NationStates Jolt Archive

I have run a websites and built sitebuilders and so on so forth. I also have kids. I am also thoroughly aware that alot of the people in NationStates are young. So here is the question:

How old is old enough for a kid to have their own public site? What is the general opinion?

I know of 14 year old girls that give out personal info on MySpace contrary to their strict code of 16 or older.

Should there be more monitoring of such sites? Should parents be held liable?

what's your opinion?

I have run a websites and built sitebuilders and so on so forth. I also have kids. I am also thoroughly aware that alot of the people in NationStates are young. So here is the question:

How old is old enough for a kid to have their own public site? What is the general opinion?

I know of 14 year old girls that give out personal info on MySpace contrary to their strict code of 16 or older.

Should there be more monitoring of such sites? Should parents be held liable?

what's your opinion?
Any with the proviso that personal information is strictly restricted

Its all good and fine to let people know your opinions but things like full names, locations, schedules, phone numbers or other Identifiers should be kept to a bare minimum

Things like email and AIM names are cool to put there but it is our responsibility to make sure kids keep themselves safe

By the way interesting viewpoint and topic.

Any with the proviso that personal information is strictly restricted

Its all good and fine to let people know your opinions but things like full names, locations, schedules, phone numbers or other Identifiers should be kept to a bare minimum

Things like email and AIM names are cool to put there but it is our responsibility to make sure kids keep themselves safe

I'd have to agree. I have a few personal info sites, and the most that I usually give out is location.

I have run a websites and built sitebuilders and so on so forth. I also have kids. I am also thoroughly aware that alot of the people in NationStates are young. So here is the question:

How old is old enough for a kid to have their own public site? What is the general opinion?

I know of 14 year old girls that give out personal info on MySpace contrary to their strict code of 16 or older.

Should there be more monitoring of such sites? Should parents be held liable?

what's your opinion?

Parent's shouldn't be hold reliable. My nephew (I don't have kids who are competent enough to manipulate me) is sneaky, and he's only 12. He's got 6 different sites, but thankfully they're all built by the hoster's site builder.

So Uncle Joey has to come build a site for him with my bare hands if he wants a good looking, ad-free site.

Well, lemme tell ya something. The very girls in my high school that put up a crapload of information about themselves pretty much divulge the same information in real life. If anything, it's pretty much a cyber version of their personality. We're not talking about your average teenager divulging their personal information, we're talking about socialities that are already considering sex at a young age that're doing these things.

But I'm speaking in general. I've seen a few myspace sites where the girls are very quiet in real life. But even still, they didn't divulge information that puts themself in any danger.

And the sites I've seen from girls in my school....girls my age, keep in mind that I'm 15, putting up suggestive pictures. I think that's a little too far.

I'd have to agree. I have a few personal info sites, and the most that I usually give out is location.
General location is alright like me Minnesota or even narrow it down a bit to city

But I am talking about real city street address (unless you are an adult and or making a business website … but even then it is better to give an email and give out your address through email rather then posting in on the page)

The key is to never leave children unsupervised on the Internet - never put the computer where you can't easily see what the kid is doing. I feel like 15 would be a good age to let kids be alone on the web, but I'd still supervise and have logging programmes on in the beginning to see if they're responsible or not, before feeling comfortable with their maturity to use it on their own.

I know I'd like to trust my kid, but given the choice between that and them being abducted and god knows what, it's really a no-brainer what I'd choose...

Parent's shouldn't be hold reliable. My nephew (I don't have kids who are competent enough to manipulate me) is sneaky, and he's only 12. He's got 6 different sites, but thankfully they're all built by the hoster's site builder.

So Uncle Joey has to come build a site for him with my bare hands if he wants a good looking, ad-free site.
It is still the parents responsibility

They are absolutely responsible for the health and wellbeing of the minors under their care

The key is to never leave children unsupervised on the Internet - never put the computer where you can't easily see what the kid is doing. I feel like 15 would be a good age to let kids be alone on the web, but I'd still supervise and have logging programmes on in the beginning to see if they're responsible or not, before feeling comfortable with their maturity to use it on their own.

I know I'd like to trust my kid, but given the choice between that and them being abducted and god knows what, it's really a no-brainer what I'd choose...
Yeah I am less worried about the material my kid may absorb then that he or she might give OUT to other people

It is still the parents responsibility

They are absolutely responsible for the health and wellbeing of the minors under their care

I agree. I think that as a parent, if my son/daughter is spending time on the internet, I am responsible to know what they are doing. This includes their building websites. I understand that being a developer makes that a little easier for me as I can narrow it down to the ISP's they hit and restrict access, but I think if a parent is going to get a computer and allow their kids to use it, they should know as much if not more than their child.

By the way interesting viewpoint and topic.

Thanks. I figured not all the forum should be taken up with ID VS. Evolution.

Thanks. I figured not all the forum should be taken up with ID VS. Evolution.
Yeah that happens lets just hope this does not turn into a porn website moral (therefore religious (wont be able to discuss morals without religion intruding)) argument

I had my first website at the age of twelve. It was a recruiting site for a clan in some online game. Did me no harm. Probably because:

-->spammer/hacker :cool: ---> :sniper: me<---

I have run a websites and built sitebuilders and so on so forth. I also have kids. I am also thoroughly aware that alot of the people in NationStates are young. So here is the question:

How old is old enough for a kid to have their own public site? What is the general opinion?

I know of 14 year old girls that give out personal info on MySpace contrary to their strict code of 16 or older.

Should there be more monitoring of such sites? Should parents be held liable?

what's your opinion?

Ironically enough, I was actually thinking the same thing about MySpace before having read this thread. I know a chick about my age (we're freshmen), and she's got a page up there on Myspace. The 16+ rule is hardly enforceable. As for a website for myself, I picked up a sweet free hosting package from One & One back when they were new, so I host things like programs I've written, or pictures for my personal use (fully clothed, like, y'know if I were to get a haircut, "Hey, John, checkout my haircut"). Due to the structure of the hosting, there's not really any way to index it, unless you were to use some sort of automation.

Some other posters above me feel children should be supervised on the Internet. I suppose this is true, but in my case, which could be an abnormal situation, I've been using a computer in my room since I was like 10. I've never been stupid enough to give out personal information. All in all, I feel that if you've done your job as a parent, then you shouldn't need to supervise your kid.

Ironically enough, I was actually thinking the same thing about MySpace before having read this thread. I know a chick about my age (We're Frehshmen), and she's got a page up there on Myspace. They're 16+ rule is hardly enforcable. As for a website for myself, I picked up a sweet free hosting package from One & One back when they were new, so I host things like programs I've written, or pictures for my personal friends. I don't really have an index, so I feel alright.

Some othe posters above me feel children should be supervised on the internet. I suppose this is true, but in my case, which could be an abnormal situation, I've been using a computer in my room since I was like 10. I've never been stupid enough to give out personal information. All in all, I feel that if you've done your job as a parent, then you shouldn't need to supervise your kid.
That’s all good and fine but your parents are responsible for you

If they felt you responsible enough on your own to have a computer in your room fine that’s their decision

But if anything would happen because of it THEY would be the ones responsible

I think it should be mandatory, like Miranda Rights, that a parent or guardian is told of the dangers faced by anyone on the net, especially kids. I will also go as far as having a class on theory and instruction for said person(s) including their kid(s). These people should also sign a liability document that states that if they refuse to safeguard properly, that they will be held responsible for anything coming of their inaction. What this basically means is if the child under your charge is affected legally (murdered, molested, kidnapped, etc.) said "Adult" will be convicted along with the culpable party as an accomplice.

Remember, you may not be legally your brothers’ keeper, but you should be legally responsible to those in your charge. And, frankly, if you can not take on that responsibility then you should have your reproductive ability removed. Also, before you start talking about ability to afford it, which is easily rectified, the SPCA has been doing it for animals for many, many, years without much problem. So we merely extend government support to the already existing free clinics to do the same with the human animal.

*<}:o) H-D

Short of game betas, no site should require you to put any more than your email in the first place.

I think it should be mandatory, like Miranda Rights, that a parent or guardian is told of the dangers faced by anyone on the net, especially kids. I will also go as far as having a class on theory and instruction for said person(s) including their kid(s). These people should also sign a liability document that states that if they refuse to safeguard properly, that they will be held responsible for anything coming of their inaction. What this basically means is if the child under your charge is affected legally (murdered, molested, kidnapped, etc.) said "Adult" will be convicted along with the culpable party as an accomplice.

Remember, you may not be legally your brothers’ keeper, but you should be legally responsible to those in your charge. And, frankly, if you can not take on that responsibility then you should have your reproductive ability removed. Also, before you start talking about ability to afford it, which is easily rectified, the SPCA has been doing it for animals for many, many, years without much problem. So we merely extend government support to the already existing free clinics to do the same with the human animal.

*<}:o) H-D


Umm, that's the third time you've posted that. You can delete the post by selecting that option located in the button-right corner of the post.

Short of game betas, no site should require you to put any more than your email in the first place.
disregarding subscription sights or not?

I think it should be mandatory, like Miranda Rights, that a parent or guardian is told of the dangers faced by anyone on the net, especially kids. I will also go as far as having a class on theory and instruction for said person(s) including their kid(s). These people should also sign a liability document that states that if they refuse to safeguard properly, that they will be held responsible for anything coming of their inaction. What this basically means is if the child under your charge is affected legally (murdered, molested, kidnapped, etc.) said "Adult" will be convicted along with the culpable party as an accomplice.

Remember, you may not be legally your brothers’ keeper, but you should be legally responsible to those in your charge. And, frankly, if you can not take on that responsibility then you should have your reproductive ability removed. Also, before you start talking about ability to afford it, which is easily rectified, the SPCA has been doing it for animals for many, many, years without much problem. So we merely extend government support to the already existing free clinics to do the same with the human animal.

*<}:o) H-D


Interesting concept. Who gets to decide who is made infertile and who gets to live a reproductive life? That's hitler-esque some might say.

While parents should be responsible, and liable, that is a little too much.

As far as what 1337 h4x0r5 is saying (an obvious gamer tag if ever I saw one), I understand your parents' position, but they should still monitor what you are doing. And pictures of minors should (in my opinion) never be allowed to be posted.

disregarding subscription sights or not?
If they are billing to your house, they will need your address as well, you are correct.

I'm 14 and I have a website- i think its been running for around a year. I guess some people could be irresponsible with what they put out on the web, but I've always been taught not to gve personal details and stuff away.

Actually I guess I just broke that rule, telling you lot how old I am!

Anyway. Its great to be able to voice your opinions over the web-you get so many points of view. Thats why I like the NS forums!

I'm 14 and I have a website- i think its been running for around a year. I guess some people could be irresponsible with what they put out on the web, but I've always been taught not to gve personal details and stuff away.

Actually I guess I just broke that rule, telling you lot how old I am!

Anyway. Its great to be able to voice your opinions over the web-you get so many points of view. Thats why I like the NS forums!

I think a forum is slightly different though...although I can probably hyperlink to your site know and gain personal information from your cache and cookies.

I think age appropriateness is the issue.

Interesting concept. Who gets to decide who is made infertile and who gets to live a reproductive life? That's hitler-esque some might say.

While parents should be responsible, and liable, that is a little too much.



I would have thought the responsible party was clear from the title first off and then throughout the post.... YOU!
It is called freedom of choice. If you make bad choices, then be ready for the consequences.... Democracy at its best.

*<}:o) H-D

what does age have to do with having a public site? a 5 year old could have a public site for gods sake. he could put up drawings of his cat.

the question is "when should it no longer be completely monitored by parents?"

all sites should be monitored by parents until their children are no longer children. just as a child's trips into public in real life need to be monitored by parents until they are no longer children. a 5 year old needs to be right beside mommy the whole time he is in the mall; the 17 year old just needs his parents to know that he is going to the mall and not going out to do a drive-by-shooting of a rival gang.

parents need to do similar monitoring of their children's online habits. no one under 12 should be online without mommy being right there to keep the scary porn pics away. by 16 a reasonably raised child should be able to have his own website without mommy ever really needing to see it. (although an occasional check to make sure he's not doing anything illegal is a good idea)

I agree. I think that as a parent, if my son/daughter is spending time on the internet, I am responsible to know what they are doing. This includes their building websites. I understand that being a developer makes that a little easier for me as I can narrow it down to the ISP's they hit and restrict access, but I think if a parent is going to get a computer and allow their kids to use it, they should know as much if not more than their child.

I think you're underestimating the resourcefullness of today's erstwhile youth. Despite many blockages and any kind of firewall, there are many sites out there that can go past the firewall, mostly through CGI. Heck, I've done it myself before.

I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be immune to their responsibilities, but if something messes up, they shouldn't take the full brunt of punishment. After all, the kid in itself is the one who decided to go on it, no matter what he says otherwise (he could have been pressured to do it, but it's still his choice).

Just for fun, I decided to look up my high school. I found the addresses of ten girls, none of whom I know, in less than ten minutes. That is pretty creepy.

Just for fun, I decided to look up my high school. I found the addresses of ten girls, none of whom I know, in less than ten minutes. That is pretty creepy.

You have vaguely proven my subsequent point.

I started a personal site when I was 14, back in 1997. And it never did me any harm. :eek: I even spent a year cleaning porn off this place. :D

Being left on the Internet unsupervised taught me a lot, the good definitely outweighs the bad. If you're being constantly monitored by your parents, that totally defeats the freedom of it. My suggestion, give them some webspace and a book on HTML (not a drag-and-drop sitebuilder), and leave them to it.

I started a personal site when I was 14, back in 1997. And it never did me any harm. :eek: I even spent a year cleaning porn off this place. :D

Being left on the Internet unsupervised taught me a lot, the good definitely outweighs the bad. If you're being constantly monitored by your parents, that totally defeats the freedom of it. My suggestion, give them some webspace and a book on HTML (not a drag-and-drop sitebuilder), and leave them to it.
I am all for that with the proviso that the parents make sure no info that could make them vulnerable gets on that site (such as anything from sexual photos to addresses and such)

Other then that let them create … show them the link to w3schooles and go lol

I started a personal site when I was 14, back in 1997. And it never did me any harm. :eek: I even spent a year cleaning porn off this place. :D

Being left on the Internet unsupervised taught me a lot, the good definitely outweighs the bad. If you're being constantly monitored by your parents, that totally defeats the freedom of it. My suggestion, give them some webspace and a book on HTML (not a drag-and-drop sitebuilder), and leave them to it.

This brings up an entirely different issue. Why anyone would allow anyone to use a drag-and-drop site builder.

Friends don't let friends use Frontpage.

But seriously...

Perhaps going about it that way is a good idea. Maybe even doing the project together (parents and ids working together, insanity) can make it a safer project. I've heard of people developing "family sites" that are kind of blogs where each member gets a page. I think that would be safer than mySpace.

(imo)There shuldn't be an age restriction, it should be up to the parents to monitor.
The internet is a good source for finding out other peoples opinions, contacting and learning from other cultures, and learn all the shit the bible-humping-schools (or other forms of restricted schools) wont teach you.

(imo)There shuldn't be an age restriction, it should be up to the parents to monitor.
The internet is a good source for finding out other peoples opinions, contacting and learning from other cultures, and learn all the shit the bible-humping-schools (or other forms of restricted schools) wont teach you.

Interesting statement. I believe there is an age restriction at places like mySpace (although they allow obvious violations) in order to protect themselves legally should an underage person be abducted, raped, molested, etc. due to information on their site.

If it was to go to court, mySpace would not be held liable...the parents would. And I hate to say it, but they should be.

Now, saying this, I still don't think people should be force sterilized. That is insane.