What more can social networks do to protect us from ourselves?

Over the last few days we’ve seen a glut of official reports and warnings about Facebook, Bebo and the other social networks, and the threat that they pose to children. Or rather, the threat that some children pose to themselves by posting too many details about themselves.

It must be a frustrating time for the networks, who will be tempted to dismiss the reports as scaremongering by people who don’t understand the new phenomenon and want it stopped. A desire to seem sympathetic and responsible will keep a lid on the frustration, but it’s hard to see what more they can do to protect people from themselves.

It is, after all, up to the individual to decide what he or she posts. Where the person in question is too young to make a sensible decision, that responsibility passes upwards to the parents.

Parents may struggle to strike a balance between allowing children freedoms and keeping them safe, but in this respect the internet is an extension of everyday life rather than a world apart. "Don’t talk to strangers" is good advice, either in the street or on the web.

Facebook’s privacy settings do all they can to help people follow this common-sense policy. Members have a great deal of control over who can see the details they post online – they can even create a hierarchy of friends in which a privileged few have access to everything they post while those who have fallen out of favour get only edited highlights. Strangers can’t access any of the details unless a member accepts them into his or her network.

The web in general and social networks in particular can be daunting places for parents who have never used either, but there is very little evidence that children are seriously threatened by their use of such sites. The recently published reports have talked more about potential risks than real and present dangers. They’ve taken care to play up the positive side of social networking, too: the role they can play in boosting children’s social confidence and keeping them amused and entertained.

Risks, however small, are always worth considering, but it's a mistake to treat the internet as a separate, dangerous world that must be avoided, just as it would be a mistake to shy away from the risks of the outside world. On balance though, the web-savvy child in front of the living room computer is in a pretty safe place.

Comments

[The Cartoonist]

This is so typical for the home office. I really wonder if they actually had a look at sites like facebook. As if we don't have enough regulations already. Sigh. Anyway, great post, Holden. A voice of sanity. Thanks.

[eSafety]

The author writes: "It is, after all, up to the individual to decide what he or she posts. Where the person in question is too young to make a sensible decision, that responsibility passes upwards to the parents."

Up to the individual alludes to the freedom of speech/press to say what one desires, however, this is a common misconception. Although freedom of speech exists, where that speech causes harassment, assault and battery, defamation, or any other similar result, as this list is non-exhaustive, then the responsibility for resolving that passes to the criminal justice system. Thus, although the individual may have freedom, that freedom is limited when it impinges on another person's freedom or simply breaks the law.

The individual has a duty of care to every other individual to see that their acts or ommision do not cause harm to one so closely related to the incident that it would be foreseeable that harm or injury would occur through effects of the act or ommission.

The individual has a right to decide to post, but when that post infringes the law, that right is curtailed.