No technology can ensure good taste
Unfortunately, in the case of Internet filters and parental-control tools for the Internet, there's way too much excitement and muddy thinking.
Public relations-oriented events such as the President's summit on children and the Internet is too charged with controversy, too likely to produce a few sacrificial examples of "the dark side of the Net," while ignoring the real question: Are parents going to be involved in their kids' use of the Net?
I have two kids. I'm looking at their pictures while I write this. Do I want them surfing from porn site to porn site, or attacked by perverts through E-mail? No, absolutely not. Will they be free to use the Net to surf porn sites while they live in my home? No. Will they be able to arrange dates over the Net? Not unless I get to meet the intended match before they go out. Will I loan them my computer to surf the Net? Yes, but dad's going along for the ride.
When it comes to solving the problem of online threats, I'm suspicious of technical fixes. You see, there's no technology that recognizes good taste. In fact, there's little in the way of human brain power that recognizes an absolute definition of good taste. The companies rushing in to offer their filtering products are chasing a buck, not attempting to provide a rich and controversial information environment for Net users.
This is one area where the market absolutely cannot ensure an optimal solution, since there's no such thing as "optimum good taste." Corporations are ill-equipped to provide solutions, since they represent the ultimate form of cultural uniformity by committee.
Filtering software that screens all instances of the word "breast" would prevent them from reading this article, now that the word appeared here. The technical solutions to the problem represent a lowest common denominator, one that will reduce the value of the Internet as a tool for intelligent discourse.
And once my kids reach an age when they want to explore the world for themselves, I especially don't want them to find a world sanitized of all controversy. After all, tough questions are what make life worth living. When they grow up, I want them to be able to explore any idea online that they might explore in the flesh. I want them to think first, and the Net can let them do that.
A filtered and rated world proscribed by technology companies at the President's summit is one that prevents any dangerous idea from finding a foothold. As long as my wife or I am sitting next to, or near, our kids while they use the Net, I'm confident of coping with all the threats that make for easy political targets today.
What's most troubling about these discussions of the Net is the idea that it must be as safe as watching television. But the Internet is a big, organic idea factory, not a closely held television network.
Moreover, neither TV nor the computer should be a babysitter for your children. No technology is going to substitute for your ability, as a parent, to sit down and use a medium with your kids. If you want the Net to occupy your child's mind so you can go play golf, then you ought to rethink what it means to be a parent.
We can all live with a little danger -- if we take the time to learn how to think for ourselves. We all need a little danger, or else we can't make important decisions. A medium that requires censorship in order to make it safe for everyone is not a medium, but a tool for propaganda.
Mitch Ratcliffe is president of Internet/Media Strategies Inc., a Tacoma, Wash., consultancy. He can be E-mailed at godsdog@ratcliffe.com.