MSN Closes Chatrooms

[haas mark]

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.

I don't think it's particularly easy. But neither do I think it's impossible for parents to know where there kids are.

How the fuck can you even THINK that!?!?!?

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.

What the fuck? You can set these parental controls, yes, but at which point are you going to stop being blind? You can't make everything happen, or are you that fucking stupid?

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.

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.

You have a point here, but you can't assume that the parent WILL know where there child is 24/7 EVEN IF THEY TRIED. Fucknut.

A parent can certainly set parent controls or control when a kid goes online. Both can and should be done.

But a parent CAN'T set parental controls for where the kid goes in the real world.

I'm wondering where the line drawn on parental responsibility. Because I fail to see how MSN bears more responsibility than the parent in this situation.

You talk so much about parents and their responsibility to their kids, yet you don't show any real knowledge of it whatsoever.

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.

Care to back that up?

My parents limited the internet acess of my siblings as and I by simple use of parental controls.

So? How does that affect real life situations (which, by the way, happen to be a lot worse than online ones). You see, they don't *have* to talk to someone online in order to get raped, which is what you seem to be saying.

The fact is that in this case the parent should be the major share of responsiblity. Not the multinational corperation.

Point out where I'm saying that MSN is more at fault... I think that the parents are more at fault, but not by much.

~ver

[Darth Wong]

I don't really see the point in closing down all chat rooms. Why not just put in parental controls that restrict kids' access to unmoderated chats?

That would work too, but then again, adding moderators and making people pay for it accomplishes the same purpose, and solves the financial issues as well. Seems like a fine solution to me, unless you think that free, unmoderated chatrooms are a constitutional right like Stormie here.

[haas mark]

I don't really see the point in closing down all chat rooms. Why not just put in parental controls that restrict kids' access to unmoderated chats?

That would work too, but then again, adding moderators and making people pay for it accomplishes the same purpose, and solves the financial issues as well. Seems like a fine solution to me, unless you think that free, unmoderated chatrooms are a constitutional right like Stormie here.

The only - and I do mean only - way that I could see it as a constitutional thing would be freedom of speech. Highly skewed, methinks, but still..

~ver

[Darth Wong]

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.

Hasty generalization fallacy. Grow up.

My parents limited the internet acess of my siblings as and I by simple use of parental controls.

Then you didn't try hard enough to circumvent them. If they both have jobs and you spend at least 7 hours a day at school and away from them, you have to be either obedient or stupid not to be able to do things they're unaware of.

The fact is that in this case the parent should be the major share of responsiblity. Not the multinational corperation.

When the multi-national corporation has done everything in its power to make it as easy as possible for kids to access this service, their share of the responsibility increases proportionately. And even a small portion of the responsibility FOR A CHILD BEING RAPED, TORTURED, AND MURDERED is more than enough justification to close down a useless money-losing venture like free unmoderated chatrooms, dumb-ass. What part of this do you not understand?

[Stormbringer]

How the fuck can you even THINK that!?!?!?

Because it's true. If you let kids wander of who the hell know's where you aren't paying that much attention. If I ever left the house my parents wanted to know where I was going and with who. It's not that difficult to do.

What the fuck? You can set these parental controls, yes, but at which point are you going to stop being blind? You can't make everything happen, or are you that fucking stupid?

How are the kids going to access these supposedly horrid chatrooms if they're barred completely? The threat is miniscule to begin with and stems mostly from parents not paying attention.

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.

You have a point here, but you can't assume that the parent WILL know where there child is 24/7 EVEN IF THEY TRIED. Fucknut.

A parent doesn't have to know exactly where a kid is 24-7; that's a ridiculous distortion of the problem. They can keep track of them when they leave the house or backyard. That's not impossible to do and would shut down the pedophile problem easily.

But a parent CAN'T set parental controls for where the kid goes in the real world.

And that's why a parent has to supervise their kids to a reasonable degree.

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.

Care to back that up?

Entirely possible to have the kid safely at home or at a reliable babysitters with out the person hovering like a vulture. It's a simple matter of knowing where the kid is going if they leave home and a little checking up to see that they do. That's not impossible and like I said, it shut the supposed child molester threat down cold.

So? How does that affect real life situations (which, by the way, happen to be a lot worse than online ones). You see, they don't *have* to talk to someone online in order to get raped, which is what you seem to be saying.

It doesn't. But real life has no real bearing on whether chatrooms ought to be allowed or not. The other situations require some parental vilgilance. But then again so does making sure your kid doesn't play in traffic.

Point out where I'm saying that MSN is more at fault... I think that the parents are more at fault, but not by much.

How so? Most ISPs have a level of parent controls which allow them to block such features for children. If a parent choses not to use them then I think the parent is entirely at fault for that.

[haas mark]

How the fuck can you even THINK that!?!?!?

Because it's true. If you let kids wander of who the hell know's where you aren't paying that much attention. If I ever left the house my parents wanted to know where I was going and with who. It's not that difficult to do.

So parents are telepathic now. This is news.

What the fuck? You can set these parental controls, yes, but at which point are you going to stop being blind? You can't make everything happen, or are you that fucking stupid?

How are the kids going to access these supposedly horrid chatrooms if they're barred completely? The threat is miniscule to begin with and stems mostly from parents not paying attention.

How does a child's well being amount to minuteness?

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.

You have a point here, but you can't assume that the parent WILL know where there child is 24/7 EVEN IF THEY TRIED. Fucknut.

A parent doesn't have to know exactly where a kid is 24-7; that's a ridiculous distortion of the problem.

Yes they do. You said so yourself several times.

They can keep track of them when they leave the house or backyard. That's not impossible to do and would shut down the pedophile problem easily.

Sheltered children are why we have the problems we have today, anyways. It wouldn't do society any good to do so.

But a parent CAN'T set parental controls for where the kid goes in the real world.

And that's why a parent has to supervise their kids to a reasonable degree.

Then stop saying that a reasonable degree is such a high fucking standard that it's fucking unattainable!

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.

Care to back that up?

Entirely possible to have the kid safely at home or at a reliable babysitters with out the person hovering like a vulture.

Babysitters can be bad, too.

It's a simple matter of knowing where the kid is going if they leave home and a little checking up to see that they do.

Again, you would have to be telepathic to know. Between places, something could happen. Details are an important thing.

That's not impossible and like I said, it shut the supposed child molester threat down cold.

SHow stats.

So? How does that affect real life situations (which, by the way, happen to be a lot worse than online ones). You see, they don't *have* to talk to someone online in order to get raped, which is what you seem to be saying.

It doesn't. But real life has no real bearing on whether chatrooms ought to be allowed or not.

Chatrooms lead to real life situations, or did we forget that somewhere?

The other situations require some parental vilgilance. But then again so does making sure your kid doesn't play in traffic.

Parental experience leads to parental knowledge, which you are in serious lack of.

Point out where I'm saying that MSN is more at fault... I think that the parents are more at fault, but not by much.

How so? Most ISPs have a level of parent controls which allow them to block such features for children.

MSN's fault for allopwing kids to be able to use their services indirectly. Duh. Parents for allowing them to use MSN's services DIRECTLY. Duh.

If a parent choses not to use them then I think the parent is entirely at fault for that.

MSN is on the Internet. I think that it explains it enough.

~ver

[Stormbringer]

Hasty generalization fallacy. Grow up.

How is it a hasty generalization to show that it is possible?

Then you didn't try hard enough to circumvent them. If they both have jobs and you spend at least 7 hours a day at school and away from them, you have to be either obedient or stupid not to be able to do things they're unaware of.

Actually, simply disabling the chat rooms of a service is a pretty much impossible to circumvent.


As for school, that's the responsibility of the schools. The school district I went to had a pretty ironclad method of blocking out chatrooms and such. And they also required parents to allow their kid to use the school computer by a sign up sheet you had to return.

When the multi-national corporation has done everything in its power to make it as easy as possible for kids to access this service, their share of the responsibility increases proportionately. And even a small portion of the responsibility FOR A CHILD BEING RAPED, TORTURED, AND MURDERED is more than enough justification to close down a useless money-losing venture like free unmoderated chatrooms, dumb-ass. What part of this do you not understand?

I guess we disagree on who is to blame then. Most companies make it pretty easy for parents to control what the kid is allowed to do online. For those kids whose parents don't take advantage of it, then yes it is wide open. But that's not the parents fault.

And if the company is legally obligated for a tiny part in it happening why aren't the parent arrested and held legally obligated? They by far bear more of the responsibility. Yet in most cases they are not legally censured or punished.

[Stormbringer]

So parents are telepathic now. This is news.

That's a bullshit distortion. It's entirely possible for parent to keep track of their kids without superpowers.

How does a child's well being amount to minuteness?

The harm to a child is not minute so stop deliberately misreading me. The threat to any given child's well being endangered by a chatroom predator is around that of swimmer getting eaten by a shark. The threat simply does not justify the action taken. Especially in light of the fact that such a threat can easily be reduced to practically nothing by some simple parenting.

Yes they do. You said so yourself several times.

No, parent can know the child is at home and that's entirely sufficient for them to be safe from the big bad chat room wolf. It doesn't have to be the 24-7 big brother effort that you make it out to be.

Sheltered children are why we have the problems we have today, anyways. It wouldn't do society any good to do so.

If you don't want reasonable protect children then bad things will always happen. It's not going to mentally damage a kid to have a parent drop them off at a friends house or insist they check in when they get there if they go alone.

Besides, your plan would have them far more sheltered than good parenting ever would.

Then stop saying that a reasonable degree is such a high fucking standard that it's fucking unattainable!

Reasonable does not mean Big Brother-esque surveillance so stop pretending it does.

Babysitters can be bad, too.

Well, gee fucking golly. So can parents! That's doesn't mean that every babysitter is. Nor that it's impossible to find said good babysitters. You're grasping at straws.

Again, you would have to be telepathic to know. Between places, something could happen. Details are an important thing.

Risk can not entirely be eliminated no matter what the circumstances. Give the kid a ride to a friends house if they're young. And just trust them at some point to be able to go to a friends house or whatever.

SHow stats.

Kids get snatched out a homes by random wackos. There's no degree of absolute safety.

But how am I supposed to find stats for the millions of kids that weren't snatched because they were home. Last I recall there was no way to find statistics for what ifs.

Chatrooms lead to real life situations, or did we forget that
somewhere?

Yes, they do. But your arguement that these situations can occurr anyway has no bearing at all on that subject.

You see, they don't *have* to talk to someone online in order to get raped, which is what you seem to be saying.

Parental experience leads to parental knowledge, which you are in serious lack of.

So what?

MSN's fault for allopwing kids to be able to use their services indirectly. Duh. Parents for allowing them to use MSN's services DIRECTLY. Duh.

And why is it MSN's fault that parents don't take care of their kids? They assume that some one given adult status is in fact an adult. Are they supposed to send some one to set up the account for you? Maybe take IDs while they're at it to be sure?

MSN is on the Internet. I think that it explains it enough.

Um, duh?

[Xon]

False analogy. Computers are marketed and sold as family devices, to be used by the whole family. Lawnmowers are not.

I must have missed the flyer or ad. Cos I've never seen computer advertised as family devices.

Gaming, work, 'home' use, Yes. But not a family computer.

And I think there is a fair difference in that distinction.

If someone can show me otherwise, I'll gladly retract that statement.

[Alnilam]

I believe Micro$soft just did this for money.Why they cannot put moderators in the forums?.It would be a much better solution instead of closing the chats.It seems the next victim will be Hotmail.No doubt,soon they'll make it a payment service.Very typical of them.
And there's more:since the next October 15th,people of those companies that aren't Micro$oft,will have forbidden the use of their protocol and net unless,of course,you pay a fee to'em.This mean you'll HAVE to use Messenger and not other programs,including -of course- Linux systems where fortunately there's no Messenger.
This will also affect to those that,even using Windows,use other programs better than the Micro$oft crap -no doubt- filled with security holes.

[haas mark]

So parents are telepathic now. This is news.

That's a bullshit distortion. It's entirely possible for parent to keep track of their kids without superpowers.

No, it's not. At least, not all the time, as you presume that parents should be able to.

How does a child's well being amount to minuteness?

The harm to a child is not minute so stop deliberately misreading me. The threat to any given child's well being endangered by a chatroom predator is around that of swimmer getting eaten by a shark. The threat simply does not justify the action taken. Especially in light of the fact that such a threat can easily be reduced to practically nothing by some simple parenting.

Maybe not to the fullest extent of the action, no, but the fact that it is a real threat lessens the severity of it none.

Yes they do. You said so yourself several times.

No, parent can know the child is at home and that's entirely sufficient for them to be safe from the big bad chat room wolf. It doesn't have to be the 24-7 big brother effort that you make it out to be.

I'm making it out to be that!?

Sheltered children are why we have the problems we have today, anyways. It wouldn't do society any good to do so.

If you don't want reasonable protect children then bad things will always happen. It's not going to mentally damage a kid to have a parent drop them off at a friends house or insist they check in when they get there if they go alone.

Besides, your plan would have them far more sheltered than good parenting ever would.

What plan?

Then stop saying that a reasonable degree is such a high fucking standard that it's fucking unattainable!

Reasonable does not mean Big Brother-esque surveillance so stop pretending it does.

Then stop portraying yourself as wanting that.

Babysitters can be bad, too.

Well, gee fucking golly. So can parents! That's doesn't mean that every babysitter is. Nor that it's impossible to find said good babysitters. You're grasping at straws.

And you're not? You seem to think that because some parents are negligent, all parents are, and it's all the parents' faults that the kids get into the trouble they do, and not at all in part the corporation's. Stupidass.

Again, you would have to be telepathic to know. Between places, something could happen. Details are an important thing.

Risk can not entirely be eliminated no matter what the circumstances. Give the kid a ride to a friends house if they're young. And just trust them at some point to be able to go to a friends house or whatever.

At what point would you find it acceptable to trust them, O Almighty Father?

SHow stats.

Kids get snatched out a homes by random wackos. There's no degree of absolute safety.

But how am I supposed to find stats for the millions of kids that weren't snatched because they were home. Last I recall there was no way to find statistics for what ifs.

Not my fault you stated something as fact. Back up or shut up.

Chatrooms lead to real life situations, or did we forget that
somewhere?

Yes, they do. But your arguement that these situations can occurr anyway has no bearing at all on that subject.

Point rescinded.

Parental experience leads to parental knowledge, which you are in serious lack of.

So what?

So stop acting like you know best when you don't.

MSN's fault for allopwing kids to be able to use their services indirectly. Duh. Parents for allowing them to use MSN's services DIRECTLY. Duh.

And why is it MSN's fault that parents don't take care of their kids?

Does the word indirectly mean absolutely fucking nothing to you?

They assume that some one given adult status is in fact an adult. Are they supposed to send some one to set up the account for you? Maybe take IDs while they're at it to be sure?

It kind of takes a credit card to be able to set up an account through an ISP, generally.. or at least a checking account.. which usually requires being at least 18 in a lot of places..

MSN is on the Internet. I think that it explains it enough.

Um, duh?

-_-"

~ver

[haas mark]

I believe Micro$soft just did this for money.Why they cannot put moderators in the forums?.It would be a much better solution instead of closing the chats.

Actually, when in an MSN chatroom, there ARE moderators. Same in MSN Groups.

~ver

[Stormbringer]

No, it's not. At least, not all the time, as you presume that parents should be able to.

When you assume that keep track of equates to big brother-esque surviellance then yes. But that's not necessary to protect a child nor it is healthy.

Maybe not to the fullest extent of the action, no, but the fact that it is a real threat lessens the severity of it none.

It's a real threat, so are shark attacks, lightening strikes and meteorites striking us dead. But the fact is the threat itself is not sufficient justification to close down chatrooms and other unmoderated bodies because of the threat. There are other, more effective ways of dealing with the threat.

I'm making it out to be that!?

Since you seem to be insisting that looking after a kid equates to 24-7 monitoring, yes.

What plan?

Since it seems you would argue that society must close down anything which presents even the tiniest threat to a child. Even when there are other methods availible.

Then stop portraying yourself as wanting that.

I'm not. You are. I'm saying know where you kid is in general. Not room by room monitoring.

And you're not? You seem to think that because some parents are negligent, all parents are, and it's all the parents' faults that the kids get into the trouble they do, and not at all in part the corporation's. Stupidass.

Actually, my point is that good parents don't have problems with their kid sneaking off to meet with child molesters. I know there are plenty of good parents out there and I wish there were more.

At what point would you find it acceptable to trust them, O Almighty Father?

Depends on the kid and on what it is they're being asked to be trusted with. There's no rule book.

Not my fault you stated something as fact. Back up or shut up.

I'm saying that good parenting protects kids. And you ask me to back it up with statistics that don't exist to disprove your what if.

Point rescinded.

Thank you for that much.

So stop acting like you know best when you don't.

It doesn't take some one who has raised a herd of kids to know that responsible parenting is possible and that it will protect kids.

Does the word indirectly mean absolutely fucking nothing to you?

It does. What I want to know is why is the indirect cause being addressed and harped on so much more than the causes far more directly associated with the problem.

It kind of takes a credit card to be able to set up an account through an ISP, generally.. or at least a checking account.. which usually requires being at least 18 in a lot of places..

Uh huh. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The fact that parents can and do let kids on with unfettered access is one of the problems. The ISP assumes that some one given adult level access is an adult. Why is it that they must verify it?

[haas mark]

No, it's not. At least, not all the time, as you presume that parents should be able to.

When you assume that keep track of equates to big brother-esque surviellance then yes. But that's not necessary to protect a child nor it is healthy.

It's not what I'm equating it to, but what you are saying it should be.

Maybe not to the fullest extent of the action, no, but the fact that it is a real threat lessens the severity of it none.

It's a real threat, so are shark attacks, lightening strikes and meteorites striking us dead. But the fact is the threat itself is not sufficient justification to close down chatrooms and other unmoderated bodies because of the threat. There are other, more effective ways of dealing with the threat.

True. But it is still partly MSN's fault. Something needed to be done. At least MSN, unlike Yahoo or AOL, is actually TRYING to take steps to prevent this visibly.

What plan?

Since it seems you would argue that society must close down anything which presents even the tiniest threat to a child. Even when there are other methods availible.

I never said that. In fact, I never even SUGGESTED that.

Then stop portraying yourself as wanting that.

I'm not. You are. I'm saying know where you kid is in general. Not room by room monitoring.

Misconstruation on my part. Point rescinded.

And you're not? You seem to think that because some parents are negligent, all parents are, and it's all the parents' faults that the kids get into the trouble they do, and not at all in part the corporation's. Stupidass.

Actually, my point is that good parents don't have problems with their kid sneaking off to meet with child molesters. I know there are plenty of good parents out there and I wish there were more.

So if a kid willingly does something that makes the parents automatically at fault? Not always. Think about it.

At what point would you find it acceptable to trust them, O Almighty Father?

Depends on the kid and on what it is they're being asked to be trusted with. There's no rule book.

No shit Sherlock. You just make it seem like there must be a certain point at which you can trust all kids, which isn't the case.

Not my fault you stated something as fact. Back up or shut up.

I'm saying that good parenting protects kids. And you ask me to back it up with statistics that don't exist to disprove your what if.

I think you forgot what the point was:

That's not impossible and like I said, it shut the supposed child molester threat down cold.

Point rescinded.

Thank you for that much.

Don't get cocky.

So stop acting like you know best when you don't.

It doesn't take some one who has raised a herd of kids to know that responsible parenting is possible and that it will protect kids.

It does, however, take someone who has raised kids to know how to fucking raise them.

Does the word indirectly mean absolutely fucking nothing to you?

It does. What I want to know is why is the indirect cause being addressed and harped on so much more than the causes far more directly associated with the problem.

Indirect or not, it is their fault. That is why. And it's no fault of mine that you refuse to see that.

It kind of takes a credit card to be able to set up an account through an ISP, generally.. or at least a checking account.. which usually requires being at least 18 in a lot of places..

Uh huh. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Your "point" on the IDs and sending someone out to set up accounts. DUH.

The fact that parents can and do let kids on with unfettered access is one of the problems. The ISP assumes that some one given adult level access is an adult. Why is it that they must verify it?

Because a corporation is responsible for its consumers..?

~ver

[Stormbringer]

It's not what I'm equating it to, but what you are saying it should be.

You're the one putting words in my mouth. I didn't advocate that level of it and you know it. At least I think so.

True. But it is still partly MSN's fault. Something needed to be done. At least MSN, unlike Yahoo or AOL, is actually TRYING to take steps to prevent this visibly.

True. But it doesn't change the fact that it's like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. It's overkill and it's not necessary. Or wouldn't if parents were more responsible. They have tools to prevent that already, parents just aren't using them.

I never said that. In fact, I never even SUGGESTED that.

It's what you're advocating when you say that the insigificant threat posed by unmoderated chat rooms justifies forcing companies to close them down.

Misconstruation on my part. Point rescinded.

Then why do you keep saying I'm demanding that it be the big brother surviellance?

So if a kid willingly does something that makes the parents automatically at fault? Not always. Think about it.

Good parenting will prevent from breaking the rules to their detriment. I know kids will try to sneak around the rules but a good system makes that difficult and will prevent them from having the oppurtunity to

No shit Sherlock. You just make it seem like there must be a certain point at which you can trust all kids, which isn't the case.

You aren't even bothering to read what I say are you?

I never said all kids can be trusted; in fact my point was that at a young age they can't be trust to do the smart thing. But at some point though they do have to be trusted.

I think you forgot what the point was:

That's not impossible and like I said, it shut the supposed child molester threat down cold.

Keeping track your kids will prevent them from going and meeting chat room predators. You then asked me to provide statistics on how many kids were not molested because of good parenting. I can't prove how many kids were saved from being molested by good parenting because it's impossible! There's no possible way to know what you're asking.

Don't get cocky.

Did ya miss the scarcasm?

It does, however, take someone who has raised kids to know how to fucking raise them.

No, it doesn't. By that measure every first time parent isn't capable of raising children.

Indirect or not, it is their fault. That is why. And it's no fault of mine that you refuse to see that.

Why is it more their fault than the parents, the perverts, or law enforcements? You're saying that's a minor, indirect cause of it is more culpable than those directly involved. That's bullshit.

Your "point" on the IDs and sending someone out to set up accounts. DUH.

That doesn't address it at all. All it means is that one user/account is an adult. It doesn't mean that kids don't use it too.

Because a corporation is responsible for its consumers..?

Yes, it is to a degree. But the there's a huge difference between a party directly responsible and a corporation indirectly involved. You don't sue Ford because a drunk driver killed a family in a crash.

[Durandal]

I don't really see the point in closing down all chat rooms. Why not just put in parental controls that restrict kids' access to unmoderated chats?

That would work too, but then again, adding moderators and making people pay for it accomplishes the same purpose, and solves the financial issues as well. Seems like a fine solution to me, unless you think that free, unmoderated chatrooms are a constitutional right like Stormie here.

Adding moderators costs money, as well. It is, however, Microsoft's business as to what they want to do with their service. They could easily place more limits on their chats though. The main cost with chat rooms is the bandwidth costs, so just limit the number of rooms that can be open at one time, limit the number of people who can join and then provide tight, enabled-by-default parental controls with the client software.

I think a better solution would be an idiot-proof setup screen. Whenever creating a new account, the software asks how old the person whom the account is for is. It then sets parental controls by default and informs the parent of the account's limitations. If the parents want to remove those limitations, they can. But otherwise, such a system should be more than enough to absolve Microsoft of any responsibility and create a safe environment by default (something that Microsoft is averse to, admittedly).

Now, it is Microsoft's decision to offer what services they will. I personally think that they caved into pressure from parenting groups who really didn't understand that there are alternatives aside from "destroy anything which maybe might possibly threaten our children." Either that or they found out that unmoderated chats were too costly and used "we're protecting the children" as an excuse to close them down. In the end, yes those groups mean well, but the solution is extreme. There are people who use those chats for recreation and legitimate purposes, so why should they have a previously free service taken away from them on a whim, with seemingly no ground for compromise?

[haas mark]

True. But it is still partly MSN's fault. Something needed to be done. At least MSN, unlike Yahoo or AOL, is actually TRYING to take steps to prevent this visibly.

True. But it doesn't change the fact that it's like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. It's overkill and it's not necessary. Or wouldn't if parents were more responsible. They have tools to prevent that already, parents just aren't using them.

You. Are. Saying. That. Parents. Aren't. Responsible. Period. Which is vastly wrong. You can't say it's all the parents' fault. It's not.

I never said that. In fact, I never even SUGGESTED that.

It's what you're advocating when you say that the insigificant threat posed by unmoderated chat rooms justifies forcing companies to close them down.

You seem to think that I said that MSN needed to do what it's doing... which I didn't. Nor do I advocate it. I think it's stupid. But at least they are taking steps. Who's to say they won't have some sort of enforcement later on?

Misconstruation on my part. Point rescinded.

Then why do you keep saying I'm demanding that it be the big brother surviellance?

Do *not* go ex post facto on me..

So if a kid willingly does something that makes the parents automatically at fault? Not always. Think about it.

Good parenting will prevent from breaking the rules to their detriment. I know kids will try to sneak around the rules but a good system makes that difficult and will prevent them from having the oppurtunity to

Stop trying to break this into an arguement over parenting skills, when you have none!

No shit Sherlock. You just make it seem like there must be a certain point at which you can trust all kids, which isn't the case.

You aren't even bothering to read what I say are you?

I never said all kids can be trusted; in fact my point was that at a young age they can't be trust to do the smart thing. But at some point though they do have to be trusted.

If YOU would read what *I* wrote, then you would understand that I'm conceding that you AREN'T saying what you think I'm saying you're saying... -_-"

I think you forgot what the point was:

That's not impossible and like I said, it shut the supposed child molester threat down cold.

Keeping track your kids will prevent them from going and meeting chat room predators. You then asked me to provide statistics on how many kids were not molested because of good parenting.

I asked you to provide stats on the above quote.

I can't prove how many kids were saved from being molested by good parenting because it's impossible! There's no possible way to know what you're asking.

<-- really needs to learn good sleeping habits. Anyways, you CAN show if you can find how much it has been REDUCED and what styles and forms of prevention have been put in place. Unless there have been no studies, which could be the case, in which case, the point is dropped.

It does, however, take someone who has raised kids to know how to fucking raise them.

No, it doesn't. By that measure every first time parent isn't capable of raising children.

I said to know how. Not to be capable of.

Indirect or not, it is their fault. That is why. And it's no fault of mine that you refuse to see that.

Why is it more their fault than the parents, the perverts, or law enforcements? You're saying that's a minor, indirect cause of it is more culpable than those directly involved. That's bullshit.

I see you forgot that I said the parents are more at fault..

Because a corporation is responsible for its consumers..?

Yes, it is to a degree. But the there's a huge difference between a party directly responsible and a corporation indirectly involved. You don't sue Ford because a drunk driver killed a family in a crash.

No shit. That's not what I was saying. You continue to refuse to see that because MSN is indirectly involved, it is partially their fault by allowing what they have allowed.

~ver

[Stormbringer]

You. Are. Saying. That. Parents. Aren't. Responsible. Period. Which is vastly wrong. You can't say it's all the parents' fault. It's not.

I am saying that a parent that doesn't pay sufficient attention to their kid so that the child is able to meet with a pedophile isn't being particularly responsible.

It's not all the parents fault. In fact it's mostly the pedophiles fault in the first place.

You seem to think that I said that MSN needed to do what it's doing... which I didn't. Nor do I advocate it. I think it's stupid. But at least they are taking steps. Who's to say they won't have some sort of enforcement later on?

Well, they're gone now. It's too late now for enforcement.

Do *not* go ex post facto on me..

Then don't put words into my mouth.

Stop trying to break this into an arguement over parenting skills, when you have none!

This isn't about parenting skils. It's about whether it's whether a parent or a corporation is more responsible for the well being of a child. You keep insisting that it's impossible for a parent to raise a child safely and responsibly and that it then devolves onto other to do so. I know for a fact that it is possible, my parents and millions upon millions of other did so.

If YOU would read what *I* wrote, then you would understand that I'm conceding that you AREN'T saying what you think I'm saying you're saying... -_-"

So in other words your interpertation of what I said counts for more than what I've said or meant to say? That's bullshit.

I asked you to provide stats on the above quote.

Stats which don't exist because of the impossibility of garnering them. You're asking for proof of an event that didn't happen. It's flat out fucking impossible.

You're asking for proof of a negative.

<-- really needs to learn good sleeping habits. Anyways, you CAN show if you can find how much it has been REDUCED and what styles and forms of prevention have been put in place. Unless there have been no studies, which could be the case, in which case, the point is dropped.

Again, you're asking for proof of that an event did not take place! There's no way of knowing how many children would have been harmed had their parents been bad ones. You're asking for an impossible proof.

I said to know how. Not to be capable of.

Your whole arguement is semantics. By your measure, no parent that has not raised children knows how to. Then by your own statement first time parents don't know how to raise children.

I see you forgot that I said the parents are more at fault..

Yes, but they are not punished for actions they didn't take. Yet the corporation is in the form of lawsuits. The truth of the matter is in the action, not the telling.

No shit. That's not what I was saying. You continue to refuse to see that because MSN is indirectly involved, it is partially their fault by allowing what they have allowed.

That is the precise situation you are advocating. Because some one misused to the product the company ought to be blamed for providing the product.

[haas mark]

You. Are. Saying. That. Parents. Aren't. Responsible. Period. Which is vastly wrong. You can't say it's all the parents' fault. It's not.

I am saying that a parent that doesn't pay sufficient attention to their kid so that the child is able to meet with a pedophile isn't being particularly responsible.

It's not all the parents fault. In fact it's mostly the pedophiles fault in the first place.

Are you going to say that it is in a minor way MSN's fault or not?

You seem to think that I said that MSN needed to do what it's doing... which I didn't. Nor do I advocate it. I think it's stupid. But at least they are taking steps. Who's to say they won't have some sort of enforcement later on?

Well, they're gone now. It's too late now for enforcement.

Point. But you failed to answer the question.

Stop trying to break this into an arguement over parenting skills, when you have none!

This isn't about parenting skils. It's about whether it's whether a parent or a corporation is more responsible for the well being of a child. You keep insisting that it's impossible for a parent to raise a child safely and responsibly and that it then devolves onto other to do so. I know for a fact that it is possible, my parents and millions upon millions of other did so.

Ladies and gentlemen, apparently parental responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with parental skill! And besides, I'm not saying that it's impossible. You are, by saying that by not knowing where one's children are *all the time* is irresponsible.

If YOU would read what *I* wrote, then you would understand that I'm conceding that you AREN'T saying what you think I'm saying you're saying... -_-"

So in other words your interpertation of what I said counts for more than what I've said or meant to say? That's bullshit.

YOU MISSED THE POINT. see that word "conceding"? Yeah. Take a good look at it. Then get the fuck off my back.

I asked you to provide stats on the above quote.

Stats which don't exist because of the impossibility of garnering them. You're asking for proof of an event that didn't happen. It's flat out fucking impossible.

You're asking for proof of a negative.

Proof of a declination != proof of a negative.

<-- really needs to learn good sleeping habits. Anyways, you CAN show if you can find how much it has been REDUCED and what styles and forms of prevention have been put in place. Unless there have been no studies, which could be the case, in which case, the point is dropped.

Again, you're asking for proof of that an event did not take place! There's no way of knowing how many children would have been harmed had their parents been bad ones. You're asking for an impossible proof.

I'm asking for proof in declination of events, or some such. You are the one misinterpreting it.

I said to know how. Not to be capable of.

Your whole arguement is semantics. By your measure, no parent that has not raised children knows how to.

A first time parent generally doesn't. That doesn't mean they're not capable of doing it.

I see you forgot that I said the parents are more at fault..

Yes, but they are not punished for actions they didn't take. Yet the corporation is in the form of lawsuits. The truth of the matter is in the action, not the telling.

A simple "oops" would have sufficed.. I said that the parents were more at fault and you continue to attack me. Fuck off.

No shit. That's not what I was saying. You continue to refuse to see that because MSN is indirectly involved, it is partially their fault by allowing what they have allowed.

That is the precise situation you are advocating. Because some one misused to the product the company ought to be blamed for providing the product.

The Internet, as a means of communication, is far more reaching than anything tangible. It's lile intellectual property, in the sense that it is there, but it isn't visible or tangible. The only reason it BECOMES tangible is because services like these are provided. Now, as far as I can see, you are advocating the shutdown of the chatrooms, because it provides safety from the pedophiles. But I also see that you don't advocate it for the purpose of communication.

As far as I can tell, you haven't thought out that the parents cannot control their kids to the extent that you think they can. You also think that kids are always responsible, which they are not. Now I'm not putting words in your mouth - I never was; I'm being very careful about that - but you seem to think that it was not MSN's fault at all, but you're all haughty since they're shutting them down, anyhow.

Technically, anything that goes wrong is indeed the provider's fault for providing the service, even if it is indirect. Unfortunately, Stormy, you fail to realize that although parental blocks can be put on one computer and one service, all one needs to get into an MSN chatroom is a NET passport and an Internet connection. It's not necessary that the kid be at home.

~ver

[Sharp-kun]

The simple fact is that its not Microsofts responsibility. The service carries adequate warnings.

If parents would teach their kids common sense, then it would eliminate almost all of these problems.

[Darth Wong]

The simple fact is that its not Microsofts responsibility. The service carries adequate warnings.

If parents would teach their kids common sense, then it would eliminate almost all of these problems.

It's easy to spout doctrines, but harder to reconcile realities with them. Anyone can say "this would never happen if ..."

However, it does happen, and the result is tragedy. For some reason, people who are utterly devoid of empathy or morality seem perfectly content to declare that the blame lies with the parents (since they live in a fantasy world where it's impossible for a kid to ever do anything without their parents knowing about it unless the parents are incompetent), wash their hands of the whole thing, and then declare that they need not feel the slightest sense of concern or obligation as a result.

[Nova Andromeda]

For some reason, people who are utterly devoid of empathy or morality seem perfectly content to declare that the blame lies with the parents (since they live in a fantasy world where it's impossible for a kid to ever do anything without their parents knowing about it unless the parents are incompetent), wash their hands of the whole thing, and then declare that they need not feel the slightest sense of concern or obligation as a result.

--This idea that people should necessarilly feel empathy, concern, or obligation for another is rather perplexing. Sounds a stuck up rich kid bitching that nobody loves him. What a person feels is their own business. It is their actions that actually count.
-Anyhow, since it is the parents who decide to bring children into this world (regardless of society's position on the matter) the parents are ultimately responsible for their children. This doesn't mean that society in general isn't obliged to ensure their proper upbringing. However, it does mean that costs to society resulting from the failer of the parents to provide and properly care for their children and costs for "child proofing" civilization should be born by the parents. That assumes that parents retain full parental rights to raise their kids however they like. The fact that children are necessary to continue the society is balanced by the fact that the children inherit everything left behind by the previous generations.
-It is clear that most parents cannot raise their kids without support from society. However, society is not just composed of parents, parents have different numbers of children, etc. so everything doesn't just balance out in the end. The fair way to go about evening things out is for parents to share parental rights with society in general (including the right to be a parent) according to the ratio of resources provided by the parents verses resources provided by society for the upbringing of children.
-In the case of free chat rooms, moderating them would be an expense society pays which would adjust the ratio toward greater parental rights for society.

[Sharp-kun]

(since they live in a fantasy world where it's impossible for a kid to ever do anything without their parents knowing about it unless the parents are incompetent),

I never said that. What I did say that parents should teach their kids common sense. If they have the sense not to give out personal details to complete strangers, then we would see far less tragedies, and parents wouldn't need to watch them all the time.