Children Are Our Future, Indeed

Won't anyone think of the children?  Yes.  They will.  Over and over.  Let's review.

The use of Internet tools like social networking sites is creating a massive generation gap between the Millenials and Boomers.

Bad stuff can sometimes happen on the Internet.

Media watch dogs call for Internet regulation.  Here and in the UK.

Lawmakers react and propose legislation that is overreaching and unenforceable.  Then they do it again.

Lawsuits happen against the social networking companies.

Industry starts getting its act together and creates industry groups (a lot of them) to show responsibility, leadership and to highlight solutions.  (And, perhaps to prevent new legislation from being successful).

To this end, Elliot Schrage, Google's VP of Global Communications and Public Affairs, notes on the Google blog that he was just speaking at a conference where he discussed "Does the Internet Change Everything" when protecting children and considering regulations.   He suggests "a framework of four scenarios that characterize the online interactions of children and the content they encounter:"

1. When a child isn't actively seeking objectionable content online, and doesn't encounter any, no action is needed.
2. When a child isn't seeking objectionable content, but comes across it inadvertently, ISPs and other online services, like Google, and child safety organizations can provide tools and resources to help families effectively monitor their child's online interactions.
3. When a child is actively seeking out objectionable content online and finds it, parents are primarily responsible for devising a solution.
4. When a child isn't seeking out objectionable content, but someone deliberately forces such content on them, this amounts to exploitation -- and requires government involvement and cooperation by ISPs and other online services.

Schrage discusses how "In connection with the second scenario, we have invested in developing family safety technology and tools", and "when the fourth scenario occurs, we work closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to identify, investigate and prosecute child pornography and exploitation."

The Google post is well-timed to a report out of CDT today.  From a post by John Morris called "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- Child Protection Proposals in Congress."...

Following a familiar pattern over the past few years, Members of Congress are rushing to introduce bills they claim will protect children online – yet all too often, the bills in fact would not protect kids and would violate the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, ineffectiveness and unconstitutionality are not obstacles for proposals that Members can tout in press releases and in campaigns. Although protecting kids is a critical goal (I have two elementary school age kids myself), and although I am sure that all Representatives and Senators genuinely share that goal, all too often the rhetoric far outweighs the reality of what federal law can accomplish and what the First Amendment permits.

CDT has just released an analysis of all (we think) bills introduced in Congress so far this year aimed at protecting kids online. Among the most problematic proposals are returns of “mandatory labeling” requirements (terming a broad range of content to be “sexually explicit”) and the “Deleting Online Predators Act” (“DOPA”) (limiting kids’ access to social networking). Both of these proposals were pushed last year, but both garnered strong opposition from CDT and others, and thankfully neither made it through both houses of Congress....

Bottom line is that we're still only scratching the surface of, one, what the impact of new Internet services will be, and, two, the regulatory reaction to them.  And, anytime, you run into the convergence of efforts to "save the children" from things that are not fully understood by those creating the rules, than we're in store for a long ride.  Our guess is that the closer that new mediums look like old regulated ones (think video), than the chances increase for successful (but not necessarily welcomed rules).  On the other hand, the regulation of "conversation" (at least in the US) has always been trickier.