Talk:Parental controls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parental controls do protect children from Ρornography and other unwanted internet threats but they also block some clean websites.... take net nanny for example... i have to disable it every day just to open google images. it gets frustrating when there is no ρornographic content on the page. furthermore.... i believe though others might not... that with all the ways around these censoring programs ... its not worth buying... i have caught my son on videogames looking at ρornography. blocking software cannot block a program where the рorn is not from a url but uploaded to a server and projected into a 3d environment... Alot of children look at рorn, im guessing 1/4 of every junior high. the problem is that there is no way around it. its human nature in a way...

the imformation above is part fact and part opinion you may read this article and form your own opinions...

Contents

[edit] Bah...

in one paragraph, this is unreadable.--80.227.100.62 06:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

I think this should be merged with Content-control Software. Since it contains basically no new information, perhaps delete and redirect is the right way to do that merger. Novalis 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well meh.

Don't know much about the main article on content control software. So I can't give much input on a merge proposal.

But I did find two discrepancies (one was a POV. Which i fixed to make it nuetral. The other was the below sentence)

The thing to notice is that most pornographers just cannot help themselves, they have to place an objectionable word where the API method is effective, so in effect to hard-code the word xxx in a parental control using the API method blocks about 50% or more of pornographic websites on the Internet.

See that 'the thing to notice' part?. To me that seems to breach WP:NPOV. and while I do admit a lot of porn site results via google have XXX in the title. (Yes I view pornography). The above statement seems bit too far. I think some sources to verify this claim is in order. Otherwise we can alter it to make it fit better. Other than that. Putting my dislike of parental controls altogether aside.

This article is in pretty good condition. Not half bad for something that half directly deals with highly controversial topics.

[edit] Parental Filter from ecommsec.com

Most of the technology aspects of article was contributed by Tony Ganino author of (c) 2002 Parental Filter at ecommsec.com, "I included more about the technology aspects of web filtering but they have since been deleted" parental control software can be fustrating for users and can attract great wrath from young people with imature attitudes like "the earth must be destroyed because I can't login to messenger" but the technology is valuable for providing young people an introduction to the research possibilities of the Internet.

Nateland 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why a Vista screenshot?

Since Microsoft only recently copied Apple and included a slim version of parental controls, it'd make more sense to put in a screenshot from 10.5 Leopard when it comes out. That is all. -DMCer 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article lacks a criticism section

It does not say that "parental control" IS just and only a form of censorship. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)