Byronic Cant

I feel I may need to eat some humble pie, dear reader.  Anyone who spoke to me about the proposed review of the effects of video games and the Internet on children being spearheaded by Dr Tanya Byron will know that I was less than approving.  I feel slightly threatened professionally by Dr Byron, something about her different model of practice, assertiveness (almost bossiness) and sureness in her rightness, in a black and white way, that gets my hackles up instantly; allied to what I saw as a hunger for publicity evidenced by her numerous appearances on TV.

Anyway, the review is out now, and I have to say it is very difficult to find anything in the summary (I haven't had the time to wade through the full report I'm afraid) that I disagree with.  At the worst I find voluntary Internet agreements to be a bit of a rose-tinted idea, and I also have anecdotal doubts that parents can truly claim to be unaware of the unsuitability of certain games (and DVDs for that matter) for children below the classification recommended age.  Finally, the increased role for schools and teachers in e-safety is a laudable idea, but knowing some teachers and their IT skills I don't know how "safe" this will be (Frolix_8 has a series of posts re teachers e-incompetence one of which is here hehehehe).

It's also made me think about what I think about blanket country-wide censorship per se, but this isn't a criticism of the report as it lays much of the responsibility for appropriately allowing access to games and the Internet at the doorstep of parents.

So (deep breath) sorry Dr Byron for my denigration of you, the report is actually a fine piece of work, let's hope it has an effect.  Also sorry to anyone (particularly Keith) who had to hear my ill-informed ranting about the report before I'd read it, a lesson to be learned there maybe?

Summary of the report here (worth reading)
Full report here (probably worth reading too but long!)

Comments

[palmer_eldritch]

So playing Half-Life with my seven year-old son last night is a bad idea, then? We only did the training room bit. Nobody dies or gets shot or anything, and there's no swearing. I mean, come on, it's not like he plays Wankmaster 2 on his DS or is addicted to Cooking Mama (Flaming Kebab Edition).

It's all a load of Nanny State nonsense. 'Ooo, the newspapers are ranting about the internet and video games...I know, let's find someone to write a FUCKING HUGE report with lots of BULLET POINTS and THAT, which leads to the recommendation of forming a...nother...bloody...COMMITTEE !!!'

[Gilbert]

What I liked about it was that it resisted the Daily Mail/Keith Vaz knee jerk reaction (a bit like yours I suppose not that you side with DM/KV) and said "you make your choices, maybe this can help you if you feel lost". I thought that was good and less about nanny state, more about get involved with your kids. She mentions anecdotal video game "addiction" saying it's very rare, I thought the report was actually of some use (if a little rose-tinted) whereas I feared it would be a one-eyed nightmare (excuse the phrase).

All the committee ideas while yes a nightmare were secondary to parental judgment, I liked the stuff about a "risk phobic" (my phrase) world and children's needs to take risks, seemed even handed and non-sensationalist.

We'll have to agree to differ I sense

[palmer_eldritch]

yes, I know I'm a cant.

[Gilbert]

Don't be daft