backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by jjabrams.. on Jan 16 at 6:44 PM
MySpace agrees to new user protection guidelines

MySpace has long been one of the most popular social networking sites online. As one of the most popular sites and one of the social networking sites with the largest amount of members, MySpace also has some of the biggest problems to deal with.

BusinessWeek is reporting that MySpace has come to an agreement with 49 states to make changes to its site with the intention of protecting users from sexual predators and others who misuse the site. Texas did not partake in the agreement.

MySpace has agreed to allow a third-party to monitor its site and will change the structure of its site. The new agreement was announced today in Manhattan by attorneys general from New Jersey, North Carolina, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.

Some of the new security measures that MySpace agreed to include allowing parents to submit children’s email address to prevent anyone from misusing the address to set up a profile, making the default profile setting for 16 and 17 year old users private, and responding to complaints about inappropriate images and content within 72 hours. MySpace also agreed to strengthen software to find underage users and to create a high school section for students under 18.

In December of 2007 MySpace was sued by the family of a girl who killed herself after being sexually assaulted by a man she met on MySpace. Previously a 13 year old MySpace user committed suicide after being bullied by other users in comments posted to her MySpace page. These new safety measures will hopefully prevent this type of tragedy from happening again on MySpace.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ugh..
By ZaethDekar on 1/14/2008 3:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.'

I don't know about you but I think it is complete stupid that suicide is happening because of myspace. All you have to do is delete the comment or block them from your page.




RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
First off, what is up with dailytech, you can only comment again minutes after your first comment.

Secondly, my space users are teenagers who are so impressionable and so sensitive and emotional that their entire lives depend on the acceptance of others. This is the primitive way to grow in this society, gain acceptance by being a poser or doing something crazy or w/e…. So sticks and stones don’t apply; for this generally simple anecdote is very esoteric.


RE: Ugh..
By TheDoc9 on 1/14/2008 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Social acceptance is apart of all societies. Some of the newer theories on genetics suggest that years ago that people lived in small groups.

Basically it goes like this - If you were not liked by people in the group, particularly by a mate and you were cast out then not only did you loose the groups protection but it would also be validating your inferior genes and you would not be able to reproduce.

Why would you be cast out? Because you would either have to challenge a group leader for a mate, or you would have to pin EVERYTHING on being accepted by one person. This is especially true for males as the females traditionally do the choosing, unless of course you're the group leader then as a man you decide and all of the females - even the taken ones, are interested. In a small group of people everyone would know you were denied and the other mates would stay away from you which gets into the the idea of social acceptance. And imagine how few other humans you would run into in your possibly short lifetime. So at best you'd be a tag along and your genes wouldn't survive.

Now of course these people might not have been thinking this in there mind. It's simply a possible reason behind the reason so to speak.


RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 5:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Doc9,

I took cultural anthropology, so I'm well versed on how primitive tribes worked and the psychology behind it all. I just don't feel I need to give history lessons on a tech site to mature adults.

Anyway, my response was in reference to sticks and stones and how society doesn't mold brains to be the stone part.


RE: Ugh..
By TheDoc9 on 1/14/2008 5:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
The post was for everyone else, I was simply expanding on what you said because I believe both apply. In fact I believe that up bringing and close social ties weigh the most. Most people are never thought these things and will likely never learn outside of accidentally picking it up somewhere, maybe it might help some put these tragedies into perspective.


RE: Ugh..
By Ryanman on 1/15/2008 3:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you took a class like that, I hope you believe that this is just evolution.
In my humble opinion, if you get so beat up over something like that you commit suicide good riddance.
Note that this is not in response to the rape case.... that is a tragedy and even my stone-cold heart agrees with that. But at what point to you determine Myspace is liable? It's a user-created site. Her parents shouldnt've let her try to compensate for real life relationships on the internet. And just so everyone notices, we don't sue bars for when drunk women get raped. There's a line, and prosecuting Myspace for crimes committed indirectly due to the service they proviede crosses it.


RE: Ugh..
By onwisconsin on 1/14/2008 4:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know? I don't use MySpace myself, but I do know plenty of 25+ that use it.


RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 5:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
How many 25+ people do you know commit suicide if a myspace boyfriend/gf dumps them?


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
You are joking, right? Myspace users are teenagers who are so impressionable and so sensitive and emotional..... you know, I am getting tired of hearing crap like this.

This could only come from a person who does not hang out with teenagers like I do, and therefore doesn't know that teenagers are not as 'emotional' as people seem to think.

Most of the teenagers and even young children I have talked to have said that the girl in question in the MySpace suicide should not have been on MySpace in the first place because she was KNOWN to have a MENTAL ILLNESS!
Now, most teenagers do not have a mental illness and THAT is what made this girl a target and made her suicide.... basically, her parents were not doing their job and monitoring her relationships online and offline.

I also have to put a good half the blame on the people who were harassing her online. They knew her, knew that she was not the best psychosocially, and used that against her to get her to suicide.
In fact, thinking about it, I would call it a 'murder by proxy' plot, where you get someone to suicide but it is actually murder at your words.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ugh..
By TomZ on 1/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ugh..
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/14/2008 5:10:44 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe in your instance, but where I grew up, my friends and I stayed out of serious trouble for fear of the hand/belt/switch/whatever. I personally believe that the whole "spare the rod" is what's wrong with most of the kids today. Ground them, wow, just give them a reason to stay indoors and play video games.


RE: Ugh..
By TSS on 1/14/2008 7:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
probably like all statements made about the human psyche are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

the fear of what my mother would do when i'd screw something up has totally killed my relationship with her. i'm 20 and i hardly see her once every 4 months and i'm happy with that. i moved to my dad when i was 12, which raised me in a total "spare the rod" enviroment and i've turned out ok after that. granted, i can't say i'd be ye ol' average joe but hey, who is nowerdays.

some people can take the beating, some people can't. some people can deal with the internet and it's dark corners and some people can't. and events that lead people to situations they can't handle and how they overcome them, is what natural selection is about. killing stuff off that can't deal with life in the first place.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:50:54 AM , Rating: 4
If we were talking about you and your age group on your conclusion, you could take that dispassionate point of view, and it would work fine. We're talking about kids though, whose responsibility it is to teach, guide and raise said kids is the parents that had them, not the cold unforgiving internet. I don't care what's said to me by who on here, to me it's just some dippy hiding behind a keyboard that would never have the courage to say the things they do here in person. But to a 13 yr old, they don't know how to make that distinction.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that hitting children only teaches them one thing: that someone more 'in the right' than you has the right to cause you physical pain, and let's face facts here: most times when a child does something wrong, they do not know it is wrong or it is just an adult looking at them, seeing them doing something that the adult in question doesn't like, and the adult wants to punish them because of that.

Now, if it is ACTIVELY, PHYSICALLY harming someone else.... okay, they deserve to be punished. If it is causing damage to someone else's property, they deserve to be punished.
But NOT with physical force against them. I watch children as a side job right now, and I have NEVER, repeat, NEVER had to spank a child, because they have never done the same thing twice after I have told them that something was wrong and I always make it a point to explain to them why something is wrong instead of saying the usual "Because I said so!" that most people do.
Now, have they done something very similar to the thing that I told them was wrong? Yes, but I still do not punish them, because children's minds do not work the same as adults.... actually, hell, I'll say it: people do equate something that is even marginally different from something that they were told was wrong as still being wrong until they are told that again! That is especially true in the case of children, but it is true even with adults, and I'll be honest here: most 'rules' that parents put on children are not about protecting the children, they are about protecting the adults in question from the vitriol of other people who dislike children.

You also have to realize that in a lot of situations where children are being punished.... they are being punished unjustly. I cannot COUNT the number of times that I have had to give someone a 'dirty look' in order to get them to rethink their actions when their child has been 'acting out'.
Usually, when a child is acting out, the parent has put them into the situation where they can act out (taking them somewhere where they will be bored, taking them somewhere where they might want something WITHOUT telling them, as I do, that they are not getting something beforehand, etc.) and the parent holds about half, if not more, of the blame.

I am what people would call a 'extremely liberal parent', and my older children (now grown or near grown) act better than more conservative people's children in public and in private.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:45:43 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you, that's exactly what I mean. The consequences you learned were not worth you breaking the rules.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
That is called fearing someone into being 'respectful' of rules, and I am sorry to say this, but if you have to do that..... the rules are not very good in the first place and they should rethink those rules.

That's a 'period and done with' thing that many people say now: if you have to fear someone into not doing something, then the rules in question are not good or have some problem with them, and therefore they should be rethought.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
That is called fearing someone into being 'respectful' of rules, and I am sorry to say this, but if you have to do that..... the rules are not very good in the first place and they should rethink those rules.

That's a 'period and done with' thing that many people say now: if you have to fear someone into not doing something, then the rules in question are not good or have some problem with them, and therefore they should be rethought.


RE: Ugh..
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/14/2008 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, your link doesn't work.


RE: Ugh..
By TomZ on 1/14/2008 5:26:24 PM , Rating: 2