Moderator: Edi
That's pretty much a "well duh" kind of thing. They did it to cover their own ass and protect their bottom line.Admiral Valdemar wrote:Yeah, that's what I meant, MS did this because eventually there will be a lawsuit involved and money lost. So I can safely say it wasn't because they really care for kids that go off and meet strangers.
Huh?Admiral Valdemar wrote:Incidentally, some guy on Sky News today was urgings parents to take legal action against the "groomers" that own the chat rooms.
Fair enough then but what was to stop MSN covertly handing over the info and getting the cops to put an eye on them?Admiral Valdemar wrote:There are legal difficulties with that, the spyware in MS operating systems can't be used in a court of law as it isn't properly recognised by the law.Lord Pounder wrote:The thing I don't get is if MSN chatroom where such havens for peadofiles and such scum why didn't MSN pass on the information to the authoraties. Why have we never seen news reports of the MSN spyware, and we all know it exists, being used to find these people and stop them?
I think that's exactly what they are implying. If you haven't been around the bend to ASVS and here much then you jsut don't understand how what we post and how we really feel are disconnected. What we post here is the very darkest dark side of black humor and it compares not at all with how we act in reality. Just rememebr that next time, well except in Hit-Man's case.The Third Man wrote:Could you guys clarify this please? Because it sounds a bit like you're suggesting that it's a good thing for a child to presumably die, presumably after a brutal rape, at the hands of an adult, in order to enhance the purity of your precious gene pool, presumably by somehow eliminating a "naivety gene". I'm sure that's not what either of you mean to imply, so again, please clarify just what you are saying.LT.Hit-Man wrote:And that is a good thing there are way to many dumb fucks in the world anywaysDPDarkPrimus wrote: If 13-year olds are allowed to go out to the mall unsupervised to meet someone they met on the internet after answering a series of personal questions, I don't think they are going to contribute much to the gene pool.
Personal and Parental Responsibility were ruled out years ago. It was decided in the early 80s in Idiots Vs The Sane. Didn't you know that?Admiral Valdemar wrote:Basically, the chat room owner is every bit as responsible as the pervert who endangers the kid's life. Guess parents aren't in this equation.
I like living under my little rock, it keeps my brain from exploding in disgust at the world.Stormbringer wrote:Personal and Parental Responsibility were ruled out years ago. It was decided in the early 80s in Idiots Vs The Sane. Didn't you know that?Admiral Valdemar wrote:Basically, the chat room owner is every bit as responsible as the pervert who endangers the kid's life. Guess parents aren't in this equation.
You exaggerate with your polemics. While the pendulum has indeed swung too far, it is equally ridiculous to treat every situation with the same tired old refrain "let the parents supervise more carefully!"Stormbringer wrote:Personal and Parental Responsibility were ruled out years ago. It was decided in the early 80s in Idiots Vs The Sane. Didn't you know that?Admiral Valdemar wrote:Basically, the chat room owner is every bit as responsible as the pervert who endangers the kid's life. Guess parents aren't in this equation.
It was meant to be sarcastic and hyperbolic, for effect.Darth Wong wrote:You exaggerate with your polemics. While the pendulum has indeed swung too far, it is equally ridiculous to treat every situation with the same tired old refrain "let the parents supervise more carefully!"
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be reasonable standards and that we ought to allow society to run wild. But the fact is there's no real reason for stuff like this, at least to justify it as "for the children." If your kid wanders of to meet some rapist they met in a chatroom then they ought charged with negligence. They don't need to shut down entire services worth of chat rooms. If your kid watches some R-rated movie and scars them for life how is that TV's fault? The parent should have paid attention to the rating. It's not society's job to raise some one's kids for them.Darth Wong wrote:Would you make the same argument about shards of broken glass laying around playgrounds, and give some idiot tossing beer bottles in the air a break? While parents must exercise some supervisory responsibility, it is also beneficial for others to FUCKING HELP OUT.
I'm tired of hearing:
"Parenting is the most difficult, expensive, and time-consuming task that any human being can undertake in his lifetime. But I, as a self-absorbed teenager, see no reason to lift a finger or sacrifice even the smallest, most inconsequential privilege or luxury in order to make life easier for parents. If they can't handle it, then fuck 'em! Ha ha ha, I'm a self-centred asshole!"
Why not? Are free, unmoderated chatrooms a constitutional right now?Stormbringer wrote:I'm not saying that there shouldn't be reasonable standards and that we ought to allow society to run wild. But the fact is there's no real reason for stuff like this, at least to justify it as "for the children."
Why not? Is the loss of these unmoderated chatrooms some huge sacrifice which outweighs the potential harm?If your kid wanders of to meet some rapist they met in a chatroom then they ought charged with negligence. They don't need to shut down entire services worth of chat rooms.
Red-herring.If your kid watches some R-rated movie and scars them for life how is that TV's fault?
See above.The parent should have paid attention to the rating. It's not society's job to raise some one's kids for them.
Standard-issue knee-jerk strawman fallacy. No one is talking about censoring the world. We're talking about shutting down some free, unmoderated chatrooms which are of questionable value and measurable harm.Adults ought to be able to watch adult oriented TV, see adult oriented movies, and use the net freelly. We shouldn't be forced to live in PG-13 world simply because parents don't pay attention.
That's actually an argueable point. The company doesn't have to support them but the threat of lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to force them out of business either.Why not? Are free, unmoderated chatrooms a constitutional right now?
The potential harm is miniscule provided a parent exercises a modicum of good judgement and oversight.Why not? Is the loss of these unmoderated chatrooms some huge sacrifice which outweighs the potential harm?
Red-herring.
No, it's more of the same using the same BS, I won't supervise my children so society has to do it for me arguement.See above.
But the same people use the same arguement that children must be protected to push to do exactly that. The arguement is used as an all encompassing umbrella to justify that exact sort of censorship/Standard-issue knee-jerk strawman fallacy. No one is talking about censoring the world. We're talking about shutting down some free, unmoderated chatrooms which are of questionable value and measurable harm.
I'm not responsible for raising your kid. I don't have kids and don't intend to because I don't want the burden. I'm willing to concede that society has an obligation to reasonably protect children. But that doesn't extend to protecting against miniscule threats that could (and should) be dealt with by parents not international corperations and the federal government.PS. Parents should be expected to exert some supervision, but expecting a parent to constantly sit behind his child's back every single minute that he's on a computer is ridiculous and idiotic, particularly when some rather simple and relatively harmless measures could at least make it somewhat more difficult for the kid to get into real trouble. This is precisely what I mean when I talk about people who refuse to lift a finger to help out in a monumental task. How about you try raising a kid sometime before you give me this fucking bullshit about how easy it is?
Bullshit. Every company must address potential negligence issues, and a completely unmoderated chatroom is a serious potential negligence issue. Deal with it.Stormbringer wrote:That's actually an argueable point. The company doesn't have to support them but the threat of lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to force them out of business either.Why not? Are free, unmoderated chatrooms a constitutional right now?
Justify this statement. As usual, you spout a lot of maxims which mean nothing. And how many hours a day do you think this "modicum of good judgement and oversight" requires?The potential harm is miniscule provided a parent exercises a modicum of good judgement and oversight.Why not? Is the loss of these unmoderated chatrooms some huge sacrifice which outweighs the potential harm?
Fuck off, you self-righteous dipshit. You really think it's that fucking easy keeping an eye on your kid's activities? WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT BEFORE YOU SPOUT YOUR IGNORANT BULLSHIT ABOUT HOW FUCKING EASY IT IS?Red-herring.No, it's more of the same using the same BS, I won't supervise my children so society has to do it for me arguement.See above.
Ah, so it's censorship now? Yet again, you resort to your standard-issue strawmen. Or should I say bogeymen?But the same people use the same arguement that children must be protected to push to do exactly that. The arguement is used as an all encompassing umbrella to justify that exact sort of censorship
Again, justify this statement. Children have disappeared and died horribly. You consider this a "miniscule" harm compared to the vast riches that humanity stands to gain from unmoderated free chatrooms; JUSTIFY THAT VALUE STATEMENT.The measurable harm is miniscule compared to the sheer number of people involved and is the result of parents not knowing what their kid is doing. Its going after a secondary cause when the simple problem is parents that don't pay attention.
THEN DON'T FUCKING BULLSHIT ME ABOUT HOW EASY IT IS, ASSHOLE. YOUR IDEA OF A "MODICUM OF OVERSIGHT" WOULD CHAIN ME TO MY KID'S SIDE 24 HOURS A DAY, FUCKWIT.I'm not responsible for raising your kid. I don't have kids and don't intend to because I don't want the burden.
That's easy to say from the safety of your self-absorbed, completely responsibility-free world, isn't it? I suppose the irony of your endless self-righteous lectures about personal responsibility next to your personal desire to live a life free of those responsibilities does not occur to you.I'm willing to concede that society has an obligation to reasonably protect children. But that doesn't extend to protecting against miniscule threats that could (and should) be dealt with by parents not international corperations and the federal government.
Bullshit. Every company must address potential negligence issues, and a completely unmoderated chatroom is a serious potential negligence issue. Deal with it.
Deal with it.Bullshit. Every company must address potential negligence issues, and a completely unmoderated chatroom is a serious potential negligence issue.
To prevent them from going off and meeting with a pedophile? Not a whole lot. My parents always made sure they knew where I was when I was gone as a younger kid. It didn't cosume their life to keep track of me. Supervision doesn't mean hovering over your kids twenty four seven.Justify this statement. As usual, you spout a lot of maxims which mean nothing. And how many hours a day do you think this "modicum of good judgement and oversight" requires?
Parenting isn't easy. Don't like it, don't have kids.Fuck off, you self-righteous dipshit. You really think it's that fucking easy keeping an eye on your kid's activities? WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT BEFORE YOU SPOUT YOUR IGNORANT BULLSHIT ABOUT HOW FUCKING EASY IT IS?
It is censorship to shut down the activities of adults because children might accidentally stumble onto it. It's no different an arguement than the people that want to take R-rated movies off TV. Because the parents won't take the time to keep a reasonable eye on their kids society was not engage in adult activities. It's not a boogeyman theory, it's what is happening now!Ah, so it's censorship now? Yet again, you resort to your standard-issue strawmen. Or should I say bogeymen?
I consider the risk to be quite miniscule compared to the sheer number of people that chat. That kids were able to meet with pedophiles in the first place suggests the parents didn't pay adequate attention to their kids.Again, justify this statement. Children have disappeared and died horribly. You consider this a "miniscule" harm compared to the vast riches that humanity stands to gain from unmoderated free chatrooms; JUSTIFY THAT VALUE STATEMENT.
No, it wouldn't. You can keep an eye on them with out hovering over them like a vulture. That you equate knowing what the hell your kid is doing with 24 hour survillence isn't my problem.THEN DON'T FUCKING BULLSHIT ME ABOUT HOW EASY IT IS, ASSHOLE. YOUR IDEA OF A "MODICUM OF OVERSIGHT" WOULD CHAIN ME TO MY KID'S SIDE 24 HOURS A DAY, FUCKWIT.
Children are a responsibility that parent choses to take on. There's birth control, abortion and even adoption & foster care if a potential parent choses not to become one. Part of the obligation is to keep an eye on your kids. If that's too arduous; too bad. I'm not responsible for your kids. That's just pure bullshit.That's easy to say from the safety of your self-absorbed, completely responsibility-free world, isn't it? I suppose the irony of your endless self-righteous lectures about personal responsibility next to your personal desire to live a life free of those responsibilities does not occur to you.
And when the company makes every conceivable effort to make it as easy as possible to access this medium, as MSN has in this case?BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Bullshit. Every company must address potential negligence issues, and a completely unmoderated chatroom is a serious potential negligence issue. Deal with it.
And why exactly is it a companies responsibility to moniter the content of a communication medium? Children do not have access to this medium unless its provided by an adult, as a result any adult who provides access to this medium is responsible for the consequences.
False analogy. Computers are marketed and sold as family devices, to be used by the whole family. Lawnmowers are not.I mean seriously, would you hold a company responsible if an adult gave a child unrestricted access to a lawnmower and tragety resulted?
Again, totally false analogy.The answer, in my opinion, is to do the same thing that any responsible parent does with any dangerous object they have in a house, whether its a knife, gun, or lawnmower, you tell them that this object is very dangerous and that your forbidding access to them for their own safety.
Are you some kind of fucking idiot? Every kid has to use a computer nowadays; most schools expect them to do so as part of their fucking education, dumb-ass.You could potentially follow it up with a "if they ever "mess around" with it there will be SEVERE consequences", but that might only make them more eager to do so.
Of course you tell them all of that shit! But it's like a schoolyard playground; you can "street-proof" them all you want, but it's no guarantee. A little help would be nice, which is why schools are obligated to have people out there to protect kids from their own gullibility.My expirence growing up was that telling me not to mess with something because it was dangerous was usually good enough for me to leave it alone. An alternative to this is that you allow them access to chatrooms but tell them to NEVER give away personal information such as address and phone number and NEVER meet with anyone from the internet without asking you first (you obviously accompany your kid if you allow it).
And when parents don't do their job well enough, your answer is "fuck 'em and fuck their kids when they get raped and tortured, ha ha ha", right?Again, you would have to tell them that its for their own safety. (Expirence has shown me that children are more willing to listen to your commands if you explain your reasoning to them.)
Prove this statement, asshole. Can you monitor a kid 24/7? Oh yeah, I forgot; you want to live a life without personal responsibility of any kind. You think of responsibility as some abstract concept to be foisted off in unlimited quantities on everyone else in this world, and avoided as much as possible in your OWN lifeStormbringer wrote:Just because some asshole can sue doesn't mean it's right. The greater negligence by far is that of the parent that allows their child to wander off to meet a pedophile.
It doesn't have to, but if you want guarantees, it does. Like so many self-absorbed dipshits, you treat the concept of a kid being kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death as some abstract and meaningless sterile concept to be casually dismissed if the parent "didn't do his job". Short of 24/7 monitoring, you can hope things turn out, but you have no guarantees.To prevent them from going off and meeting with a pedophile? Not a whole lot. My parents always made sure they knew where I was when I was gone as a younger kid. It didn't cosume their life to keep track of me. Supervision doesn't mean hovering over your kids twenty four seven.
Parenting isn't easy, but when assholes like you figure that we might as well make it as hard as possible, it doesn't help. What part of this do you not understand?Parenting isn't easy. Don't like it, don't have kids.Fuck off, you self-righteous dipshit. You really think it's that fucking easy keeping an eye on your kid's activities? WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT BEFORE YOU SPOUT YOUR IGNORANT BULLSHIT ABOUT HOW FUCKING EASY IT IS?
You're an idiot. It is not censorship for a private company to remove a private service. Try reading books sometime instead of making up your own definitions of censorship, dumb-ass.It is censorship to shut down the activities of adults because children might accidentally stumble onto it. It's no different an arguement than the people that want to take R-rated movies off TV. Because the parents won't take the time to keep a reasonable eye on their kids society was not engage in adult activities. It's not a boogeyman theory, it's what is happening now!
Yet again, your self-righteous and ignorant idiocy shows through. From the age of 5, every parent is away from their kid for half the day at a minimum because of school. When their kid starts using a computer, every parent can either sit over his shoulder constantly or hope that somebody will try to make things a bit easier to monitor. It's one thing for a kid to encounter bad information or propaganda or porn on the Internet; that is simply information, and you can explain that to him. But if a kid encounters some fucknut who's a smooth talker and tries to talk him into something, you never know what can happen. So you figure the kid's death is a "miniscule" problem; FUCK YOU.I consider the risk to be quite miniscule compared to the sheer number of people that chat. That kids were able to meet with pedophiles in the first place suggests the parents didn't pay adequate attention to their kids.Again, justify this statement. Children have disappeared and died horribly. You consider this a "miniscule" harm compared to the vast riches that humanity stands to gain from unmoderated free chatrooms; JUSTIFY THAT VALUE STATEMENT.
Try it, oh supremely confident asshole. There are no guarantees unless you do it, and outside of that draconian regime, all you have is hope.No, it wouldn't. You can keep an eye on them with out hovering over them like a vulture. That you equate knowing what the hell your kid is doing with 24 hour survillence isn't my problem.
I didn't say you were responsible for other peoples' kids, asshole. I said you're being a self-absorbed little dipshit for thinking that your access to free, unmoderated chatrooms on MSN is some kind of fucking constitutional right and that parental concerns about their kids being kidnapped and tortured are a "miniscule" price to pay for that gleaming right handed down to you from God.Children are a responsibility that parent choses to take on. There's birth control, abortion and even adoption & foster care if a potential parent choses not to become one. Part of the obligation is to keep an eye on your kids. If that's too arduous; too bad. I'm not responsible for your kids. That's just pure bullshit.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a child can be considered any sort of "miniscule risk." First off, fuck you for suggesting that all parents that have bad things happen to their children weren't paying enough attention. I fucking know better. Second, screw off for saying that pedophilia is the only problem.I consider the risk to be quite miniscule compared to the sheer number of people that chat. That kids were able to meet with pedophiles in the first place suggests the parents didn't pay adequate attention to their kids.
I think this would be a case of it being MSN's fault AS WELL AS the parents' fault. Though, I do know that MSN allows you to make warnings that a room is required to be a certain age level, you can have a bot that checks profiles, etc., etc., but I don't think the resources are available widely enough for everyone to learn and use.Darth Wong wrote:<snip>
They aren't obligated. But neither should the potential lawsuits of negligent parents force them to close down said services. Call it what you will but the parent is not taking responsibility for knowing what their kid is doing and instead blaming MSN.As I said, I'm tired of your self-righteous bullshit. Everything in the world is about you and your personal freedoms. Even some private company is now obligated to provide various services to you because you think they've become a fucking right.
You're making assumptions about what parenting is like, and trust me, it's not fucking easy, and that's a fucking understatement. I know because I did it for my parents for a few years because they were negligent.Stormbringer wrote:As for your attacks on me? What responsibility do I have to raise your kids or any one elses? You talk about me avoiding responsibility so much; I'd like to know what responsibility I supposedely have for some one elses kids?
More of your black/white fallacies. Does it even occur to you that it's possible, however unlikely, for a parent to do things right and still have something go wrong? This is exactly like your moronic assertion (in the Social Security thread) that public safety nets should be abolished because nobody will ever go on welfare if they exercise a "modicum of judgement".Stormbringer wrote:They aren't obligated. But neither should the potential lawsuits of negligent parents force them to close down said services. Call it what you will but the parent is not taking responsibility for knowing what their kid is doing and instead blaming MSN.As I said, I'm tired of your self-righteous bullshit. Everything in the world is about you and your personal freedoms. Even some private company is now obligated to provide various services to you because you think they've become a fucking right.
Every point. But that does not mean it's OK for others to deliberately make things HARDER for the parents, dumb-ass. You treat "responsibility" as some kind of abstract concept to be completely foisted off on others, with no dirty residue remaining on yourself.At what point does the parent bear responsibility, Mike?
No, but that does not mean their hands are completely washed of it, as you seem to think with your idiotic black/white fallacies and unbelievably callous dismissal of kids' deaths as a "miniscule" problem.You talk about closing down chatrooms to avoid a tiny handleful of child molestation cases. Is MSN really more culpable than the kid's own parent in that case?p
More of your moronic black/white fallacies.Right now you're placing the responsibility not on the parent but an international corperation.
You have a responsibility as a human being not to be a prick and casually dismiss the deaths and rapes of children as a "miniscule" problem.As for your attacks on me? What responsibility do I have to raise your kids or any one elses?
You have a certain level of societal responsibility for every other human being in your vicinity, asshole. That's why "Good Samaritan" laws exist.You talk about me avoiding responsibility so much; I'd like to know what responsibility I supposedely have for some one elses kids?
I don't think it's particularly easy. But neither do I think it's impossible for parents to know where there kids are. Nor is it impossible for them to simply set parental controls so they can't use the chat rooms. For them not to do either is simply laziness and parents can do better.You're making assumptions about what parenting is like, and trust me, it's not fucking easy, and that's a fucking understatement. I know because I did it for my parents for a few years because they were negligent.
But they can do better than simply loosing track of their kid. So much so that the kid can go, meet a pedophile and get raped. A parent can certainly set parent controls or control when a kid goes online. Both can and should be done.You can't just shunt absolutely every bit of responsibility onto the parents, either, Stormy. You have to know that being a parent is more than you think it is. No one's saying you're taking responsibility for someone else's kids, but you are trying to say that parents don't do a good job all around, when in fact, some parents that could be considered negligent CAN'T DO ANY BETTER.
I don't have first hand knowledge. But I know my parent were able to know where I was with out sacrificing their lives to twenty four seven monitoring that some people would have us believe is the only option. My parents limited the internet acess of my siblings as and I by simple use of parental controls.You talk so much about parents and their responsibility to their kids, yet you don't show any real knowledge of it whatsoever.