Google Lets Us Lock SafeSearch

[morestar]

Well I'm sure every parent or teacher with children under 17 will love the news of Google allowing us to lock SafeSearch on the most strict setting. Yay...

I'm exited because my daughter uses Google search for everything and as a parent, knowing she can't even accidentally come across pics or videos made for adults, is a really good feelings. Thanks Google...

To have the right to activate the setting you have to be logged into your Google account.

[kgun]

I have used Google Safe Search for AdSense on one of my game sites for children for a long time. So is there something new here?

Is it more complicated than checking the safe search check box before generating AdSense search code?

And you have another option to choose the sites GoogleBot should search while producing SERP's.

[wige]

I think he is referring to the SafeSearch filter on searches, rather than ads.

It is an interesting idea, which keeps safe search enabled even if you log out of your Google account. Took me almost five seconds to break it. (In Chrome, you just need to hit "New Incognito Window", in Firefox, just clear your cookies - in other words, do the first thing any 10 year old would think of.)

It is a nice try, and a very interesting idea, but I am not sure that this setting will accomplish much of anything in the long run. This is even easier to get around than most parental control applications.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wige

Took me almost five seconds to break it. (In Chrome, you just need to hit "New Incognito Window", in Firefox, just clear your cookies - in other words, do the first thing any 10 year old would think of.)

Now, now, let's not devalue the parents' senses of well being.

[morestar]

Ya now that I think about it the kids will figure out a hack that displays the little balloons while safe search has been turned off...Well it'll work for a time we know that...and at least it's there for teachers and parents who want to make sure their truly innocent 8 year olds aren't accidentally coming across strange image search results while looking for their new favorite band - "the school girls"...

Ya know!?

[Web Res]

I have a 12 year old boy and 14 year old girl. Rather than censor their web browsing, I would suggest they use common sense. They'll do what they want anyway.

Sure, it is unfortunate that they have to look at things they don't like. Setting the browser to levels helps people filter unwanted content, but if the kids want to see porn - go ahead. I would not apply any programs to my computers that limit their access to any website.

We have little forbidden fruit in our house. Religion scares me.

What is a bigger problem is how kids behave on sites like FaceBook and MySpace. They can bully and be very uncouth. I would prefer the kids rise to a higher standard, but they need to find their way. If they pass through a pee and poo phase, then a sex phase - its just natural.

From a webmaster prospective - I don't like that Google would have settings that effect search even when the user is not logged in. How would that change search outcomes for other things?

[morestar]

I'm practically dumbfounded at your response Web Res.

Sex is natural - we've all seen it all but really? When your daughter was 9 you wouldn't have appreciated the added ability to have her searches filtered away from possible sexual search results by the search engine she's using?

There aren't many forbidden fruits in my house (really) but the internet doesn't take the concept of 'age appropriate' too well - well for now Google does but you know what I mean no?

Byron tell me, do you brush your teeth religiously?

[Web Res]

I figured you would not like that response. I agree that there are things that we don't want to 'purposefully' place in the road for our kids to stumble across. I agree that having a safe search setting in Google is appropriate. But you are going that little bit farther and suggesting that you want to control the setting so that when your kids want to look for sexual content - they should not be able to do it. That is where we disagree.

Kids are given sexual content all the time. They are also given violent content. They are encouraged to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, gamble, etc. Racism and sexism are a constant undercurrent. You can't avoid it. All you can do is make your self accessible to your kids to discuss what they see and how the world is perceived so that you can help them make sense of it.

That is different from setting controls to lock out content. I think the old settings in Google were just fine.

[morestar]

No I'm not offended at all...I think we agree really...it's true that kids are bombarded with sexual and violent content all the time, sometimes I even believe since there IS so much violence and sexual content all over the internet, radio songs and television that it's ok for them to get resilient to it...

you can safely say I believe in a degree of censorship with media...I still can't believe the sexual songs you can hear on the pop radio stations, at prime time, with heavy sexual content - it's brutal...yes I would rather my daughter listen to classical music - and I raised her that way - she truly does...

Too much exposure isn't doing our countries any good...

When did the sexual revolution take place again? Does anyone think it's going to last forever? You infidel!!

= )

[comcas01]

I totally agree with morestar. I think the only reason a parent would allow their young kids free unmonitored access to EVERYTHING on the net is because deep down on the inside the parent secretly likes the dirt on the net. There is a possibility that the parent is addicted and has been for some time.

Anyone in a situation like this has a difficult time enforcing their kids to avoid the dirt on the internet because they're personally struggling with it. There is no way I'm going to let these pornstars engage my kids without a fight and proper use of safe search. I don't want warped kids.

I'm the parent and I'm supposed to lead by example and teach my kids what is right and wrong regardless of how the times have changed. Wrong is still wrong and because people change doesn't mean what is wrong changes.

[morestar]

...yes locking Google's SafeSearch is all about making sure (as much as is reasonably possible) that your young children's searches are safe...

and comcas I must say I love the way you put it...those are my sentiments exactly...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by morestar

No I'm not offended at all...I think we agree really...it's true that kids are bombarded with sexual and violent content all the time, sometimes I even believe since there IS so much violence and sexual content all over the internet, radio songs and television that it's ok for them to get resilient to it...

I assume that most of us posting in this thread have a Western Christian background.

1. There are children bibles here, with frightening pictures.
2. What about the brutal stories in the Old testament?
3. What about Jesus hanging on the cross?
4. What about real war pictures bombarding our news in the best family time?
5. Tell your child about what (s)he may find on the internet. Have an open mind to your child about it, so (s)he dare tell you about the experiences.
6. It may be worse if (s)he don't dare tell you about her / his experiences.
7. We should be better to set international standards for illegal web content.
8. How would you effectively make an adult and a children's web?
9. I have implemented safe search on this page: Spillportal for barn og voksne: DinSpillSide.no
10. Do you think that will prevent children from finding sexual content?
11. Do you think there are 100 % filters. How would you monitor your child when (s)he visits a friend with more open minded parents?
12. Would you prevent your children from visiting a friend with same sex parents?
13. Don't misunderstand animal and children related sex pages should imply a law suit and legal actions. Is it possible? Is it worse than seeing brutal war pictures in real time in the best family time on our Tv's. Some even applaude these pictures.
14. I have told my daughter's 10 year old boy with her mother's commitment that he can use the rest of his life surfing porn sites. But he tells me that he has seen worse than traditional sex related pages on the internet with a friend and he thought it was boring.
15. We make our own filters that depend on our own prejudices. They may be more dangerous than automatic filters.

P.S. When my oldest daughter was a child I read in her children's bible before she went to bed. Every evening she asked for the same story about the Good Samaritan
She always asked. Reread that daddy. Read it again. I had to read it 10 times before she was satisfied. What part of the story do you think she asked me to reread?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by comcas01

Wrong is still wrong and because people change doesn't mean what is wrong changes.

No

1. It varies from country to country.
2. It changes. One of our most famous aouthors had to go to court for a sexual related book in the 1950's : Sangen om den røde rubin - Wikipedia (Translate the page). He won in the supreme court, but it ws told that the case destroyed the rest of his life.
3. In 2000 the book was sold openly as an attachment to "Det Nye" (a magazine for young Girls / Women).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by comcas01

I totally agree with morestar. I think the only reason a parent would allow their young kids free unmonitored access to EVERYTHING on the net is because deep down on the inside the parent secretly likes the dirt on the net. There is a possibility that the parent is addicted and has been for some time. ... Wrong is still wrong and because people change doesn't mean what is wrong changes.

That is a conclusion that is not only unsupportable by fact, but patently offensive.

By what authority do you declare your sense of morality to be only acceptable one?

How dare you seek to impose your sense of morality to the point where those who disagree with you are declared to be perverted?

[morestar]

My how things have changed...and I think the point is being missed big time...

We don't let our kids play with matches cause they could get burned...

We don't smoke weed in front of our 12 year olds and say, "hey it's your right to explore weed if you want to sonny boy'...

We don't invite our kids in the room when we're having sex...

We don't bring our kids to movies that are rated R, nor do we invite them into the living room at 2am to watch a little porn - they're sleeping and staying in bed...

We don't pump up the radio when our kids are in the car and "I wanna F$#& you like an animal" from Nine Inch Nails comes on...we turn it down or change the station...

I'm a parent and I have parental authority to declare what is morally acceptable to my children - even though we're not talking about morals here at all...we're talking about using settings in our beloved search engine that will protect our children from seeing things they don't need to see at their young ages...

This really isn't that complicated...

[deepsand]

Things haven't changed as much as you may think.

Each of our view points has been environmentally conditioned by accident of birth; that which we see clearly is but an infinitesimal portion of the whole, both geographically and temporally.

A reading of the complaints of the ancient Greeks in this regard is instructive.

[kgun]

My comment's in blue.

Originally Posted by morestar

My how things have changed...and I think the point is being missed big time...

We don't let our kids play with matches cause they could get burned... Self evident

We don't smoke weed in front of our 12 year olds and say, "hey it's your right to explore weed if you want to sonny boy'... Self evident

We don't invite our kids in the room when we're having sex... Self evident

We don't bring our kids to movies that are rated R, nor do we invite them into the living room at 2am to watch a little porn - they're sleeping and staying in bed... Self evident

We don't pump up the radio when our kids are in the car and "I wanna F$#& you like an animal" from Nine Inch Nails comes on...we turn it down or change the station... Self evident

I'm a parent and I have parental authority to declare what is morally acceptable to my children - even though we're not talking about morals here at all...we're talking about using settings in our beloved search engine that will protect our children from seeing things they don't need to see at their young ages... Self evident

There is a Norwegian saying.

Priests and police chiefs children become the worst children. There is an element of truth in that saying and I have examples that I will not mention here.

Originally Posted by morestar

This really isn't that complicated...

Yes, it is. Show me a 100 % filter. May be they have found one in China. The only 100 % filter is to block your childrens access to the internet at home and follow them the whole day.

Why are discussions about legal porno (that varies from country to country) so much more interesting in North America than in most of Europe?

I once met a women from Kenya that said that she married at the age of 13. In Norway that would have been illegal if she was less than 16 years and illegal below 18 in Thailand.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Web Res

What is a bigger problem is how kids behave on sites like FaceBook and MySpace. They can bully and be very uncouth. I would prefer the kids rise to a higher standard, but they need to find their way. If they pass through a pee and poo phase, then a sex phase - its just natural.

Yes and they can threath people on life seemingly without concequences. YouTube videos have been used to train two tragic mass murders and suicides in Finland. Will you bring FaceBook and YouTube to court?

[morestar]

Originally Posted by kgun

My comment's in blue.


There is a Norwegian saying.

Priests and police chiefs children become the worst children. There is an element of truth in that saying and I have examples that I will not mention here.

Well, I don't know how accurate that would be statistically these days...it's probably the opposites. sure every cops son smokes pot (generalizing) but they sure don't ride along on drive-bys do they?

But that's besides the point, if you're alluding to locking safe-search as being akin to being a 'police parent' there really isn't any policing going on at all...it's simple protection of young children from stumbling across content that wouldn't have been so easily stumbled upon before the age of the internet. Simply because we're in the age of the internet and web-pages, doesn't constitute a change in parental guidance, parental protection and teaching morals to our children.

Originally Posted by kgun

Yes, it is. Show me a 100 % filter. May be they have found one in China. The only 100 % filter is to block your childrens access to the internet at home and follow them the whole day.

What is wrong with 'blocking' your children's access? You know in China the entire internet is not blocked...it's just really strict.

There's always a middle way, and in a sense Google's provided the middle way to us with the SafeSearch lock cause we all know we can't and don't want to totally block or even severely block access to websites or do we?

OK so porn is legal in some countries and others not. OK so some of the countries blocking porn are 'under' dictatorships or communism. Does that mean blocking porn isn't a good thing to consider? No. Absolutely NOT.

What's wrong with blocking porn from your young and under ten year old children?

Originally Posted by kgun

I once met a women from Kenya that said that she married at the age of 13...

Yes but we're not in Kenya and she didn't watch porn at 13 ya think?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by morestar

Yes but we're not in Kenya and she didn't watch porn at 13 ya think?

But, there is an excellent chance that she lived in a one room "house," where she was accustomed to both nudity and sexual activity, such that she would find your mores most Puritanical, as would much of the rest of the world.

In such regards, America is most definitely very much unlike the majority of the world.

BTW, within the US, those States which are the greatest consumers of sexually oriented goods and services are those with the most restrictive regulations re. its accessibility!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by morestar

But that's besides the point, if you're alluding to locking safe-search as being akin to being a 'police parent' there really isn't any policing going on at all...it's simple protection of young children from stumbling across content that wouldn't have been so easily stumbled upon before the age of the internet.

What would you do if you entered your child's room and (s)he was watching a porn movie? I am sure that my ex Danish wife would laugh at it. I would say, don't you have more important things to do? This is boring. I exclude illegal porn from the equation. This thread is not about that? I know, there is a relation between legal and illegal content. So protect your child, but don't overprotect her / him. Your reaction (filter) may be more important than her / his action.

Originally Posted by morestar

What is wrong with 'blocking' your children's access? You know in China the entire internet is not blocked...it's just really strict.

If I had to choose, I would prefer Holland / most of Eastern Europe to China and Denmark to Norway / Sweden. And I would definitely prefer France to North America. But I would not prefer Italy to Norway, where Silvio Berlusconi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia controls 90 % of the media.

Originally Posted by morestar

There's always a middle way, and in a sense Google's provided the middle way to us with the SafeSearch lock cause we all know we can't and don't want to totally block or even severely block access to websites or do we?

If you look at my previous posts, you will note that I have implemented Google Safe Search on my Norwegian game portal for children. But as I also said that is far from safe. I am sure if you follow all the links on that portal some of them end on porn sites.

Originally Posted by morestar

OK so porn is legal in some countries and others not. OK so some of the countries blocking porn are 'under' dictatorships or communism. Does that mean blocking porn isn't a good thing to consider? No. Absolutely NOT.

Laugh at normal porn and your child will soon loose interest in it.

Originally Posted by morestar

What's wrong with blocking porn from your young and under ten year old children?

What is wrong with blocking war news, what is wrong with blocking ...

You live in Canada. My moral for today. Learn your child to love nature and outdoor life more than computers and potential interest in porn will decrease.

[morestar]

I see where you're coming from, I'm slowly conforming to your point of view...



So all together SafeSearch is a farce? Silly? Spreading tyrannical behaviour? Against evolution from the old in-the-box way of thinking?

I don't know...

There has to be some thing on the internet that should be blocked from children if indeed it can be blocked no?

If you had to choose one, what would you choose to be blocked?

[morestar]

kgun there's so much to respond too but...I will say that your point of view let's say with walking into your child's room whilst they're watching porn - and laughing it off and so forth - I more than agree with you about most of what you said but I was mostly talking about 4 to 9 year olds that go on the web - their eyes...

I hear ya I truly do...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by deepsand

BTW, within the US, those States which are the greatest consumers of sexually oriented goods and services are those with the most restrictive regulations re. its accessibility!

We are no better here. Rality Tv with drunken youth's having sex are most popular in Norway and England. Garbage Tv.

People in most other European countries find it boring.

Baywatch, I saw may be two episoded when I was younger.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by morestar

There has to be some thing on the internet that should be blocked from children if indeed it can be blocked no?

There is much in the world that should / could be blocked for children depending on age and personality. I can tell you, my Daughters farther are more restricitive than her on preventing violent movies. Women are the bosses here, so I can only argument ...

Sex ... uninteresting. You know, Bill Clinton was a favourite president here in Europe. But Hillary was better since she protected her husband and did not fall for what most of us identified as the Rebublicans dirty attacks.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by morestar

If you had to choose one, what would you choose to be blocked?

If speaking about TV, I'd be hard pressed to choose between "reality" shows and "network" news, as both provide a most distorted view of the world.

As for the 'net, were it possible, my choice would be the writings of un-credentialed "reporters" & self-declared "experts," who do more to mal-inform and mis-inform in a single hour than do all others combined in a year.

[kgun]

Just saw a Tv prgram "Online nightmares". Interesting. I think it is much worse in your part of the world than here.

1. Pharmacy sites selling dangerous medicines and drugs. Very strich laws for that here. The problem is, drugs can be packed and sold like other commodities.
2. Chat rooms with adults contacting children for sex. So it may be more important to know who your child chat with than which videos (s)he watches.
3. Gaming sites and other sites where people loose normal life. (I am too much on WPW). Some have resulted in suicides.
4. Online dating sites with members that are more interesting in your money than in you as a person.
5. So there is much to care about online.

[deepsand]

To put such in perspective, it should be noted that none of these activities were birthed by the 'net.

As with many other activities, they have been long practiced in person, via mail, telephone, newsprint & magazines, and, to a lesser extent (owing to regulation,) via radio & TV.