The Instigator
xavi0125
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Parental control on sns or other social networking should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,335 times Debate No: 45488
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

xavi0125

Pro

Parental control for social networking should be banned, The privacy of children should be kept. Also, by social networking, the children can improve the relationship with their friends
Zarroette

Con

I wish to thank Xavi0125 for the opportunity to debate this topic.

Children’s information safety


Children, who are always far less experienced than their parents, are at least in a lesser position when it comes to determining what is safe. The capacity for abstract thought develops later in life, usually around 12 years of age (around the time a child enters the formal operational stage) [7]. So, a child who is far younger than that may not be able to accurately conceptualise the dangers in certain situations, perhaps resulting in sensitive, personal information being leaked. You’d think that this would be the case: younger children are the only ones at risk, right?

However, here are some worrying statistics about teenagers and social media sites: “39% of teens who upload pictures limit access “most of the time” whereas 21% “never” restrict photo access,” “19% of teens who post videos restrict access to their videos “most of the time” whereas 46% “never” restrict video access” [4]…

…”34% of youth online saw sexual materials online that they did not want to see, including pictures of people naked or having sex,” “55% of them had protective software (blocking, filtering or monitoring programs) installed and running when it happened,” “1 in 7 kids (ages 12 to 17-years-old) were sexually solicited or approached online.” [5]

Take for example a pop-up on the internet, involving an apparently won iPod. A child (say 13 years old) could potentially think that he/she has indeed won said iPod, and then proceed to hand over a plethora of personal information. The identity of the child could then be stolen. According to the above statistics, although this is somewhat unlikely, it could happen.

Paedophilia


Paedophilia is a serious danger for children. It is far too easy for children to be coerced, via ‘grooming’ (i.e. not necessarily asked for anything immediately, but coerced into it over time) or blackmail, into sending pictures of themselves to illegally lascivious adults [1]. This exploitation of children can leave highly detrimental scars on the child, as was the case here [2].

Here is a site explaining how paedophiles operate, and the destructive aftermaths of the paedophiles’ actions [3].

Privacy can be slowly implemented as the child matures


As a child becomes more cognizant of the dangers involving social media, the child may be given increased privacy -- an 8 year old is far less capable of managing the dangers associated with privacy than a 16 year old. However, it does not hurt for a loving mother and father to check their son/daughter’s social media account every so often. Remember, the parents are meant to be responsible for the child. We’re not talking about a government that could potentially be corrupt (where privacy is actually an issue). Yet, “42% of parents do not review content of teen chats that are read or typed by kids” [6]. Let me put this in another way: 42% of parents don’t know what their teenaged son/daughter is typing or reading online! The teenager could be reading content inappropriate for his/her age, like a highly sexualised erotica involving bestiality, or an unfounded, uncited explanation on how the Holocaust never happened. Are either of those appropriate for a 12 year old? Should not the parents be worried about and responsible for a child viewing these things?

No interference unless necessary


Children will be able to “improve the relationships with their friends” regardless of monitoring by parents. The parent does not have to be directly involved with the child’s social media experience, and it is probably best that the parent isn’t involved like that. As my opponent suggested, improvement of relationships is important, and the best way to do that is when the child thinks that he/she is responsible and in control.

If danger does present itself, one which the child is unable to handle, a parent will be able to know about it quite quickly and act accordingly. This is, undeniably, a good thing, but the parent should be careful not to interfere unless necessary.

A quick question...


Are children really capable of handling themselves safely online all the time? Not only younger children (4-12 years) are virtually incapable of understanding some risks due to lack of mental development, but teenagers have been shown to be reckless too.

Sources and references

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

[3] http://www.child-safety-for-parents.com...

[4] Amanda Lenhart, Mary Madden, Alexandra Rankin Macgill & Aaron Smith (2007). Teens & Social Media. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[5] David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and Janis Wolak (2006). Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

[6] Ketchum Global Research Network (2005). Parents’ Internet Monitoring Study. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and Cox Communications.

[7] http://psychology.about.com...

Debate Round No. 1
xavi0125

Pro

Thank you for the argument. I really appreciate it.
I agree that children might not know well about safety. However, these days, social networking is the most powerful and comfortable way for the children to communicate with other friends. For some children, small communication with other friends might give encouragement and happiness beyond the academies and enormous homeworks. Also, social networking does not only give disadvantage to the children. Social networking allows the children to know better about what is happening in the society.

I think that children also has their own privacy. Also, parental control may make the relationship between the parents and children to get worse. Many fights are happening between families about the parental control. Additionally, the children do not like their sns to be controlled by parents. They want their privacy to be kept, and the thoughts of the children should be also respected, not only the adults' and parents'.
Zarroette

Con

Counter-arguments

“I agree that children might not know well about safety.”

Well, if this is the case, then:

1) Children might not know well about safety

2) Children might get themselves into serious trouble due to not knowing well

C) Parents should monitor their child’s internet usage by way of parental control to help the child avoid getting into serious trouble

“However, these days, social networking is the most powerful and comfortable way for the children to communicate with other friends. For some children, small communication with other friends might give encouragement and happiness beyond the academies and enormous homeworks. Also, social networking does not only give disadvantage to the children. Social networking allows the children to know better about what is happening in the society.”

My opponent creates a false dichotomy here by implying that children wouldn’t be able to access the social media properly with parental controls in effect. It is entirely possible that both access to social media and parental controls can be in effect simultaneously.


“I think that children also has their own privacy. Also, parental control may make the relationship between the parents and children to get worse. Many fights are happening between families about the parental control. Additionally, the children do not like their sns to be controlled by parents. They want their privacy to be kept, and the thoughts of the children should be also respected, not only the adults' and parents'.”

I think the risk of hurting the relationship between parent and child should be weighted far less than the risks of, say identity fraud or malicious paedophiles, the latter two very likely having serious consequences. Parental control would help significantly lower the risk of the latter two.

Conclusion thus far

There is ample evidence to indicate that: children are not all that safe whilst online and that children are reckless with personal information due to lack of knowledge/mental maturity. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments, even conceding that “children might not know about safety”. Rather, he has pointed towards the positives of children using social networking, which I have no argued against (nor of which are entirely relevant to this debate), as if social networking is incompatible with parental controls. Both the positives of social networking, and the negatives of social networking can be counter-acted to a great extent with parental controls. The only negative is the tension between children not being able to be entirely independent, but it should be obvious that this independence would come at such an enormous risk.

Debate Round No. 2
xavi0125

Pro

xavi0125 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Extend my counter-arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
xavi0125

Pro

Children might not know well about safety

2) Children might get themselves into serious trouble due to not knowing well

C) Parents should monitor their child’s internet usage by way of parental control to help the child avoid getting into serious trouble


I think that parents allowing their children to use social networks are the examples of the independence that the children got. That means that the parents got to think that the children are independent and smart enough to go in the cyber society. Also, that shows that the parents believe the children. SO, the parents who monitor their children's internet usage is not giving the independence to the children, and they limit the children's acts in the society. Also, the parents who monitor their children carefully make the children dependent to parents and cannot not gain much confidence. The fact that the children are allowed freely in cyber society may give confidence to the children that they can stand by oneself in the society. Being dependent is really a serious problem. Later, when the children go out to the society, it would get to be disadvantage and critical conflict. Parental controls do not prevent the children from serious problem. Instead, it may cause serious problems.

In addition, my opponent said that parental control may block the serious trouble. However, the parental control is not the right way to prevent and make the children safe. If the parents just limit the social networking of the children, the children would be just angry. Much the children would fight with their parents, make other ways to do social networkings like buying other device or making another account secretly. It is important for the children to really understand the serious problems that might happen in the social networks. They should be educated and taught more and more about it. Also the parents who control their children are problems too. Parents should not have absolute power on their children. The children has their basic rights which include freedom of fear, freedom of choice, and freedom of rights. The choice of the children needs to be respected. Most of the children do not want parental controls, and not having parental controls should be one right that should be kept. Or else, it may cause serious problems that the children gets no right to express their opinion.

It is entirely possible that both access to social media and parental controls can be in effect simultaneously.


~ However, if parental controls are in action, access to social media will be hard. Parental controls mean that the parents can see what the children thinks and had written in the sns. So, naturally, the children would need to think about their mother and father. That would not allow the children to express their opinions freely.

I think the risk of hurting the relationship between parent and child should be weighted far less than the risks of, say identity fraud or malicious paedophiles, the latter two very likely having serious consequences. Parental control would help significantly lower the risk of the latter two.


~ Privacy problems and relationship problems are also really crucial. In some social networks, when there is parental control, the parents get to be able to see what their children wrote, as well as what their children's friends had written. The friends would not want their profiles and writings to be shown to other friend's parents, even whom they don't know. That is a crucial problem that affects even other friends. Also, relationship problem should be considered. Actually, there was an event that the children killed their parents because of too much control and bad relationship. This conflict might bring out the consequence of killing.


To conclude, parental control may bring out more problems to the children. However, there are such problems that might come out by independence, but that can be solved by other ways than parental control like giving well-provided education.






Zarroette

Con

The positives versus the negatives

The positives of parental control:

  1. Helps children to avoid paedophiles
  2. Helps children to avoid unfamiliar scams
  3. Helps children to avoid identity theft, and other forms of information fraud
  4. Helps children avoid viewing inappropriate material

The negatives of parental control

  1. Children are not entirely independent
  2. Children may dislike their parents for implementing parental control
  3. Children are not given total privacy

Is it worth letting children have their “independence” at the risk of information theft? Is it worth having a paedophile find out what school a child attends, for the sake of maintaining the child’s privacy (if you can forgive the irony)? The research I have provided shows alarming figures, such as 1 in 7 teenagers (12-17 years) are sexually solicited online, and that 39% of teens who upload pictures restrict access ‘most of the time’ (meaning that 61% do it less than most of the time). It’s quite obvious that there are serious risks online, as I’ve argued earlier, and that children are reckless with their information.

I’m going to address my opponent’s arguments individually now…


Children would not be entirely independent with parental control in place


“…That means that the parents got to think that the children are independent and smart enough to go in the cyber society.”

But some children aren’t, they clearly aren’t!

From one of my previous rounds: “39% of teens who upload pictures limit access “most of the time” whereas 21% “never” restrict photo access,” “19% of teens who post videos restrict access to their videos “most of the time” whereas 46% “never” restrict video access” [4]

Yes, some children are smart in regards to some aspects, but you can’t ignore these statistics. You haven’t refuted that 1 in 5 children “never” restrict photo access. This is clearly a huge concern, as it means some children are putting themselves at serious risk. Some children, despite all the schools programs and information about internet safety, are simply ignoring the information and putting themselves at risk. Why would you want to give reckless children independence when it’s clear that they aren’t mature enough to handle it?

“Also, the parents who monitor their children carefully make the children dependent to parents and cannot not gain much confidence.”

I’ve argued (under the title: Privacy can be slowly implemented as the child matures)for independence relative to the child’s capabilities. Of course, if children prove themselves to be responsible, then sure, lax the parental control. If the child is quite young, and/or has been in serious trouble online before, then it would be grossly irresponsible for a parent to ignore the risks. That’s when monitoring a child carefully is necessary (again, I’ll say that it isn’t always necessary to monitor a child carefully). The child will gain confidence once he/she proves that he/she is more responsible than originally thought.


“Being dependent is really a serious problem. Later, when the children go out to the society, it would get to be disadvantage and critical conflict.”

Is it impossible that the child could develop independency with parental controls in effect? Could not the parents monitor their child’s internet usage, without telling the child? How would that affect dependency in a negative way? You seem to make the argument that:

1) All parental control affects independency

2) The affect resulting is too strong for a child to ever become independent

3) Therefore, no parental control should be used

Again, as I’ve said before, as the child proves themselves to be responsible online, the parental control could so as to allow for an opportunity to increase independency.



“Parental controls do not prevent the children from serious problem.”

Yes, but they go a long way to help. My opponent makes the argument that because parental controls don’t prevent children from serious problems entirely, parental control is bad thing. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Children may dislike their parents for implementing parental control


“If the parents just limit the social networking of the children, the children would be just angry.”

Perhaps, but I ask the audience to consider at what expense relieving the anger could come, if the parents weren’t to implement limitations on social networking. For example, let’s say someone is working at a nuclear power station for the first time. The person has had no experience in dealing with station tools, but has been taught how to operate them, as well as the risks involving operation. Would it not be unreasonable for the owner of the station to monitor the new employee’s work? What if you left the employee to his own accord? Sure, that does not mean there will be a catastrophe, yet you could significantly reduce the risk of one by at least monitoring. Now consider that the employee becomes angry when you monitor him. I’d say the monitoring is well-worth the employees anger, wouldn’t you?

“Much the children would fight with their parents, make other ways to do social networkings like buying other device or making another account secretly.”

If another account was made in secret, then how would the child know to be angry? Yes, children might become angry at being monitored, but the alternatives are not worth it.

Children are not given total privacy


“Also the parents who control their children are problems too. Parents should not have absolute power on their children.”

My opponent makes the argument that if parents are to implement parental control, the parents now have absolute power over the child. This is, arguably, only true in regards to internet access, which I might remind you that the child almost certainly doesn’t pay for. Besides, parents implement parental control with the child’s interest at heart; why else would you think the parents go to the effort and struggle of implementing it?


“In some social networks, when there is parental control, the parents get to be able to see what their children wrote, as well as what their children's friends had written. The friends would not want their profiles and writings to be shown to other friend's parents, even whom they don't know.”

You would think that the friends would know the parents, right?

I’ll say this again: privacy becomes a problem when people cannot be trusted. For example, the NSA spying is a problem because the organisation could potentially be corrupt. Parents are NOT implementing parental control with malicious thoughts in mind; it’s quite clearly the opposite.

“Actually, there was an event that the children killed their parents because of too much control and bad relationship. This conflict might bring out the consequence of killing.”

This is uncited and a ridiculous stretch. Besides, my statistics show that there are consistently far more problems in regards to how children conduct themselves on the internet.

Miscellaneous


“They should be educated and taught more and more about it.”

How can they be taught more? Aren’t there already programs in schools that go through all of these dangers already? As my statistics show, whilst this education may be working for some children, other children just don’t get it or are unable to adequately protect themselves online.



“The children has their basic rights which include freedom of fear, freedom of choice, and freedom of rights.”

The child is living in their parent’s house. The parents make the rules, seeing as they own the land. Nothing illegal is being done here.

“…it may cause serious problems that the children gets no right to express their opinion.”

Children can still do this.


“However, if parental controls are in action, access to social media will be hard.”

What do you mean by “hard”? You can either access it or you can’t, and we’re arguing about parental controls in regards to accessing social media, the implication being that children are accessing social media.

One last thing before I end my response this round: the statistics I provided represent real children. These people are not just part of a number, but are human beings, probably loved by their parents, probably with their own personalities, dreams and problems. It’s far too easy to look at a number and just see it as such, but try to remember that people’s lives are reflected in that number.

Debate Round No. 4
xavi0125

Pro

xavi0125 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Basically, the positives of parental control outweigh the negatives, meaning that parental control is preferable. I think I have adequately addressed my opponent's arguments in previous rounds, and since she didn't conclude herself, I think it would be somewhat unfair/unnecessary to do so myself.

Thank you for reading, vote Con!!

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Hey Zarroette I just wanna go ahead and apologize to anything I ever did to you that rubbed you the wrong way or p*ssed you off on here. Im gonna be completely honest with you right now, im staring down a two-week temp ban from Airmax over the scrap I had with 1harder today, and im pretty sure that if it goes down I wont come back to the site after its up.

During my last temp ban I had to think long and hard over what it is I like about DDO that makes me want to be a part of it, and im starting to run out of reasons. Having Airmax always breathing down my neck over minor things while people like Wrichcirw get away with far worse sh*t is a huge mood-killer for wanting to be a part of the site, so if this latest temp ban goes through, itll probably be the one that kills any motivation I have to want to be a part of this site.

I know that we really went at it before over all kinds of sh*t, but unlike many of the other trolls ive clashed with in the past, youve actually gotten your sh*t together pretty well and turned into a more decent member. I know you pretty much wanted to kill me at one point and I dont blame you tbh. I just wanted to be able to tell you that im sorry for acting the way I did in the past while I still had the chance, and tell you that I was wrong about you. Youre not like any of those other crazy a** people ive tried to have run off the site because youve shown that you can be a part of this site without annoying the hell out of everyone you encounter like Stalin or RM. I just wanted to be able to tell you that while I still had the chance, and, well, this was the only place I could do it.

You can do whatever you want with my apology, thats your business. But I am sorry about what happened. You didnt deserve all the stuff I threw at you.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
No need to apologise for debating =)
Posted by xavi0125 3 years ago
xavi0125
Sorry for my arguments, and thank for your comments. I really appreciate it because I was willing to learn more about debate and the ways. Thank you very much
No votes have been placed for this debate.