|Just another Perl shrine|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
This is an illusion. Item: are you going to police cell phone calls on school grounds? Item: are children visiting social networking susceptible to offenders that couldn’t otherwise reach them?
Banning social networking sites at schools is dumb. The problem, as much as there is one, arises from the fact that the internet enables people to get in touch more easily with more people than ever before. Social networking sites aren’t the only instantiation of this principle and schools are not the only conductor for it. I mean, just think about it. Do you seriously think there is a significant group of children that will be protected from predators if this bill passes?
This bill is pure kneejerkery by people who heard half a story, understood even less of it, and now feel they have to do something. Think of children! Won’t somebody think of the children!
Oh please. As programmers we complain that pointy-haired bosses think we’re not working when we’re not hunched over the keyboard and tapping away. How is the sort of thinking you’re displaying here any better?
I don’t know about yours, but the library at my school carried a lot of novels of all stripes, and no, they largely weren’t educational. Pupils who weren’t underage were also allowed to leave school grounds at any time. I don’t think these things were responsible in any way for any of the problems I had, and their absence would certainly not have improved anything.
The solution is to discipline lazy and misbehaving kids – not restrict all of them from things that are generally innocuous. Yeah, I know: that requires attention and action from teachers and parents. How inconvenient.
When parents are evidently failing to fulfill their duties, then in the name of their childrens’ safety and in the interest of society that is justified. But here we’re talking about a blanket default decision that applies to all parents alike, diligent, disregardful, or otherwise.
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to Re^4: Proposed US ban on school/library access to 'social networking sites'