Ethical Evaluation of Children on the Internet

Children on the Internet

  • Abeer AlSouly
  • Ghada AlFantookh
  • Naima AlRashed

Overview:

Many people may consider the Internet as the greatest invention ever created by man. No doubt about that if we spoken about how fast knowledge exchanging has become today, or how easy can people communicate with each other globally. Also children nowadays practice many activities on the web; typically the most popular ones are schoolwork, cultural networking and online gaming. Children's ability to gain access to the Internet is continuing to grow rapidly. They have made our life much easier and it has become an essential part of modern life.

Even although benefits of the Internet are countless, it could be considered as an exceptionally dangerous environment for children because a few of the Internet articles can't be manipulated and uncensored. Also children aren't fully aware of how terrible and devastating the consequences could be.

However, there is absolutely no universally accepted view of what is more important if the education of children or protection, which is also another problem! Also the differences in people's civilizations and geographical location in legal and public norms reflect the lack of common agreement.

In this survey, we will discuss three main conditions that raise the concerns about children on the internet
  • The probability that children could obverse unacceptable content in the web.
  • Contact with people who seek to abuse children.
  • Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for comprehensive personal and family Information for marketing purposes.

Background plus the Importance of The Internet:

The progression of the web within the last 3 decades has been greatly improved and nowadays we count onto it in almost all of our day to day needs.

It's both useful and amusing medium. Some children use it to expand their horizon and increase their knowledge and other make use of it just for fun.

Also these activities doesn't require the traditional desktop computer any further, the websites has risen to handheld devices such as smart phones and tablets.

The Internet doesn't just improve children mental skills but also enhances their creativeness and advances their relationship skills.

The ways of using the Internet and the reason why differ from child to child based on the child era and interests.

Explanation of the issues:

Despite the many benefits of utilising the web and its associated services among children there's also risks, which they must be produced alert to 1. In such a survey we will describe some issues such as: The opportunity that children could obverse improper content in the Internet (as with Networked Marketing communications- Children Inappropriate Content section in the course), contact with people who seek to misuse children and privacy risk from game sites that ask children for comprehensive personal and family information for marketing purposes.

The probability that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet:

The term 'incorrect content' may vary across generations and across countries and ethnicities. Alternatively, there may be content that is considered in all ethnicities as unacceptable for children, such as the depiction of graphic violence or intimate abuse, and encouragement to damage one's personal or others. Additionally, some content can be considered as illegal, such as violent or intimate serves against children, and the promotion of racism and xenophobia. The various types of unacceptable content and dangers that children can face online is labeled based on the role of the kid (as receiver, participant or as actor) and the motives of the professional (commercial, aggressive, sexual and values-related). Children inevitably encounter content such as pornography as it is accessible on the web. Child pornography in particular has important implications and considered as one of the most serious crimes on the web. Erotic content, like pornographic or sexual depictions, might cause harm to children or lead them to personal connection with possibly dangerous strangers.

Contacting with people who seek to abuse children:

Speaking of calling with people who seek to misuse children, 'English investigators flew to America to save a six-year-old-girl who was being consistently raped on video by her dad for the gratification of users of a highly secretive internet paedophile ring. ' And many other stories such as this one appear frequently. Child abuse needs new forms, departing social workers and parents perplexed about new dangers that may get there with new systems. Contact offences can be dedicated by individuals where an adult commits or looks for to commit a erotic offence on a child. Historically most child love-making misuse was by a family member or from people in his social circles. On the web adults who could become associated with sexually abusing children can locate them and make the original contact by using a different interactive, communications systems. Usually the adult and the child will primarily meet in an Internet talk room. Committed paedophiles are recognized to frequent chat rooms that are favored by children such as chat rooms related to music, fashion, or sport.

The paedophile may be very skillful in communicating with children, he shows himself to the kid as a nice guy or will try to become their special good friend and persuades the kid to leave the general public space and go off into a private talk room. The paedophile and the child can then organise to keep to communicate with each other in different ways. He will ensure that the child will not keep any record with their conversations, as ultimately he will seek to sexualize the contact and conversations within the grooming process. The effect on children of being sexually abused is almost deeply detrimental both in the short and longer works. A child who understood that images or a record of their maltreatment were out there on the Internet, might worry that the image could reach their classmates, friends and neighbors or other members of the family. Additionally the image could fall into the hands of others who know them and who might then use it against them. Children who have been abused before an internet cam similarly could never be absolutely sure that they would not meet a person who might have observed their mistreatment and identify them in true to life.

Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes:

Moreover on the issues of children on the Internet, the privacy risks from game sites that happen from requesting children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes. Many businesses wanting to capitalize upon this market create websites offering video games, quizzes, chat surroundings, and advice to be able to encourage children to provide their personal information, which may then be used to target the kids with advertising, For example Kraft, which has Lifesavers, are enthusiastic about kids because of their spending power. Corporations Typically, these children's sites play into their developmental needs to be able to encourage kids to speak about themselves. Many of these sites, like Tickle. com, use personality exams to gather information from, and market to, specific girls. These quizzes ask detailed questions about the child's personality, choices, hopes, and aspirations. Since children have to join up with the website before they can access the quizzes, the internet marketer is able to record the child's reactions linked to his / her first and previous name, zip/postal code, email, gender, marital status, and degree of education. These details may also be matched against the info trail that the kid generates as she surfs through the website, selecting articles, chatting online and doing offers. Tickle also uses the information they collect to focus on girls with personal advertisements.

Analysis and Analysis:

Issue (1): "The possibility that children could obverse improper content in the Internet"

1. Kantianism

1st formulation:

Proposed Rule "Some people post graphic assault or sexual misuse or encouragement to harm one's home or others"

Universalize

rule

Everyone can post visual violence or sexual maltreatment or encouragement to damage one's self applied or others and everyone can see it.

Result

1- Physiological harms to the kids.

2- Children will try to apply what they see of encouragement to injury one's home or others, which brings about death in some instances.

3- May cause them to personal connection with potentially dangerous strangers to speak about what that they had seen rather than talking using their parents.

So, predicated on Kantianism first formulation this guideline can't be universalized rendering it morally wrong.

2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule

"Some people post graphic violence or sexual maltreatment or encouragement to damage one's home or others"

Goal People who post these sorts of posts try to gain fame and attention of others or gratify their physiological dreams.

Mean Since everyone can see the posts including children, innocent people who shouldn't see this content including children can be the mean to achieve their goal.

Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this guideline is morally wrong.

2. Function Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule

"Some people post graphic violence or sexual mistreatment or encouragement to injury one's self or others"

Benefits 1. Sometimes this article may be used to increase the understanding of the kid about the unacceptable actions and things to avoid.

Harms

1. Physiological harms to the children.

2. Children will try to use what they see of encouragement to harm one's home or others, which brings about death in some instances.

3. May lead them to personal connection with possibly dangerous strangers to talk about what that they had seen rather than talking with their parents.

Result We are able to see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, predicated on Action Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our viewpoint:

The theories above all concur that it is morally wrong that people post graphic assault or sexual maltreatment or encouragement to damage one's self applied or others on the web. From our viewpoint, we totally agree with this result since these posts will cause physiological harms to the kids, they will make an effort to apply what they see of encouragement to damage one's self applied or others which contributes to death sometimes and may cause them to personal contact with possibly dangerous strangers to discuss what that they had seen rather than talking with their parents. We actually think these content will destroy the child years innocence.

Issue (2): "Contacting with people who seek to misuse children"

1. Kantianism

ЇЇ 1st formulation:

Proposed

Rule "Individuals who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet"

Universalize

rule Everyone can use the Internet to satiate their bad needs.

Result

1- THE WEB will become an unhealthy place everyone is frightened of.

2- Crime in all of its forms is going to increase exponentially.

3- Trustworthy content will significantly decrease.

So, based on Kantianism first formulation this guideline can not be universalized rendering it morally wrong.

ЇЇ 2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule "Individuals who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet"

Goal People who get this to kind of connection aim to satiate their wants.

Mean In this guideline they use the children as a mean to satiate their bad wishes.

Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.

2. Take action Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule "Individuals who seek to misuse children contact them on the Internet"

Benefits No benefits.

Harms

1. A kid who knew that images or an archive of their abuse were out there on the Internet, might be worried that the image could reach their classmates, neighborhood friends or other family; which will shake his/her self-confidence.

2. Children who have been abused before a web cam likewise could never be sure that they would not meet someone who might have observed their abuse and identify them in true to life; which may make them choose the isolation and hate the public life.

3. The image of the child's misuse could fall in to the hands of other people who know them and who might then put it to use against them.

Result We are able to see above that harms overweigh the huge benefits, so, predicated on Act Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our point of view:

The theories above all concur that it is morally wrong that people who seek to misuse children contact them on the web. From our point of view, this result is absolutely right, since these types of communication will damage the child, shake his/her self-confidence, make them prefer the isolation and hate the sociable life, the image of the child's mistreatment could fall into the hands of other people who know them and who might then make use of it against them also, the Internet will become a dangerous place everyone is afraid of, offense in all of its varieties will increase exponentially and finally respected content will significantly lower.

Issue (3): "Privateness risk from game sites that ask children for intensive personal and family information for marketing purposes".

1. Kantianism

ЇЇ 1st formulation:

Proposed

Rule

"Game sites gather personal and family information from children for marketing purposes"

Universalize guideline Everyone can accumulate private information from children.

Result

1- May lead to child supplying her/his parents' mastercard number or financial information.

2- Criminal offenses in a lot of its forms is going to increase, because so many of the personal information have been leaked.

3- Blackmail propagation.

So, based on Kantianism first formulation this guideline can't be universalized which makes it morally wrong.

ЇЇ 2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule

"Game sites acquire personal and family information from children for marketing purposes"

Goal Individuals who gather these information try to promote for his or her products to be able to increase their revenue.

Mean In this rule they use the kids as a mean to acquire the personal and family information necessary for this advertising.

Result So, predicated on Kantianism second formulation this guideline is morally wrong.

2. Act Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule

"Game sites acquire personal and family information from children for marketing purposes"

Benefits

1. Child would benefit from enjoying playing the game titles.

2. A few of these games may enhance his/her intelligence and his/her thought process.

3. Organizations will suggest the correct games based on the gathered information (ex: time, gender, pursuits, etc. ) ; so both functions will advantage.

Harms

1. Parents or the family members of the child will receive so many annoying spam email messages.

2. Organizations sell these personal and family information to other organizations without the agreement of the information's owner.

3. Parents or the family members of the child may obtain many irritating sales or adverts' phone calls or SPIMs*.

4. All the above wastes the target's time, because the information have been accumulated without his/her permission this means (s)he's not thinking about these advertising.

*

SPIM: Stands for Spam Occasion Messaging.

Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Take action Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our perspective:

The theories above all concur that it is morally wrong to gather personal and family information from children for marketing purposes. Also, from our perspective we agree with this consequence, because the parents or any of the members of the family of the child will get so many irritating spam messages, their information will be exchanged between your companies without their agreement and they also will receive so many annoying sales or advertisements' calls. These exact things wastes so much time particularly if the targeted person is not enthusiastic about these advertising.

Summary and conclusions:

To summaries, the Internet today has an extremely useful and important resources and lots of schools be based upon it almost completely, but also there is no clear accepted view that will everyone acknowledge as it pertains to also safety. We had described some issues such as

The opportunity that children could obverse incorrect content in the Internet which end up being morally wrong predicated on Kantianism, Action Utilitarianism and from our viewpoint, contact with people who seek to abuse children and privateness risk from game sites that ask children for intensive personal which prove to be morally wrong predicated on Kantianism, Action Utilitarianism and from our perspective and family information for marketing purposes which end up being morally wrong based on Kantianism, Take action Utilitarianism and from our point of view.

Eventually, we realize that people can't avoid the children from being able to access the Internet; instead we can apply parental control over what the kids can access. Furthermore, children should be aware of the consequences of what their actions can lead to. Various laws and regulations have been approved to protect the children nowadays such as; THE KID Online Protection Act (COPA), that was passed to limit access by minors to any materials, defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet5 and the Children's Online Level of privacy Protection Work of 1998 (COPPA) "which was made to limit the collection and use of personal information about children by the providers of Internet services and Sites"6.

References:

[1] S. Livingstone, L. Haddon. (2009, Sep 30). Kids Online: Opportunities and Hazards for Children. (1st Edition). [On-line]. Available: http://books. google. com. sa/catalogs?id=aPsXzcjf9vMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kids+Online+publication&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SeaBVLrSAcisU5fSgPAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Kids%20Online%20book&f=false [Nov. 15, 2014].

[2] O'NEILL S (2002), Paedophile Squad Helps you to save Girl, 6, from Rapist Father, Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2002, p. 7.

[3] J. Carr. "child mistreatment, child pornography and the internet. " NCH (National Children's Homes) (Dec, 2003).

[4] V. Steeves. (2006). "It's Not Child's Play: The Online Invasion of Children's Privateness. " School of Ottawa Rules & Technology Journal. Available: http://www. uoltj. ca/articles/vol3. 1/2006. 3. 1. uoltj. Steeves. 169-188. pdf?origin=publication_detail [Nov. 17, 2014].

[5] A. Carr. (2013, Feb 26). Child Safeguard. (1st Model). [On-line]. Available: http://books. yahoo. com. sa/literature?id=UwKfxyy_S2cC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ar#v=onepage&q&f=fake [December. 5, 2014].

[6] "Children'S Online Personal privacy Protection Action (COPPA). " Internet: http://www. inc. com/encyclopedia/childrens-online-privacy-protection-act-COPPA. html, [Dec. 5, 2014].

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)