According to Symantec, “Porn” is a term most searched on the internet by children less than 7 years old. This means many things, but one thing I’ve been thinking about is that an astoundingly awesome “good-karma” opportunity for Google and Symantec is fading away as we speak.
Symantec collects data on millions’ of users search habits. Their service, OnlineFamily.Norton, is a web monitoring service where parents can create profiles for each child and monitor their online activities. The company has mined data on millions of searches performed by the children who have Norton profiles. Symantec has amassed the data into a report. Symantec doesn’t reveal the number of children who have profiles, but the mere number of searches mined (over 14 million) lends us the information that Symantec must have many thousands of children’s profiles in their system (I trust these data and the sample. As a researcher, I think these data represent the general population fairly accurately).
For kids reported to Symantec as being under 7 years of age, the term “Porn” is #4 most popular on the list. Does this mean that children are hyper-sexualized? No. It means that kids are using the internet to look up definitions of words they hear. They don’t want an example of pornography; they want to know what the word means. They are afraid to ask in fear of “getting in trouble,” so they do what they know how to do: they stick the term into a search bar. Much research shows that although small children can be curious about sex and pornography, healthy young children tend to avoid interacting with adult x-rated media. Wake up and smell the opportunity, Google and Symantec!
These are the results from today’s Google search on the term “porn.”
Notice the lack of plain definitions anywhere. Google, Symantec and perhaps Merriam-Webster are missing a golden opportunity to better the world and to get some great press. They should gather forces to ensure that the top search result for “porn” links to an informative but simple definition of the term. (I’d suggest linking to Wikipedia, but the entry for “Pornography” isn’t appropriate for young children. If Wikipedia could get the image off the entry and lock down any editing, the site may have a fighting chance to get in on this American PR Dream.) If they can throw in a few quotes about kids’ behavior from a psychologist or a prominent internet researcher like danah boyd, I’m sure Main Stream Media would pick up the story. Mothers everywhere would feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Google would boost its reputation as THE 1-stop family shop for searching, and Symantec would sell a bunch more products.
You may counter my idea with Google’s claimed practice of not manipulating search results. This is easy to fix: Google could sell or donate the “sponsored link” at the top of the search results page. Google could commit to selling or donating that particular sponsored link to only educational sites like Merriam-Webster or Carnegie-Mellon University. Merriam-Webster or Carnegie-Mellon could use the space to not only define the term but link to their other educational resources.
Do how about it, guys? When opportunity this great knocks, I’m surprised it’s taking so long to answer the door!
New York Magazine journalists Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman team up to add commentary and more information to their articles in this new book published by Twelve, a division of the Hachette Book Group.
The last page of the book has this blurb about Twelve:
“TWELVE was established in August 2005 with the objective of publishing no more than one book per month. We strive to publish the singular book, by authors who have a unique perspective and compelling authority.”
They lost me at “compelling authority.”
Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman are journalists, not scientists. This book isn’t a synthesis of research; it’s an opinion piece with a conservative bent (indeed, Ashley Merryman’s back-flap bio boasts that she “lives in Los Angeles, where she runs a church-based tutoring program for inner-city children.”)
I’m not advocating gatekeeping; there’s definitely a place for independent research and grass-roots efforts. Child Psychology isn’t one of those places. NutureShock is just another parenting book in a long line of books written by reporters for profit. The authors have a reputation for reporting on overlooked studies with rare results, as they boast in their chapter notes that their New York Magazine articles were popular. Compiling and expounding on past work seems to be the best way to write a book these days; this doesn’t mean that the articles, as a book, make a cohesive or worthy statement.
Basically, I found the book to be the amateur, armchair science that is fun to read in small bites while on the train. Read it for entertainment purposes, but don’t implement the few approaches outlined at home; they aren’t tested enough, and the results have yet to be repeated to gain respect in academia.
The book does, unwittingly, bring up some good points about statistics, studies, and systemic judgments based on those studies. Statistics and study results are nothing to respect when presented alone. The best way to make decisions about anything is to weigh multiple instances of evidence, to never rely on one event. The authors do their best to rip up school district decisions on testing, anti-obesity and anti-bullying programs, by claiming these decisions were not based on scientific results but just made using traditional thought and instinct. While some programs in districts may be made more based on hope than science, the majority of IQ testing and other educational programs are based on years of study and a large meta-analysis of results of hundreds of studies. To suggest otherwise, as the authors do, is hasty, irresponsible, and insulting to educational scholars, teachers, and parents.
The authors proceed to cite a study here, a successful preschool program there, to illustrate their point that decisions about children should be based on evidence. I agree. But A LOT of evidence. Not an anecdotal story or two (which the authors provide), nor 1 or 2 labs that keep getting the same results for their handful of articles. The authors bemoan the lack of long-term studies in almost every chapter, yet fail to mention the very sophisticated and accurate methods of behavioral statistics answers this issue. They sing praises of a preschool program called Tools of the Mind, but conveniently forget to list the challenges associated with the program. This book is a thinly disguised attempt to steer the conversation toward a conservative agenda in education.
The writing is ok. Their lack of academic tone in parts is jarring. For example, on page 190, the authors use colloquial language where they shouldn’t have:
“… a separate word to distinguish the kind of popular teen who diminishes others –in Dutch, for instance, the idiomatic expression popie-jopie refers to teens who are bitchy, slutty, cocky, loud and arrogant.”
An academic article would have used words like “promiscuous,” “disagreeable,” and “condescending,” especially since the Dutch don’t use the English colloquial words that are listed. I also question the choice of listing the derogatory words for females first, or at all.
At times the authors conduct their own “studies,” but we should disregard these results. We have no idea what the sampling was, what the control group was given (if there even was a control group), or how the study was designed at all. Until their results can be repeated many times, then one-off studies should merely bring up ideas for further study.
The only good that comes out NutureShock is the reminder to hold studies, especially those recounted by non-scientist media, in suspicion. If you are planning to pick up this book, read it for entertainment purposes only. It may make you think a bit differently in some aspects of child-rearing, like how your teen may see arguing as the opposite of lying, or how we whites actively avoid talking about race. The authors should have stayed with reflecting trends in traditional parenting, and avoided passing themselves off as authorities.
Today in the public library of quaint suburb of an old American city, images of blissful toddlers were being live streamed to the internet. Parents unwittingly wandered in and out of the shot. Librarians played along politely while trying to work. The cameraman’s friend plastered on a nervous smile and ducked away as much as possible. Men from Great Britain, Australia, and the U.S.A came to watch and to send chat messages to the cameraman in real time. This went on, unnoticed and unsuspected, for 13 minutes.
Why did no-one notice? Because the cameraman wasn’t hoisting a large news camera and microphone boom on a shoulder. The camera being used was smaller than a pack of Twinkies. If people noticed, they assumed the finicky shooter was taking multiple still shots but never managed to make the flash work. Perhaps they thought the cameraman was acting a bit odd talking to the camera at times, but no-one protested, nor was any the wiser.
I was the cameraman. The camera was a Nokia N95, an advanced mini computer, phone and video camera capable of sending live video to websites. It fits in the palm of my hand, yet the video is broadcast-news level quality. Anyone with about $700 to spend can have one. Perhaps if the cameraman was indeed a male, suspicions would arise more easily, but I am as non-threatening as a woman could be, and no-one even thought to notice my actions.
My local public library installed free wifi. I live streamed with it today, using a Nokia N95 and a website/application called Qik. My toddler son and I were in the (mostly vacant) children’s room with my good friend Cathy and her son, as well as the head children’s librarian. “I’m live streaming to the internet right now” was the only ‘warning’ I offered. Not much of a warning at all, of course, because their images were already sent, and were continuing to be sent to qik.com for anyone to see.
I am an ‘early adopter;’ I am eager to test out new technologies like smart phones and laptops, as well as new applications like software and websites. The inevitable bugs and bumps in the start-up road don’t usually bother me. It’s fun and thrilling to watch a tech phenomenon develop, a pursuit I enjoyed at an early age when my brother was a pre-teen hacker back in the late 1970’s.
My stream had no point except to show us passing time at the library. A few of my on-line friends showed up to the chat room, as well as a stranger from half way around the world. It was all purely innocent in intention, I assure you. After I returned home, the unease settled in.
When my son was tucked safely away for his nap, I posted an Utterz discussing how I felt that I was being a bit aggressive by live streaming without prior consent from the characters in the video. I didn’t talk about the hint of nervousness on my friend’s face or how the librarian said that she was ‘freaked out’ by seeing me shoot her while seeing her real-time image on a website, but those things were on my mind when I posted. I feel like I owe them an apology.
How do I avoid this in the future? How can I avoid that “I streamed you even though you didn’t consent” regret I felt today? How do I stream ethically in order to protect community members and myself?
Looking for suggestions, I recorded an Utterz and turned the question to Twitter. Here are some responses (which, again, I’m printing without permission, assuming that it’s kosher to do so):
Pishba (Patty Hartwell) continued the conversation via email:
As for little cameras like the N95 that is exactly my point — people have no idea what is actually happening with that little gadget which is why if I had one I’d feel obligated to mention it was live streaming -
Agreed – who wants to piss off their friends, community with something like this — especially since it means they will be much less likely to cotton to live streaming in the future if they feel they have been burned in some way.
Unless you are live streaming in a bathroom with someone, the only thing you risk is boring people to death. There is no expectation of privacy in public and you can record all you want. If on the other hand you specifically record someone else engaged in a conversation they think is private, you need to bone up on your wiretapping laws. News channels do not get a release from everyone.
Excellent question you raise.
My personal (non legally informed) opinion is that any time you put someone else in the picture, you should ask their permission – particularly if it’s going to be broadcast. Forget the Borat-like issues (were they drunk? were they misled?)…I think it’s just good manners to let someone know what’s going to happen with their image and thoughts. Of course, a video stream (live or recorded) allows you to document the approval, but who wants the question right in their video?
We’ll have to let the courts decide on this one…probably too early to be well tested yet.
Any lawyers out there that want to weigh in on this one?
We are all basically saying here is that it is rude to tape someone in a spy-like manner. Little cameras like the N95 are harder to spot than traditional, shoulder-rest cameras. I liked @bear’s suggestion of wearing some kind of sign, a hat or something, but that won’t be adopted by many end-users as the technology spreads. In 20 years, it will be a non-issue, sure. But we as early adopters have an obligation at the ‘get-go’ to start things off ethically, to set up a tradition of respect.
First we need to start with education. So, a task item, for you dear reader is: Please explain to someone today, if you can, what live streaming is. That’s it. Task item for me: Think up scripts that don’t sound dorky that give fair notice of streaming. Perhaps make business cards that say “you’ve just been streamed, please visit www.thesitenamehere.com/username to see your video” and find a way to hand them out gracefully.
Any other tasks? Comments? Thanks to all who responded to me today!
Tags: blog, boys, children, children using the internet, girls, kids search for porn, kids using the internet, little kids, little kids look for porn, Media, porn, pornography, report, sex, story, top 10, top ten 
Entries (RSS)