Tanya Byron's study into Children's Computer use - would love your thoughts plse?

[JustineMumsnet]

Tanya B's big study for the government into kids' computer use is out today and the Guardian would like us to comment.

Here's her proposals as reported in the Guardian this morning:

"Her report, treading a delicate line between tighter regulation and better coordinated parental education, will argue that industry and government must do more to provide information to parents on how to set timers on computers, video games and console games. She will propose:

· New codes of practice to regulate social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook, including clear standards on privacy and harmful content;

· A gold standard for the use of console games, including clear set-up guidance for parents on issues such as pin codes and locks;

· Better information for parents on how to block children accessing some websites. Byron has been struck that the technology exists to impose timers and filters, but there has been little take-up, knowledge or development of the technology;

· A new law based on a 2006 Law Commission recommendation making it unlawful to assist suicide on the internet;

· A national council to implement her strategy, with a fixed timetable for industry experts; a parents' panel and child development experts to implement her recommendations.

In typically timely fashion we've also published our Guide to keeping your children safe on the net following our survey and incorporating many of your tips.

Do let us know your thoughts on what Tanya's saying (and our guide and whether it's helpful/could be better etc)

well, it's all very well having these panels and guidelines, but the reality is that it's the parents who don't care/can't be bothered/don't want to say no that allow their children to surf the net/play unsuitable games. Parents who are concerned about the amount of time children spend on the computer/what games they are playing will already have looked into ways of preventing it/keeping their children safe.

there is a 5 year old in my ds' class who is allowed to play 18 rated video games and who then takes what he sees on those games out into the playground. And I know this not from the child, but from his mother who says that "it's the only way to shut him up.". .

I think her proposals are spot on.

As a teacher (secondary) I get to hear plenty of stuff that the pupils tell me about sites they have been on and games they play, which is often worrying and also surprising, given some of the homes they comes from (i.e. the homes you really wouldn't expect kids to have such access; where parents are loving, concerned and supportive of school).

Recently my Headteacher confiscated a batch of mobile phones and invited parents to view the phones' content with their kids in school with the Head and other staff present. They saw porn, violence - even actual beheadings - that they had downloaded from their home pcs.

The parents (and staff) were shocked and sickened. I think a lot of this is borne of ignorance on the parents behalf: they really have not much of a clue what their kids get up to online and gaming and they see no problems with letting their kids have computers in their bedrooms.

I also have friends whose kids are in dd1's class (they are in Year 1) who have computer games and play often for hours and are agressive when the parents try to take the computers from them. These are parents who read the food labels, insist on proper bedtimes and don't go to MacDonalds! If warnings were made much more explicit, I think mnay mnay parents would think twice before being so lenient with their dcs' computer useage.

Although inappropriate content and inappropriate contacts are a concern, my biggest worry is the addictive nature of very many sites.

We know from our own experience of Mumsnet that it is easy to get sucked into spending more time on it than is good for us, and this is so much more true of powerful gaming/networking sites like Runescape.

Networking sites are only going to get better -- and the regulations which might follow from the Byron Report will help them to get better. But these improvements will add to the quality of the online experience and make it an ever-greater part of our children's lives (and our own lives). So we will stand in ever-greater need of finding ways to maintain a good balance between online and offline life in the face of an increasingly seductive online world.

Surely these guidelines are only going to help the parents who actually care in the first place, not ones like you mention wannaBe. It doesn't sound like labelling something as unsuitable for their children would stop them allowing the children to use it.

Not necessarily, foofi and wannabe. As I wrote in my previous post, there are plenty of otherwise 'sensible' parents that I know and/or know of, who are naive about their dcs' computer useage: what they are doing, who the older ones are speaking to or about online (I'm not talking paedophiles here, I'm talking cyber-bullying and inappropriate material on popular sites) and about the effects of long-term computer-use for all ages.

lol @ Justine's

There is so much stuff in that report, covering everything from video games to Facebook. The scope seems so vast that without reading the report it is hard to comment.

I find claims like this very worthy but totally unrealistic:

"New codes of practice to regulate social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook, including clear standards on privacy and harmful content."

And again, even in that claim, you are dealing with such vast issues such as privacy and data protection, covering all the spectrum to harmful content. I think it all sounds great but in reality, it isn't a nice group of respectable mummies and daddies running these sorts of sites, it's businesses whose aim is to make money through increasing marketing opportunities - and regulating 'harmful content' is a great aim but unlikely.

Interestingly I focused on internet ethics and regulation as part of my degree - it is an area that I think is fascinating but it is such a 'cat-out-of-the-bag' situation that I'm not sure that I really have any hope that things will change, and we need to accept that we are parenting in a totally new environment - and change the way we parent, rather than hoping the change the environement - which we don't have a hope in hell of doing.

There is a comparison I think with the 'old days' of Daddy having a stash of porn under the bed...

It was the first thing that children and visiting friends went for

But we wouldn't have said "Oh this is terrible, we need to get onto these porn empires and get them better regulated so the children don't see"

Daddy just should really lock them away

The responsibility needs to lie with the parents I think

Moomin I think that was a very useful thing that your Head did.

I have heard about this on the radio this morning and also read the guardian article. But I am rather confused as it says that all video games are either general use or 18+, whereas I have come across PS2 and DS games that are 3,7 and 12s. I was very surprised to find that Sonic for DS2 was a 12, for instance.

I think helping parents with blocking and filtering etc is likely to be the most helpful outcome of the advice.

My DS is limited to 2 1/2 sessions a day at weekends and holidays and none on school days apart from 1/2 hour on Friday. But I sometimes wonder if this is making it like a forbidden fruit. Yesterday was my birthday, and although the school hols he was with the CM all day as I was at work. But because of doing the pizza and birthday cake thing and opening my presents he only had about 1/4 hour and he was very cross.

I agree, Moomin's head's approach was spot-on

educating parents is crucial - not going after sites - even if Facebook was cleaned up, there would pop up another site that was 'filthier'. And children want to explore boundaries so that other site would be 'cooler' and they'd all flock there...

Actually he was not with the CM all day - she took him to soccer school - so he was there for 5 hours in the middle of the day. But when he got back he was on the Wii at her house, so had already had some screen time prior to his 1/4 hour on Madagascar on the PS2.

I think kids really do need to know that if they post defamatory comments, video footage and pictures that breach privacy laws or that set out to hurt, then they run the irsk of prosecution. It wouldn't stop all the stuff that goes on, but I bet it would make lots of kids and the parents think twice.

The Head at my school has made it an excludable offence to cyber-bully or have inappropriate footage on phones that are confiscated. Youtube, facebook, myspace, bebo, etc are blocked on the school pcs. That goes some way to making children (and parents) more aware doesn't it? [hopeful]

I think schools and other organisations should maybe run evenings to make parents and guardians more aware of what kids can access on their computers.

what was Daddy doing with a stash of porn under his bed?

and poor Mummy with no mumsnet to complain to: "my kids have found a stash of porn under dh's bed"

oh god how did anyone cope?

Also we need to think logically. I don't think this would work:

"Byron said she wanted these self-generated and hugely profitable sites (Violent games websites) to be asked to agree codes of practice on harmful content, and for an independent body to evaluate whether the site is meeting the standards it has set for itself"

Why would they agree to such a thing? What would be the benefit to them? It ain't gonna happen.

Compare with advertising - advertising is self-regulated TO AVOID STATE CENSURE. If advertising wasn't regulated, the government would just plough in and ban stuff. So instead of that, all advertisements pay a 0.5% levy towards the self-regulating bodies - so essentially, the industry agrees to regulate itself, to avoid the state stepping in.

So why would websites agree to regulation? What is the incentive? They aren't going to get 'banned' any time soon, so the only thing that would inspire them is the goodness of their own hearts. And I don't think that the makers of 'Girl Beat Up In Street' are going to be strongly motivated by pusuing the virtuous life.

Moomin your school sounds excellent

Well the Head is! He's actually very unpopular with the LA as he doesn't cowtow (sp?) to the Big Boys and is seen as something as a maverick.

His recent swoop on the phones came about after a particularly horrible fight outside school one night where two low ability kids were forced to fight one another so pther kids could film them and post the content on websites. Sickening isn't it? And this is a school in a nice, semi-rural, middle class area, no different to hundreds and hundreds of other schools in this country. At first the parents of the ringleaders refused to back the school and believe the 'allegations' ("My dc would never do that"). It was only when faced with the hard evidence that they backed down and were horrified.

That's why I think parents need to be made more aware.

And I think that parents and schools REALLY need to change the way they deal with sex

Any child typing sex questions into Google is going to get sucked into a porno hell

We need to make sure that they don't HAVE so many questions, and think of better ways to deal with their curiousity

in fact perhaps we need to get our HUSBANDS off the porn sites and demand a return to booby-mags under the bed, so the children can go there for illicit sex info instead

that's my new campaign idea

Gordon Brown should have employed me

I wonder why parents are scared of the off switch.

I just don't get it.

Turn the bloody thing off! I have heard so many parents saying things like "oh, I don't know half of what he gets up to on there, it's really worrying, but what can you do?"

I actually said to one mum, "You could just turn it off, you know. Your son will not die."

She looked at me in amazement, as if she had never thought of the possibility.

This is a lot to do with parents reasserting their authority and not being afraid of being the bad guy once in a while.

And also not relying on the computer to keep the kids out of their hair, as other posters have said.

Computers are not powerful. People are. Computers have an off switch.

Oh, and keep them out of kids' bedrooms. And don't let your kids have a mobile either. They don't need them. They really don't. Truth be told, neither do we, really.

There's also a (IMO) misguided belief that spending time on a computer is somehow better than watching telly.

Because it's 'technology' and 'it's important these days to be computer-literate'

I agree that it is the parents' responsibility. I also think that any parent who gives their child a mobile/computer/access to the internet is incredibly naive if they think that child won't go exploring/will use the devices for potentially inappropriate things.

And I don't understand why children are given these things in the first place. My ds will not be getting a mobile phone. Not at the age of 8/10/12/15 ... maybe when he can afford one he can go out and buy one but I will not be buying him one. And no I don't believe that mobiles keep them safe - if anything they make them more vulnerable to crime etc - increased numbers of children are being mugged for their mobile phones.

As for computers, the reality is that technology holds no fear for children of this generation. And most of them will probably know more about computers as they grow up than we do, so if parents know how to put in controls, children will learn how to break them. so the only way to deal with that is to limit access, and to be open and honest about what is and isn't appropriate.

but he will not be getting a computer in his bedroom either - he can use mine or dh's which are both in family rooms.

Yes Porpoise, I've heard that spouted too. Alon with the argument that being on a pc is 'at least' interactive as opposed to sitting in front of the TV being completely passive.

But surely it's better to feel able to switch the channel over, walk away and disengage immediately from something you might be watching on the TV, rather than feel unable to because you are immersed in an experience that is actively trying to make you engage and submit to the action & plot in a physical way?

I remember one Christmas Day when I was at least in my mid twenties, spent with my best mate from Uni at her house, playing CRash Bandicoot on the playstation ALL DAY LONG because we 'had' to get to the next level and try to complete the game in one go!!! We were adults in our twenties, supposedly intelligent enough to disengage... but we couldn't! How can kids possibly be expected to decide when they've had enough? Parents need to be much more confident in limiting play.

The MN Guide seems good

Parents need practical advice i.e. What To Do rather than putting their hopes in 'someone else' sorting this out

Message withdrawn

When I saw this on Breakfast news today I assumed mumsnet had been working with her on it.

So who trumped who?

I've also heard the argument that "playing computer games helps children to develop better hand-eye co-ordination so to deny your children is mean" when discussing buying games consoles for 3/4/5 yo's. hmmm so how ever did we manage before games consoles were invented ... oh... 20 years ago?