The board and the children

[RalofTyr]

Kids these days are more grown up than you think. Things considered, "Adult Content", are being absorbed by children nowadays. If they're on the internet, chances are, they have been exposed to adult themes long before clicking on this site.

It's really a lost cause. Censoring and restricting information.

The topic it morphed in to had value, from an anthropological perspective as it is a part of human behavior. Exploiting other people's weakness for profit, isn't anything new. Perhaps the children should learn how to do that, in a just way. When they become adults, they're going to have other people trying to take advantage of their weaknesses, so why not teach them how to and how not to. It's how life is.

[Noclevername]

Children for most of human history, grew up in one-room huts with their entire extended family, and saw it all. Not to mention that there was no age of consent for most of human existence. On the other hand, we don't actually have psychological profiles of all those hundreds of generations of kids, maybe they were all really messed up and didn't know it...

[AndreH]

Hmm Argos,

looks as if I missed some irony or something. So let me check if I understood the reason/purpose /topic of your post.

Obviously there was another post, which crossed a line which caused the mods to close it.

You are thinking that this same post was still decent and modest enough and that the topic discussed was interesting and discussed on a language level which you think was apropriate for this board.

Because the post was closed you were a little angry/offended and suggested therefore to close everything which is "off topic". Because having fun on a kids level is something you regard as boring and could therefore ommitted?

Did I get that right?

[AndreH]

Originally Posted by Noclevername

Children for most of human history, grew up in one-room huts with their entire extended family, and saw it all. Not to mention that there was no age of consent for most of human existence. On the other hand, we don't actually have psychological profiles of all those hundreds of generations of kids, maybe they were all really messed up and didn't know it...

I think if we take this further we will get back into the discusion we had in the "Saggy baggy pants law" thread. Don't think the mods wouldd like that.

[Noclevername]

Originally Posted by AndreH

Hmm Argos,

looks as if I missed some irony or something. So let me check if I understood the reason/purpose /topic of your post.

Obviously there was another post, which crossed a line which caused the mods to close it.

You are thinking that this same post was still decent and modest enough and that the topic discussed was interesting and discussed on a language level which you think was apropriate for this board.

Because the post was closed you were a little angry/offended and suggested therefore to close everything which is "off topic". Because having fun on a kids level is something you regard as boring and could therefore ommitted?

Did I get that right?

The closed thread was about a certain long-lasting profession. Since it was on OTB and had nothing to do with science or astronomy in any way, there was nothing keeping the Mod Squad from removing it.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

Kids these days are more grown up than you think. Things considered, "Adult Content", are being absorbed by children nowadays. If they're on the internet, chances are, they have been exposed to adult themes long before clicking on this site.

1) Still doesn't mean we need to contribute to the problem.

2) It's not censorship to decline to provide a soapbox to some person or topic. You want to talk about especially-classic professions, you are perfectly free to start your own forum on your own dime.

My own preference is to not deny information to children, but parents remain the default legal guardians to their children and such decisions must remain with them. We don't need to be making that task more difficult with unnecessary speech that violates our own published standards.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Moose

1)

Still doesn't mean we need to contribute to the problem.

2) It's not censorship to decline to provide a soapbox to some person or topic. You want to talk about especially-classic professions, you are perfectly free to start your own forum on your own dime.

My own preference is to not deny information to children, but parents remain the default legal guardians to their children and such decisions must remain with them. We don't need to be making that task more difficult with unnecessary speech that violates our own published standards.

A last reason is also legal. I believe that some jurisdictions have laws that say if you have adult content, you must take measures to protect minors from them. The protection may be as mild as a warning about adult content, but obviously BAUT doesn't even have that. And again, I don't know if the closed discussion got anywhere close to that.

By the way, RalofTyr, I agree with you, but others (including courts) don't necessarily.

[HenrikOlsen]

A part of what was wrong about "that other thread" about the second-oldest profession was that the discussion was starting to get out of hand in personal animosity.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Moose

If you'll permit me to make a semantical distinction, I'd argue that math layfolk can learn a tremendous amount about science (as opposed to specific disciplines) by hanging around the less rigorous sections of BAUT. CT especially; being able to evaluate claims for logical fallacies is pure gold in the real world. You don't need math to learn science.

Fair. I'll accept that. You understand my point, though--and I think the understanding of science I get, while a higher level than what I'd expect for, say, a twelve-year-old, is of a similar nature. Neither of us will get much out of discussion of vectors and tensors!

Further, I don't think the problem with "adult content" is the children per se, but the adults around the children. What I want for/from my kid is different than what some parents of my experience want, and what they want is different than what other parents want. The kids may be exposed to it; the kids may have been exposed to it throughout human history. But the parents are the ones who get to decide what websites are appropriate for their own kids, and if we have discussions with "adult content" (and, yes, I've been part of 'em, too, but it doesn't change how some parents think), some parents may decide that our site is inappropriate despite its highly educational content.

Come to that, some people just use software that blocks any site using specific words.

[Jeff Root]

Would it be possible for somebody to make the text of that thread
available to me? I contributed one little post (one sentence) and I
wonder if it was at all involved in whatever followed. I hoped that it
would have a moderating effect. If somebody can and is willing to,
please say here that you are going to e-mail it to me (so that nobody
else duplicates your effort) and send it to jroot at freemars dot org.
Thank you!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[RalofTyr]

Originally Posted by Moose

1) Still doesn't mean we need to contribute to the problem.

What's the problem?

2) It's not censorship to decline to provide a soapbox to some person or topic. You want to talk about especially-classic professions, you are perfectly free to start your own forum on your own dime.

It's censorship because the reason for the decline was to prohibit certain speech. The fact that one can go off and create their own forum doesn't make it not censorship. That's like saying, well, if you don't like it here, you are free to go to the mountains and speak your will there.

Originally Posted by Swift

A last reason is also legal. I believe that some jurisdictions have laws that say if you have adult content, you must take measures to protect minors from them.

In the US, I believe the internet falls under Federal laws. How can one police a website that's in Taiwan?

[davidlpf]

Argos tensors are nothing to get stressed out about.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Further, I don't think the problem with "adult content" is the children per se, but the adults around the children. What I want for/from my kid is different than what some parents of my experience want, and what they want is different than what other parents want. The kids may be exposed to it; the kids may have been exposed to it throughout human history. But the parents are the ones who get to decide what websites are appropriate for their own kids, and if we have discussions with "adult content" (and, yes, I've been part of 'em, too, but it doesn't change how some parents think), some parents may decide that our site is inappropriate despite its highly educational content.

Paragraph quoted in its entirety because it bears repeating. As you often do, Gillian, you cut right to the very core of the matter.

We have one heck of a "baby" here, and the less bathwater we add, the less likely some parent is to toss out the whole tub. From an outreach standpoint, those are the kids who might most benefit from learning science and critical thought from sites like ours.

If that means we need to take certain discussions elsewhere (politics, religion, ancient human-resources options) to remain accessible, that's not so great a price.

Come to that, some people just use software that blocks any site using specific words.

Phil once admitted in an interview (his first on Slacker Astronomy) that he started using the term "unaided astronomy" rather than the more common term for that very reason.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

What's the problem?

It's been explained several times.

It's censorship because the reason for the decline was to prohibit certain speech.

No. It would be something similar to censorship if it were to restrict certain points of view, or certain speakers. If, say, Intersteller Traveller had been permitted to have that publicly viewable, but otherwise restricted debate with Jay where no one else was permitted to post in that thread, that would have been censorship. If Swift was allowed to post about tensors but not you, it would be censorship.

Not being permitted to (falsely) shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not censorship. Moderation is not censorship. Regulating topics in a general sense on a private forum you aren't paying for isn't censorship, or if it is, it's the very mildest form and entirely within the admin's rights as the folks who pay for this board.

The fact that one can go off and create their own forum doesn't make it not censorship. That's like saying, well, if you don't like it here, you are free to go to the mountains and speak your will there.

Your free speech rights in no way obligates anybody to provide you a soapbox. Your free speech rights in no way obligates anybody to listen. You are indeed free to go to the mountains to speak your will there. Or any space paid for through public taxation. You are also free to provide yourself a private forum in which to speak to your heart's content.

While we're here mooching off of Phil and Fraser's bandwidth, however, we're obligated to follow the board's rules on acceptable content.

In the US, I believe the internet falls under Federal laws. How can one police a website that's in Taiwan?

Nope, unless the laws were pre-existing and/or written to regulate other media (DMCA, for example). A couple of states do have anti-spam laws (mostly targetting the headers), and the feds fail to come up with similar legislation from time to time, but for the most part, the net is not explicitly regulated.

The problem you raise is precisely what has been causing so much trouble for the politicians. I can't say I'm especially choked up about that.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

It's censorship because the reason for the decline was to prohibit certain speech. The fact that one can go off and create their own forum doesn't make it not censorship. That's like saying, well, if you don't like it here, you are free to go to the mountains and speak your will there.

Why not this: "You are not free to stand up and start shouting in a restaurant, but you can go to soapbox park on the corner and declaim all you want." Is that RalofTyr censorship?

[Kaptain K]

RalofTyr

Yes, it would be censorship if this was public property. IT IS NOT!! This board is private property. We are guests here. The owners set the rules. We follow them or leave. If you don't like the rules, you are free to leave. If you don't follow the rules you won't have a choice in the matter!

[Argos]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Sorry. I'm lost. What is it an example of? Why did you use it, when you could have referred to any people coming here to learn anything about space and astronomy (or about whatever else a web search might lead them here to see or stumble upon)?

Given that people come here, and some of them are not of majority age, then... what? Any topic is appropriate to discuss? I'm trying to figure out your position. Your examples aren't helping.

(Then, we can figure out how you can persuade the owners to adopt the same position.)

01101001, I stressed my point on post 24. The bottom line is: kids who come here are not dumb. If they can follow tensors, they can read about prostitution, provided that the topic is presented in a civilized manner.

Behavioral morals derives from religion and primitive taboos. Scientists and science-oriented people shouldn´t be subscribing to it.

Originally Posted by AndreH

Hmm Argos,

looks as if I missed some irony or something.

Well, yes, it was partly tongue-in-cheek.

Obviously there was another post, which crossed a line which caused the mods to close it.

Well, to my level of English understanding I saw no crossing of lines. But I could be wrong, since there must have been some slang that escaped me.

Because the post was closed you were a little angry/offended and suggested therefore to close everything which is "off topic".

The problem is that the OTB section is the most resource demanding, in terms of infrastructure and mod work.

Because having fun on a kids level is something you regard as boring and could therefore ommitted?

I see it as a sorta cafe´, where scientists and/or the intelligent people who come here can discuss lighter topics, and intelligent kids, the kind who would come here, can partake. But I would appreciate an adult level of coversation [remember there´s a fun´n´game section where 'the boy within' can express]. I expect humor but not idiocy [not that there is some, mind you].

Of course I could be wrong.

And I´m not 'offended' nor am saying that ToSeek was wrong, or that there was censorship [which does not apply here, a private instance]. He did what he had to do, because there are constraints, which we are discussing.