Is It Safe? Kids and the New Internet

zellChristian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Yes, it’s safe, it’s very safe, it’s so safe you wouldn’t believe it.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: No. It’s not safe, it’s… very dangerous, be careful.

-Marathon Man (1976)

One of the most effective and creepiest scenes in movie history is the one in Marathon Man in which Laurence Olivier asks Dustin Hoffman that question over and over. Parents ask themselves that question all the time to- about their kids and the internet.

The MySpace Problem

One of the most popular internet sites for young people is, of course, MySpace. For those few who don’t know what MySpace is, you can be sure your teenaged kids know all about it. Here’s the FAQ, but the very short answer is that MySpace is a hugely popular social networking site where users can share photos, journals and interests with their network of friends.

The problem, of course, is that kids often don’t realize the risks of putting too much information about themselves on the internet and the information they put on the internet can be accessed by just about anyone. Friend and predator alike.

The sad reality is that the thing that makes these sites so popular, the prospect of sharing information and making new friends, is the thing that makes them so risky for kids.

MySpace, which was purchased by News Corp, has announced that it is taking measures to make the site safer for teens. Among those measures are the deletion of 200,000 “objectionable” user profiles. The objectionable profiles contained primarily “hate speech” and material gently described by Ross Levinsohn, head of News Corp’s internet division, as “too risque.” Too risque, right. Sadly, our culture blew right past risque in the 70’s.

It’s Really an Internet Problem

Mr. Levinsohn made a good point, however, in the Financial Times article linked above when he said about objectionable content:

It’s a problem that’s endemic to the internet – not just MySpace.

Absolutely, that’s the case. Every parent I talk to struggles with a family internet policy that allows kids to use the internet for its many good uses while avoiding its many bad uses. My kids haven’t locked onto computers and the internet yet, but I have run into problems merely by allowing one of my kids to do a Google image search for cats or bunnies. When my kids start clamoring to use the internet, you can be sure I will have redundant filters and site blockers in place. Not because I think they’ll try to find the bad stuff, but because you can’t help but find the bad stuff because there’s so much of it.

Thank Goodness We Didn’t Have the Internet

Don’t get me wrong, had there been an internet when I was a kid, I would have gone to great measures to find exactly the sort of thing I now want to keep my kids away from. My friends and I collected quite a collection of impermissible contraband back in the day. But what was shocking in the 60’s and early 70’s is on primetime television now (which is why we watch exactly none of it in my house pre-bedtime). The indisputable fact is that there is a ton of stuff on the internet that most right thinking parents find totally unsuitable for their kids. All of this during a time when the internet is as much a part of most teenagers’ lives as the telephone was to ours. And all of this during a time when the internet is all about “social interaction.”

Is There a Solution?

What to do?

First, I believe we have to stop talking about teenagers as if they were in one group for internet purposes. There are many things that an 17, 18 or 19 year old can probably handle that should be completely off limits to a 13 or 14 year old. Nor, candidly, should we encourage 13 to 19 year olds to interact on the internet as social equals.

Additionally, kids learn a lot of stuff a lot faster today than we did back in the 60’s. An 11 or 12 year old today is easily as sophtisticated as a 13-14 year old was back then. The fact that there’s not a teen at the end of his or her age is not a compelling reason why he or she can’t do something like use the internet or chat with a friend.

We need to decide what sites are OK for young children and which sites are not. There must be more than just a single division of web sites. To apply a 19 year old standard to a 13 year old is to ignore the problem, if not promote it. Likewise, to apply a 13 year old standard to a 19 year old is a recipe for non-cooperation and avoidance.

So why aren’t these social networking sites being more proactive about this?

The crossroads comes, as it always does, at the intersection of money and morals.

Sadly, sin sells, both in the real world and the internet. Primetime television, music videos, even cartoons. For a company to do the right thing and prohibit marginal activities is to invite another operator to take that space. It’s an unworkable situation that can only result in a potentially dangerous environment mitigated only by half-hearted measures and lip service.

Which is what this latest MySpace clean-up looks like to me.

Even in Second Life, which I have written about favorably, these issues are a significant problem. Second Life attempts to deal with the “sin” issue by creating a mature filter which if applied is designed to keep users away from the most extreme (read highly sexual) content. I suppose it works a little, but a stroll through the “PG” rated portions of Second Life demonstrates conclusively that there is a very mature element at work. Dance clubs with sexy names and logos, casinos on every corner. Fine for adults, not OK for kids.

Not to mention that you have no way to know that the person who looks like and claims to be a similar-aged kid may in fact be an old man. That is reason enough to keep youngsters away, but it is just the tip of the iceberg.

MySpace, Mayberry Style

All of this leads me to two conclusions.

First, my kids won’t be allowed to use MySpace and its ilk, at least until they are in their late teens. Same for Second Life. They may not like it, but I don’t let them wander around any strange place by themselves. Not in first life and not in second.

Second, the social interaction space is screaming for a family-oriented social networking site. MySpace, Mayberry style. Second Life with the Cleavers. Such a site would be welcomed by parents all over the world. I’d write about it weekly.

It would have to be developed by the right person or persons. Not an organization with an agenda to promote. But by a non-denominational organization that wanted to create a safe place for kids and make a little money too. Not greater fool money, but corner market money.

My internet utopia would have 3 age-based zones, each separate and independent from the others. 10-13, 14-16 and 17-19. New users would have to be verified in some meaningful manner by their parents. Parents would also be verified and would serve as volunteer safety officers- with the ability to report violations and to exclude their own kids from activities, but not the ability to interact directly in the virtual community.

Perhaps there would be a way to create private invitation-only sub-communiti
es. I’d gladly set something like that up for my kids and their friends. Then I and the other parents could police it to keep order and make sure there are no interlopers.

Maybe something like that exists, but I’ve never heard of it.

As our kids get older and the internet gets more ingrained in our lives, it will become important to develop a family internet policy that allows our kids to enjoy the wonder of the internet while protecting them from it’s darker side.

I hope someone will be up to the challenge. I’ll certainly help any way I can.

Taking Some of the Hot Air Out of Web 2.0

I’m sitting here in my $400 a night room (and by room, I mean room, not big room and not suite) at the Hotel George in Washington, DC getting ready to give a lecture on ethics at Georgetown Law School. I’ve made my lecture notes and I have an hour or so to kill before I head over to the lecture hall and then rush to the airport to fly back home.

So I decided to read some of my feeds and see what’s going on in the blogosphere. And I came across a great article.

Paul Boutin has an article at Slate about Web 2.0. It does a yeoman’s job of explaining what Web 2.0 is, what it isn’t and why it means different things to different people.

Paul begins by looking to Tim O’Reilly for a definition of Web 2.0. What he gets is a bunch of technobabble that will confuse many, irritate some and enlighten none:

Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.

web20That’s a “pre-owned cars” take if ever there was one. Dude, just because you’re a smart guy with a big platform doesn’t mean you can’t use regular words. Answer the question in a way that a normal person can understand. No one I know would get past the second line before writing off Web 2.0 as either a creation of the media or a buzzword for the nerd set.

If I ever get asked by one of my real world friends what Web 2.0 is, the first thing I’ll do is faint. When I come to, I’ll say it’s a buzzword created by tech writers that refers to a new generation of online computer applications that generally promote social interaction via user-created content and user-supplied keywords that describe and organize that content. Some of these applications are core to that process and some are supportive by organizing the data into searchable lists and databases.

Paul goes on to describe other definitions of Web 2.0 used by other segments of the population.

Developers generally use Web 2.0 to refer to “gee-whiz features” of newly developed web sites, which are often based on Ajax, tag clouds, wikis and other collaborative tools. In general, these features are free (which is problem number one when someone tries to, say, sell one of them for $2B dollars), easy to master, and easy to interconnect.

And then comes the specter of Bubble 2.0:

A third definition gets thrown around in Silicon Valley. A “Web 2.0 play” is a bid to make money by funding a bring-your-own-content site. It’s a long-shot but low-risk investment that could become the next Google. Or at least the next thing Google buys.

Bingo. I’ve said it many times and like a street preacher I will keep saying it until the cops run me off: as long as these companies and their VC handlers don’t get desperate and start trying to take these science project turned companies public, that’s fine. But we’re starting to read more and more about IPO’s in the planning.

When that starts happening, we’ll know that Bubble 2.0 has reached a critical and dangerous stage.

Fortunately, Paul says that at least some writers and editors are hip to the salesmanship game that is sprouting up around some of these products:

Beyond that, publicists and self-promoters invoke Web 2.0 whenever they want to tag something as new, cool, and undiscovered- “This could be a big story for you, Paul!” That kind of hucksterism is what sends editors reaching for their red pens.

That’s a good thing, because many more Newsweek stories and Web 2.0 may become a momentum play for the non-geek retail investor. When that happens, the huffing and puffing will grow geometrically and all that will be left will be to watch the lesser fools get wealthy while the greater fools take another bath.

Paul goes on to argue that, at least as of now, Bubble 2.0 doesn’t look as dangerous as Bubble 1.0 was. I agree, for now. But you get Wall Street behind a few of these non-companies and let a couple of them make it out of the gate without a total disaster and you’ll see a race towards our pockets that would rival the last one.

Here’s to doing our part to keep that from happening, again.

Technorati Tags:
,

Finally, a Funding I Like

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lotus founder Mitch Kapor joined Globespan Capital Partners and others in an $11M funding of Second Life. This funding follows an $8M funding in October, 2004.

Unlike most of the funding reports I read about, I get this one. It makes sense.

Second Life is in the process of winning the race for virtual reality mindshare. It’s cool. It’s popular. And it has an almost infinite list of potential revenue sources.

You can join Second Life and participate for free. But to own land and build things on that land, you have to have a premium membership. That creates revenue. Plus, there is a property tax equivalent that requires a user to pay a greater fee the more land he or she owns. For example, I own around 6,000 square meters of land in Second Life (this is a medium amount) and my “tax” is $40 per month. That creates revenue.

In addition to creating revenue, the property tax provides incentive not to let land lie vacant. You want to build something to make some money to offset the cost. It’s a perfectly accurate economic and land use policy.

You can build, rent or sell almost anything in Second Life. I can imagine well placed ads and billboards being sold in Second Life at some point (the narrow strips of land next to roads are “protected” and owned by the “government”). More revenue.

I can imagine deals with all sorts of real world vendors to open shops in Second Life. Music, movies, you name it. Even more revenue.

The developer is working on a program to allow people to buy the exclusive right to last names (presently, you have a limited list of last names to choose from). I picked Snickerdoodle, which it turns out is the name of a cookie. Selling names will generate more revenue.

And these are just the potential revenue sources that jump out at me. I bet the Second Life team has hundreds of other ideas.

I’m sold on Second Life as a compelling way to interact on the net. I was talking to a guy in Second Life the other night and it turns out we read each others’ blogs. Small world inside a small world.

I’m equally sold on Second Life as a business.

And that’s an all too rare combination these days.

4 Things, Revisited

Mike Miller tagged me for the 4 Things Meme. I really enjoy memes because they are a fun and easy way to find out about people. I enjoy Mark Cuban’s blog, but I disagree with him about memes. Those are some rock star-like statements from a guy I have always thought to be a (rich) man of the people.

Back to the meme. I answered these questions a few weeks ago, so tonight I asked Cassidy to answer them. Here are her answers:

Four Jobs I’ve Had

1) Secretary (for her 2nd grade class)
2) Tables (for her 2nd grade class)
3) Windows (for her 2nd grade class)
4) Pets (for her 2nd grade class)

Four Movies I Can Watch Over and Over Again

1) Twitches
2) High School Musical
3) Sky High
4) Kim Possible So the Drama

Four Places I’ve Lived

1) Texas

Four TV Shows I Love

1) Kim Possible
2) Lilo and Stitch
3) Tom and Jerry
4) Sponge Bob

Four Places I’ve Vacationed

1) Fort Worth
2) Galveston
3) Bandera, Texas
4) Florida

Four of My Favorite Dishes

1) Corn
2) Candy
3) Pickles
4) Popsicles

Four Blogs I Read Everyday

1) What’s a blog?

Four Places I’d Rather Be Right Now

1) With my friends
2) Fort Worth
3) Bandera
4) School

How Not to Grow a Blog

Amanda Chapel has launched a PR blog called Strumpette.

What better way to kick-start some traffic than to play games with one of the most popular and well-respected bloggers in the world? Right?

No. Wrong. Very wrong.

She leads off by discussing an office pool she is in concerning how long Steve Rubel will stay at his new employer, Edelman. She goes on to give some alleged insight into the politics at Edelman and then she starts blasting Steve in the name of attention and traffic.

I’m not going to go point by point because I don’t know squat about the PR business or the politics at Edelman and because I don’t want to give this story or this approach legs, other than to join Doc in betting that Steve runs Edelman one day and to chastise Stowe a little for not calling BS on it (Stowe is one of my favorite reads, notwithstanding this momentary lapse).

In blogosphere politics, just like in real life office politics, some folks believe you can rise faster by throwing rocks at those around you than by just working hard and letting the results take care of themselves. I see it happen all the time with Scoble. People call for him to get fired and worse, all in the name of traffic and eyeballs.

These blogs are great, but behind every one of them is someone who is trying to make a living and live a life. It’s fine to disagree- I do it all the time. But how you disagree with someone tells more about what you’re made of than how you agree with them.

Blogs are getting to be like cars. It’s easy to shoot the finger at someone from the safety of your car. It’s getting too easy to do that from your blog. Snarky may be fine when we’re disagreeing about music, movies or politics. The rules ought to be different when we’re talking about our lives and jobs.

I think disagreeing with someone, be it Steve, Scoble or anyone else, in a way that may impact their life or their livelihood is one big bucket of wrong.

Bubble 2.0 Watch: Three Quotes for the Ages

More evidence of huffing and puffing beneath Bubble 2.0, in the form of three hilariously troubling quotes.

Quote 1

First this one from “senior industry executives familiar with the matter,” as reported by Steve Rosenbush of BusinessWeek Online, about the proposed sale of Facebook:

Facebook, the Web site where students around the world socialize and swap information, has put itself on the block, BusinessWeek Online has learned. The owners of the privately held company have turned down a $750 million offer and hope to fetch as much as $2 billion in a sale.

One guy told Steve that Viacom, which owns the MTV, VH1, and Comedy Central cable networks, might be a good buyer for Facebook.

Hey Viacom, I have a 2001 Ford Expedition in good shape that I’ll sell you for $250,000. I’ve got some used power tools in the $15,000 range each. Call me. We can make a deal.

Quote 2

But the best quote from that article is this one:

[$2 Billion] may sound like a huge amount of money, especially when you consider that the company was launched just two years ago by a group of sophomores at Harvard University.

Ya think?

Quote 3

And the third and best quote of all comes from Russ Beattie in reaction to the above article:

I think my brain just blew up.

Mine too, Russ. And I’ll tell you what else is blowing up: Bubble 2.0, that’s what.

And a Sane Voice Says Calmly

Rafat Ali does his best to keep at least one of our collective toes in the pool of reality by pointing out:

[E]veryone, including Viacom, has looked at [Facebook] multiple times, parsed the valuation and options, and still could not think of a logical business reason for ponying up that kind of money. What I do know, from my sources, is that Facebook closed on a “huge round” of funding last week. So I would say the acquisition part is off the table, for now. [The] $2 billion figure is at best, hearsay, and at worst, media manipulation.

UMPC/Origami: Tablet PC Killer or Turbo-PDA?

Actually, neither. It proposes to fill the huge and likely profitable space between the two.

Rob Bushway has a interesting post today that raises questions, both about Tablet PCs as well as the effect of the forthcoming UMPC/Origami on the love affair between mobile technology users and their Tablet PCs.

A UMPC/Origami is an “ultra mobile PC” (thus the name UMPC) that is significantly smaller than a Tablet PC. It has a 7″ screen. Here is an FAQ with a little more information about them.

Rob points out that even though Tablet PCs are designed to be mobile and easy to take with you, a lot of people don’t carry them around any more than a traditional notebook. They are too big to be unobtrusive and some people have found the notetaking features less productive than they hoped.

I agree with both of those concerns. I use my Thinkpad X41 Tablet PC all the time, but as a laptop replacement, not something to carry around with me like a super-charged PDA. Sure, I use it around the house a little, when I want to be outside, but need to stay connected for some reason. But mostly I use it on business trips in lieu of a traditional laptop.

We have an old Fujitsu tablet (no keyboard) that we keep downstairs for people to check weather, email, etc. My wife loved the idea in concept and she used it a bit when I first set it up, but now it gathers dust as she thinks it’s too big and too slow (I agree with the first part, but I think she’s making the slow part up).

But the fact remains that there is a big space between the current Tablet PCs and a PDA. Tablets are too big to carry around unobtrusively and PDAs (sorry, even Treos) are too small to use regularly for computing and internet functions.

So what do I think about the UMPC/Origami? I think the devil will be in the details, but if it does what reports claim it will application and internet wise, I agree with Rob that the future of mobile computing may very well include a UMPC/Origami along with a traditional laptop or tablet PC.

I’m not so sure that I wouldn’t still have a Tablet PC, since I continue to believe that a Tablet PC will do everything a traditional laptop will do and more. But I can certainly envision UMPC/Origami taking a big role in the mobile technology space.

Fellow Houstonian James Kendrick provides a preview of how a UMPC/Origami might fit into your mobile technology plans (interestingly enough by looking back at his prior discussion of how to use a Sony U71).

I’ll certainly want to take a long, hard look at a UMPC/Origami when they become widely available, but based on what I know so far, I expect one will end up in my briefcase.

Tags: ,

Second Life: The Future of Online Interaction?

Scoble, quoting his son today, said about the truest words I have read in a while. He said that Second Life is addicting.

secondlifehoverMan, is it ever. After I had my own little temper tantrum this past weekend brought on by my inability to figure out how to build a suitable home in Second Life, I ventured back into the Second Life world. Six hours later, I was all fixed up.

With a nice, big house in an active area, with a pool, a plasma TV on the wall and a radio that plays classic rock music for anyone who happens by. My old house, in a quiet residential neighborhood, is up for sale.

It took some time, but I had no choice. I got hooked. At dinner Sunday night I found myself thinking about buying the land next to my new crib. Not since Civ. III has something like that happened.

Second Life may or may not be an OS, but it is, for many, the future of online interaction. It’s not Microsoft that should be quaking in its boots- it’s Myspace, et al.

As soon as enough people figure out how to get set up and do cool stuff in Second Life, I believe it will take dominant control over the interactive space. It’s what Sims Online should have been combined with what many of the social networking sites are trying to become.

There is certainly the potential for an insider crowd or crowds to develop in Second World, but that’s to be expected if it is to mirror the workings of our first lives. For example, I see all kinds of cool stuff being done by Eric Rice and others, but I have no idea how to get involved in that sort of mega-private development. You can buy a private island, but it is very expensive at over $1000 for the land, plus $195 a month for maintenance. But like anything else, if I want to know bad enough, I’ll hang around the action and ask questions until I figure it out.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to visit my Second Life house, it’s called Rancho DeNada and is located at Sibine (138,79). There’s a pool, a dance floor, a couple of hot tubs and some music.

And, with any luck, that’s just the start.

Unconferences: Out of Chaos?

I continue to be intrigued by the idea of an unconference. I posted on the topic a few weeks ago and Christopher Carfi was kind enough the give me a primer via a blog post and a Comment.

I’ve never spoken at an unconference, but I’ve spoken at a lot of conferences and I’ve been to and presided over a lot of meetings. And I’ve listened to a few meetups via podcasts, which I like everyone else in the world listen to at my computer.

So I’m starting to get a handle on the conference/unconference business.

Today Dave Winer posts about unconferences and links to a cheat sheet he and some others pulled together about how to structure one. I have a couple of thoughts about all of this.

First, it seems to me that the key to an unconference must be a strong, impartial and fair-minded moderator. One who won’t favor his or her friends and perspectives. One who will be fair to all. And most of all one who will keep some order to the event and avoid the inevitable descent into chaos that occurs when everyone wants to talk at the same time.

boring meeting

It’s interesting that Dave posted the how-to on unconferences, since his attempt to bring up a 6 year old fight with John Markoff during the Berkeley Cybersalon is exactly the thing that should not be allowed to happen at a conference- un or not. If someone wants to pick a fight, do it offline. There are better things for the group at large to talk and hear about.

The hardest job of anyone who is presiding over a meeting or, I presume, an unconference, is to keep the issue from becoming personal or personality based. And if something is conference-worthy, there will always been some emotional buttons that, if pushed, can result in a loss of control and focus.

In theory, I am highly in favor of unconferences. I often wonder why I’m at the podium and the audience is in the seats when I speak at conferences. I have certainly wondered why others were at various podiums while I was in various seats. If done correctly, the unconference solves this dilemma by putting everyone on equal footing.

It’s another tool used to flatten the earth. I like the flat earth.

Moderators will still have to deal with the fact that sometime a person’s desire to be heard is inversely proportional to what he or she really has to say.

On the whole, I think the unconference idea is sound. But I suspect many of them can, do and will become chaotic, particularly when there is a large number of voices in the crowd.

The trick will be to create an equal right to be heard while maintaining order and a little structure.

And yes, the title to this post is a tribute to one of my favorite books of the 70’s.

Technorati Tags:
,

Web 2.0 Wars: List of Winners and Playoffs

Aften almost 200 applications reviewed and 20 winner take all rounds, here are the winners of the preliminary rounds.

The Web 2.0 Wars March Madness will consist of 4 quarter-final matches, 2 semi-final matches and a champship round. During the playoff rounds, I will spend a little more time digging into each application, which will result in a more detailed review.

The teams will be grouped into the following groups for the playoffs.

Pageflakes
YouTube
Poddater
Tailrank (replaced Tagworld)
FireAnt

Last.fm
iKarma
Memeorandum
AllPeers
Riya

Wikipedia
Flickr
Myspace
Blogger
Pandora

Digg
Basecamp
Backpack
Technorati
Mercora

Look for the first quarter-final match in the next day or two.