M&S/furries/school kids

[JoxerGoesToStuttgart]

These ads creep me out on their own (a hedgehog/seal in school uniform just standing there staring? how does that sell school uniform?) but the resemblance to the “furry” movement is just too much. I’m possibly just over exposed to the grimness of the whole furry underworld and see anything depicting kids as furry animals as sinister.

Am I alone or is this weird?

www.facebook.com/MarksandSpencer/posts/10156986494533612/

This one is a hedgehog. There is one with a seal. Not sure if there are others.

remember when the Internet first came out and people had the main computer in the living room so they could supervise there children's use of it, that they could only use it under supervision. Well that all appears to have gone out the window.

the Internet is not a place to allow young children to just wonder around in without supervision, just like the real world but I suppose it keeps them quite for a while so it's ok. At least get some content filters or something and maybe think about limiting usage so that young people can go out into the real world once in a while.

the Internet is not a place to allow young children to just wonder around in without supervision, just like the real world but I suppose it keeps them quite for a while so it's ok. At least get some content filters or something and maybe think about limiting usage so that young people can go out into the real world once in a while.

I do not think that this campaign has anything to do with furries.

However, you cannot give all responsibility for safeguarding to parents because for many reasons many children do not have a parent or guardian who can or will take that responsibility, and those children matter too.

many children do not have a parent or guardian who can or will take that responsibility, and those children matter too.

All children should have a responsible parent or guardian who does take on that role, and the children that have a parent or guardian who will not take on that role are being let down by them and by the rest of society if we are not supporting them.

and not parents’ fault for not supervising their children’s internet use.

Again, if you give all responsibility for child protection to parents, what happens to the children who don't have a responsible parent on hand 24/7?

the state apoints a legal parent who as that perental responcability, and more should be done to educate parents around how to minimise the dangers of the Internet for young people. how to set stuff up like filters, or control the router or password protect it.

and the children that have a parent or guardian who will not take on that role are being let down by them and by the rest of society if we are not supporting them.

In the real world there are no easy answers, parents cannot be with their children 24 hours a day, the internet is usually accessed on small portable devices, and a struggling parent who loves their child is still usually a better parent than the state.

Therefore we have safeguarding procedures and rules that are designed to protect all children and we don't just assume that they are somebody else's responsibility.

Bespin, do you have children?

the Internet does not have to be on 24/7 you do not have to let your child have access to it or there phone all the time. I know that you can not protect them from everything and educating them about the dangers is far better than provention. At some point they are going to see it and they need to know what to do.

the Internet does not have to be on 24/7 you do not have to let your child have access to it or there phone all the time

'Their' phone?

You might not have noticed this, but in many ways a phone is similar to a 'book' and can be carried around and shown to other people. Quite clever really.

yes like I said other young people can show your child stuff. So when they do educating them is always the best way so they know what it is and how to deal with it. If other parents feel that there child needs a smart phone at age 10 then that is upto them.

oh this is a proper mumsnet conversation maybe we should be on the main boards lol

It’s a pretty radical proposal to say that no material unsuitable for children should be allowed on the internet. As Merry points out above you’d also need to restrict printed material which children could show to one another.

oh this is a proper mumsnet conversation maybe we should be on the main boards lol

No, this is not a conversation about my children (who may or may not exist) and their phones.

This is a conversation about safeguarding for all children, regardless of the quality of the parenting they receive.

This is a conversation about safeguarding for all children, regardless of the quality of the parenting they receive.

I completely get the sentiment but what action do you think should be taken? The only way to prevent adult material (horror films, pornography, drug paraphernalia, computer games etc.) getting into children’s hands (in the absence of parents stopping them seeing it) is to ban it completely. Personally I’d happily ban (for example) violent pornography and misogynistic stuff - so basically all of it - but I’m not up for having no adult material available.

This has gone of on a tangent that wasn’t actually my concern. (Of course children seeing stuff they shouldn’t is always a concern though) I was certainly not proposing that anything children shouldn’t see shouldn’t be on the internet. Which I think you know.

I have to go to work now but will be back to respond properly.

Bespin
If it was properly flagged as adult by the creator it wouldn't show up on google safe search, or youtube for one thing.
Do you not think that would be a start for Furry art, having the people who create it take responsibility for who they allow to see it?

I can't even see Peter Gabril's video for steam without confirming my age.

Yet i can see Sexual drawings of bugs bunny.

As Merry points out above you’d also need to restrict printed material which children could show to one another.

The difference is that when I was at school the worst we were doing was passing round a copy of 'Lace'. It was difficult to access anything that couldn't be found in a newsagent, and it was impossible to contact children through the material that they were reading.

I don't think there are easy answers, but first of all you have to recognise a problem exists. We have child protection scandals because people assume that child protection is the responsibility of another responsible adult. 'Blame the parents' is an easy get out that completely fails children who don't have parents to blame, and its the second time this week I have seen that sentiment expressed on a discussion about fetishes that involve imagery that is attractive to children.

I don't think there are easy answers, but first of all you have to recognise a problem exists. We have child protection scandals because people assume that child protection is the responsibility of another responsible adult

Yes I agree with this but unfortunately we've never (as a society) been able to protect children very effectively from their own parents.

A good start would be a total ban on phones in school I suppose. Although that again just protects well parented children from less well parented ones, it doesn't do anything to help children with unrestricted internet access at home.

and we equally have parents who feel that it is someone else's responsibility and take little or jo responsibility themselves to educate themselves around the things that there children are doing. it's a two way thing and needs a complex answer to address the underlying issues.

content that is sexual should be marked as such the Internet providers need to do far more. like newspapers and page 3 back in the day. they worry thst restricting will effect growth of service. as porn is often the number one selling point of new media.

content that is sexual should be marked as such the Internet providers need to do far more.

No it's not an issue for the host of the content, the makers need to restrict who sees it. There is a few reason they don't do that though.

YouTube for example lets creators restrict adult content, some creators don't bother.
Creators don't so kids can see their collection of sonic in nappies being chained to aim drawings when searching sonic the hedgehog.

amy*

the reason it does not is money it costs because algarithams can not spot content or context so you need real people and they cost money and we want the services free or cheap. and they want huge profits

the reason it does not is money it costs because algarithams can not spot content or context so you need real people and they cost money and we want the services free or cheap. and they want huge profits

That's part of the reason, another is less viewers.

But do you think those are moral reason for not restricting sexual content?

"I wanted more money, so i let anyone see my art"

Of course, another rather small minority also likes kids seeing things.