Victimhood, Parenting, Responsibility and Free Speech

Ofcourse it can't completely shield them, however to a child, something like "YOU MUST BE OVER 18 TO ACCESS THIS CONTENT" would make _most_ leave it alone.


How about the parents that checked this app out before this was introduced? I'm all for Internet safety, and I thoroughly check everything my kids download whenever they do, however once I've checked it, I'm unlikely to do any more than query how the game is going and what's happening.

How about a solution being that you have to have a refunded payment through a card / PayPal to unlock the free nobility section? This restricts it from kids, meaning parents would have to be there for any purchases (so the responsibility would lie solely with them)

 

Free speech is not free it has consequences. Even the amendment acknowledges that.

A parent accepts responsibility for their child from the moment they decide to have a child.

If you aren't willing to be a parent 24/7. Don't have kids.
The Internet will not raise your children for you.
It will introduce them to an untold amount of issues parents don't want them exposed to.
Such as predators that claim to be child friendly people looking out for them.
They are the worst part of the Internet. And exactly why a child should be monitored at all times online.

Bank details on kids apps. No excuse. You have zero need for bank details online. Too up cards purchased from a shop are far more secure online.

No personal details should ever be given. Even to allegedly legit firms.
Online details should differ from real details to protect the user
( ie don't put your child's real birthday or yours. Use a fake one you will remember to register to a site like fb for example).

A true parent will be prepared to teach and educate their child as well as spend the time with them to ensure they are safe online.

Telling parents how to be a parent when one is not a parent is absurd.
Assuming people are sheeple and too stupid to make decisions for themselves is equally stupid.

Making comments about how sheeple are easily influenced by modern corrupt media that portrays a false image of the world, and then posting a thread based on an article from the corrupt media that tries to influence sheeple and telling people how to behave when you personally have no clue as to what being a parent entails 24/7
Well I can't even go into how dumb that is.

But that may be because as you say. Everyone using this forum including myself is clearly less intelligent than your supreme self.
Or it may just be because I am a sheep that clearly never learnt to read, because why would I? I live in a field eating grass. Why should I learn to read.

Actually in sure the local ewes could parent better than you. They don't allow their young to use the Internet.

 

I usually agree with you, on most subjects, but not this one.

You propose that good parenting = taking away time online?

Good parenting involves trust, if your kids know you're snooping on them 24/7 there will be no trust, this in turn will make them more likely to hide things from you (and they will, no matter what you do).

In the age we are in today, with so many net connected devices, it's important kids are taught about the Internet, how to stay safe and what to avoid. It equally means society in general has a responsibility to protect them until they're old enough to protect themselves.

Would you protect a child you don't know if you saw them needing help? Ofcourse you would, this is no different.

It's like a betting shop not checking customers age id.

 

Rio the age my children are. They will be monitored at all times.

Trust is built by many things. Teaching them to use computers safely is part of building that trust. Freedom in certain things is a must for trust.

Trust on the Internet is a never going to happen. And my children both agree that they should be monitored by parents or teachers.

It's good practice. The why. In the last month I have friends with children exposed to things on the net they shouldn't have been. That involved the police. The parents did not monitor the teens activity.

Another that was monitored covertly by their dad who then took action against a predator through legal channels. His child though thinking she was free to surf was monitored by her dad a computer specialist. She did not trust her parents enough to say she had been approached.
The parents monitoring prevented a serious crime.

The parents I class as close friends all monitor and protect their children.
It's a dangerous age and the Internet is a dangerous place ( yes it's fun and has uses but still ).

Yes of course I would help another child.
Just as I would protect my own and not allow them to put them self in serious harms way.
Children do not need to be exposed to a risk just to know it exists.

Socially I agree that filters could be used on the new feature as stated on the other thread.

Socially apple and google should have rules to govern this type of advertising. And ata could choose not to be competitive in the market place and not put this feature in.
The nations of the world could implement laws that keep up with modern game features and nanny state us all.

For some its needed perhaps.

But when it comes to children.
The buck stops with the parent generally.
A good parent should restrict access to things.

I personally hate adverts that portray violence, video games, betting and people dying or half naked girls in music videos singing about sexual content on children's tv channels.

But they are still legally allowed to show them. The parents should still be there to monitor watch and how much the children watch. Tv is no more a babysitter than the Internet is.
Where does a parent draw the line?
Where does the law?
Does a parent rely on the will of others to protect their child?

That's down to the parent and the trust they have built through real interaction with their child.

As far as I'm personally concerned. The computers are only rewards for completing homework and researching homework.
The teachers actual advice is for parents to print off the homework pages. Which to me is more restrictive and less educational than searching out data for themselves.
But it doesn't change that I won't ever trust 99.9% of the Internet with my details much less my children's safety.

 

Chaos, many children use the Internet on a daily basis with little consequence, as Internet safety is taught in schools and is known by many parents (In my country anyway)

As for sexual content on tv...sex sells. Companies know that adults watch children's programmes with their offspring.

Issues like that aren't life affecting if you don't make a big deal out of them. A child will not really pick up on sexual innuendos unless they can see their parents react in such a way that appears abnormal.

 

Hi Cheeseball, we have disagreed in personal conversations and in forums. For the most part I'm always interested to read your threads. Some have been weak tea and full of opinion and had alike opinion back from me. I only mention our history to establish the growing respect I have for you to address some real issues. Your like the alt artist of KaW. Kudos

I'm of the opinion that parents hold the full responsibility of connecting their children to the Internet and especially unsupervised. Peer pressure and parent pressure get phones in the hands of children way too soon. You may want to read the book, The Hurried Child. In North America at least, often both parents are putting in a full day and a cell phone without Internet capability keeps them in touch with their children.

As to ATA's fault advertising is not what we signed on for. I believe any intrusion by them is them is callus. Any sharing of our information with a 3Rd party is a criminal act, and action could be taken to civil court, sued for damages. Seems they constantly are looking at new revenue opportunities. I dont believe they be allowed to continue

 

So in theory if you go down to the kids toy shop with Jimmy and let him go walk around the isles and he comes back saying "mum/dad! If I sign up for this gambling service I can get a free batman figurine!"

That's not the parents fault for assuming the kids toy shop would be kid friendly. Anyone would think it would be kid friendly and not encouraging Jimmy to gamble, because that's not appropriate for kids. The parent already did the right thing by taking Jimmy to a kids toy shop.

 

So here's how I parent. My daughter has a tablet. Got it for her for Christmas. I set it up so that under no circumstance can she download anything that costs any money, as there is no credit card attached to it. She also can't download free material without my permission and a password, and apps that are rated Teen and above will not even exist to her play store.

Kaw would exist. I wouldn't let her download it, because she's 6 and shouldn't play any "war games". But at 9-10. Sure. If that's what she's interested in.

Now, she can't make in app purchases, so I'd feel ok with letting her play. It's a seemingly simple, and non offensive game. I'm top it looks like a cute game where you can build houses, join a clan to participate in battles against things that don't exist to be able to build more houses. No bad pictures, no blood. The only concern I would have is an open chat system. She knows not to tell people on the Internet personal information no matter how much they ask.


However, a proper website that asks to fill information in for rewards is far more trustworthy looking than a stranger asking "asl". I could see how she would think it's part of KaW and is an offer to help her advance. That everyone does it. Like it could be a gift system.

 

As my parents did the same and taught me the bad things that internet use can be, I still think that a rated 9 game shouldn't be offered any sort of this free nobs and offering gambling ads. Its not right and probably illegal.

 

If the toy store encouraged my child to by giving them free toys, I sure do.

You're missing the key point of the whole thing Cheese.

 

Completely different discussion. Anyway, I would ask my kid how smart it really was to do that. However the shop selling the phone should have cleared the information on sale.

You also missed the key point again. If the shop incentivised putting in personal information for a reward, I would understand even further why a kid would want to do that. Fairly bad analogy and you're missing the key point, still.

 

Good rules delphin respect. And as a parent of similar age I totally agree with your principle rules.
Personally I don't let my children use beyond school work and research. The main game rewards for 30 minutes a day 3-4 times a week are ds based. Far safer device.
I also teach no personal details ever. Something I have stated on here numerous times to players.

I actually agree with cheese's comments about social interaction being damaged whilst online or on any device.
As they get older they can better mange themselves ( pipebombs comment also teachers teach the same here bud. But you are older than my kids and more able to judge for yourself. ) but for now helicopter online parent is the responsible thing to do. It also makes it an enjoyable interaction and bond building exercise keeping it social.

You don't have to be a helicopter parent all the time. It's knowing at what age you need to be one. And when to and with what activity to trust your children.


Cheese the drug dealer in a toy store is a tad extreme.
But then what about predators on kaw cc?
Do they give the predators access to children and are they liable for the predators actions?

Of course we would hope they act with the best interest of children in mind.
As I have said. I would prefer the option to turn off and pin protect this new feature making it more child friendly.
Most Adults don't need that option. But it would be useful.

Also and the kicker. You can be the best parent in the world.
Send your child to school they are going to learn everything you don't want them to.
So of course you should discuss and prepare your child for everything they may face. Without making school sound like a hell hole.
It's just common sense.
And the most vital aspect is making sure your children know they can discuss anything with you at anytime.

Hopefully ata will listen to the community concerns over a turn off/ on feature.

But either way. It does end up being the parents job to make sure their children are safe. The only legal exception I can think of is when they are in the care of the state.

Morally we can wish for an ideal world.
But I doubt that will ever happen for some reason.

For the comment of what we signed up for.
I would love to agree with you. I would honestly.
I see the intention of this feature which seems good at first and helpful. I also take note of the negative sites people have mentioned.

But we signed up for a set of rules the devs state may change whenever they want.
Whether we like it or not.

 

KaW (yes I know, through a third party) is INCENTIVIZING gambling through an offer. That is the point being made. It's got nothing to do with blaming KaW for showing an ad about gambling. It's the fact that they're offering a reward for gambling on a game that allows 9 year olds to play.

Parents are responsible for their children. They should be monitoring their online activities and try and ensure they're not doing anything they shouldn't. They should teach them not to share personal information online to anyone and they should teach them to be safe online. No one is disputing that. Neither is anyone blaming ATA for the offers.

The issue is the discrepancy between the age requirement on the app and what they're offering. If an app is 9 plus, it needs to provide appropriate content. How well you educate your child on the dangers of the Internet is not the point. Even a well educated child can see the offer and think it's okay to place a bet (lets assume the parents was silly enough to give account details to the child) because they're being rewarded in KaW. So why not display age appropriate offers in the first place? Or have a button that can remove them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that parents remove all responsibility once they log in online and it becomes the app's fault. That's not the case at all. If a child racks up thousands in in app purchases because a parent wasn't careful with the details, then that's their fault for having a lack of common sense. If a child can do whatever they want on the Internet, then the parent needs to be more careful and teach them the dangers of the Internet. Can't just blame the Internet for that. My point is about incentivizing inappropriate things for children on an app that allows children to play.