansGuardian) speak, which you can get
from the DansGuardian website (see
http://dansguardian.org/downloads/lugradio/speech.txt). During the
talk he explained some of the world's more repressive nations use
DansGuardian as a tool of oppression. He started getting e-mails from
dissidents of these regimes asking him to do something like revoke the
license for these regimes. However as the software is GPL he
effectively had no recourse in regard to the license covering the
software. The end result was that he did get some tough e-mails from
those dissidents regarding his stance. So before you go wild on
github you may want to take a moment to think about the harm your
proposal could cause as well as the benefit others could derive from
it.
Rob
Sadat Rahman
On 28/10/2009, at 4:41 PM, Tal Rotbart wrote:
>
> Mechanical Turk like Moderation:
> http://www.socialmod.com/
>
> Mahalo: Human Search Engine:
> http://www.mahalo.com/
ChaCha is another great one!
http://www.chacha.com/
> Cheers,
> Tal
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Sam Watkins <s...@nipl.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:28:29AM -0700, Duncan Bayne wrote:
>>> I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that 1st-person shooters
>>> are
>>> bad for children; I don't think there's sufficiently clear evidence
>>> for that
Sorry to say this Sam, but your ideas have already been implemented by
other people, unless you have a vastly different angle.
Like Apple would say: "There is an app for that ..." :-P
Sam Watkins
Dansguardian. They are not the same as what I have in mind.
The human-powered search engines mahalo and chacha are companies that serve
advertising and are not fully community based as I understand. Vark is based
on existing social networking relationships, which is a different method.
Socialmod is a commerical service. Dansguardian is a content filter, and seems
to be by far the best product among the rest. I don't think it has a system
for real-time community-based filtering though, which is what I suggested.
Regarding the possibility that my proposed system might be abused by oppressive
regimes, I feel it is the task of the oppressed people to change their laws or
system of government. They doubtless have other significant issues to contend
with, such as the torture and execution of political dissidents.
I don't feel the author of Dansguardian is responsible for this, any more than
a manufacturer of kitchen knives is responsible for a murder by stabbing.
I really doubt that anyone has established such an effective internet filter
that it cannot be "hacked around".
Sam