| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
There have always been bad parents, and there always will be bad
parents. But that doesn’t release Todd from choosing to make LUGNET
completely kid-safe IMO
|
Neither does it obligate him.
|
Of course not. All I’m saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be “kid-friendly”,
steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is getting too
adult-oriented in certain areas.
| |
Parents need to start taking paying attention
to what their kids are viewing online,
|
Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and see all of the adult content
flowing out of certain groups, they will choose not to let their kids go there.
| |
and every attempt to make the internet
kid-safe only reinforces their false beliefs that there is nothing that their
kids can access that is not appropriate for them.
|
After four rereads, I still can’t parse this point...
| |
| |
Exactly. Which is why we all need to take the responsibility on ourselves
to make it that way.
|
The TOS are as restrictive as they probably should be, and they do not
prohibit LGBTs from announcing their lifestyle anymore than they prevent all
of us heteros from announcing ours. Everything you keep saying suggests that
you think a guy saying he has a boyfriend equates with vivid descriptions of
bedroom activities, while a guy saying he has a girlfriend can be given the
assumption of chastity. It’s simply not true.
|
This isn’t necessarily about .lgbt (although the creation of it did precipitate
my current views). It has to do more with the OT groups, and the overall “adult
flavor” of LUGNET (which I think is growing stronger). Mind you, I don’t object
to LUGNET having a strong adult flavor, but I think that it will be at the
expense of LUGNET’s kid-flavoring. Controlling access to the adult parts allows
the adult parts to be more freely “adult”, and the kid parts to be better off
without them.
| |
That’s not the world we live
in.
|
LUGNET is not a model of the world, so any comparison isn’t valid.
| |
TV characters on the more conservative broadcast networks are quite
often shown in scenes that imply graphic situations are going on off-camera.
|
LUGNET is not television, so any comparison isn’t valid.
| |
People on LUGNET mention their kids all the time (and, when you really think
about it, that’s about the clearest indication you can give that you’ve “got
some” at some point without blatantly stating it).
|
That is unless they’ve adopted them. Where were you going with that?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL's, primarily of the A- variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well. Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in so-called (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Neither does it obligate him. Parents need to start taking paying attention to what their kids are viewing online, and every attempt to make the internet kid-safe only reinforces their false beliefs that there is nothing that their kids can (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
