Parental control on sns or other social networking should be banned

The positives versus the negatives The positives of parental control: Helps children to avoid paedophiles Helps children to avoid unfamiliar scams Helps children to avoid identity theft, and other forms of information fraud Helps children avoid viewing inappropriate material The negatives of parental control Children are not entirely independent Children may dislike their parents for implementing parental control Children are not given total privacy Is it worth letting children have their “independence” at the risk of information theft? Is it worth having a paedophile find out what school a child attends, for the sake of maintaining the child’s privacy (if you can forgive the irony)? The research I have provided shows alarming figures, such as 1 in 7 teenagers (12-17 years) are sexually solicited online, and that 39% of teens who upload pictures restrict access ‘most of the time’ (meaning that 61% do it less than most of the time). It’s quite obvious that there are serious risks online, as I’ve argued earlier, and that children are reckless with their information. I’m going to address my opponent’s arguments individually now… Children would not be entirely independent with parental control in place “…That means that the parents got to think that the children are independent and smart enough to go in the cyber society.” But some children aren’t, they clearly aren’t! From one of my previous rounds: “39% of teens who upload pictures limit access “most of the time” whereas 21% “never” restrict photo access,” “19% of teens who post videos restrict access to their videos “most of the time” whereas 46% “never” restrict video access” [4] Yes, some children are smart in regards to some aspects, but you can’t ignore these statistics. You haven’t refuted that 1 in 5 children “never” restrict photo access. This is clearly a huge concern, as it means some children are putting themselves at serious risk. Some children, despite all the schools programs and information about internet safety, are simply ignoring the information and putting themselves at risk. Why would you want to give reckless children independence when it’s clear that they aren’t mature enough to handle it? “Also, the parents who monitor their children carefully make the children dependent to parents and cannot not gain much confidence.” I’ve argued (under the title: Privacy can be slowly implemented as the child matures)for independence relative to the child’s capabilities. Of course, if children prove themselves to be responsible, then sure, lax the parental control. If the child is quite young, and/or has been in serious trouble online before, then it would be grossly irresponsible for a parent to ignore the risks. That’s when monitoring a child carefully is necessary (again, I’ll say that it isn’t always necessary to monitor a child carefully). The child will gain confidence once he/she proves that he/she is more responsible than originally thought. “Being dependent is really a serious problem. Later, when the children go out to the society, it would get to be disadvantage and critical conflict.” Is it impossible that the child could develop independency with parental controls in effect? Could not the parents monitor their child’s internet usage, without telling the child? How would that affect dependency in a negative way? You seem to make the argument that: 1) All parental control affects independency 2) The affect resulting is too strong for a child to ever become independent 3) Therefore, no parental control should be used Again, as I’ve said before, as the child proves themselves to be responsible online, the parental control could so as to allow for an opportunity to increase independency. “Parental controls do not prevent the children from serious problem.” Yes, but they go a long way to help. My opponent makes the argument that because parental controls don’t prevent children from serious problems entirely, parental control is bad thing. Does that seem reasonable to you? Children may dislike their parents for implementing parental control “If the parents just limit the social networking of the children, the children would be just angry.” Perhaps, but I ask the audience to consider at what expense relieving the anger could come, if the parents weren’t to implement limitations on social networking. For example, let’s say someone is working at a nuclear power station for the first time. The person has had no experience in dealing with station tools, but has been taught how to operate them, as well as the risks involving operation. Would it not be unreasonable for the owner of the station to monitor the new employee’s work? What if you left the employee to his own accord? Sure, that does not mean there will be a catastrophe, yet you could significantly reduce the risk of one by at least monitoring. Now consider that the employee becomes angry when you monitor him. I’d say the monitoring is well-worth the employees anger, wouldn’t you? “Much the children would fight with their parents, make other ways to do social networkings like buying other device or making another account secretly.” If another account was made in secret, then how would the child know to be angry? Yes, children might become angry at being monitored, but the alternatives are not worth it. Children are not given total privacy “Also the parents who control their children are problems too. Parents should not have absolute power on their children.” My opponent makes the argument that if parents are to implement parental control, the parents now have absolute power over the child. This is, arguably, only true in regards to internet access, which I might remind you that the child almost certainly doesn’t pay for. Besides, parents implement parental control with the child’s interest at heart; why else would you think the parents go to the effort and struggle of implementing it? “In some social networks, when there is parental control, the parents get to be able to see what their children wrote, as well as what their children's friends had written. The friends would not want their profiles and writings to be shown to other friend's parents, even whom they don't know.” You would think that the friends would know the parents, right? I’ll say this again: privacy becomes a problem when people cannot be trusted. For example, the NSA spying is a problem because the organisation could potentially be corrupt. Parents are NOT implementing parental control with malicious thoughts in mind; it’s quite clearly the opposite. “Actually, there was an event that the children killed their parents because of too much control and bad relationship. This conflict might bring out the consequence of killing.” This is uncited and a ridiculous stretch. Besides, my statistics show that there are consistently far more problems in regards to how children conduct themselves on the internet. Miscellaneous “They should be educated and taught more and more about it.” How can they be taught more? Aren’t there already programs in schools that go through all of these dangers already? As my statistics show, whilst this education may be working for some children, other children just don’t get it or are unable to adequately protect themselves online. “The children has their basic rights which include freedom of fear, freedom of choice, and freedom of rights.” The child is living in their parent’s house. The parents make the rules, seeing as they own the land. Nothing illegal is being done here. “…it may cause serious problems that the children gets no right to express their opinion.” Children can still do this. “However, if parental controls are in action, access to social media will be hard.” What do you mean by “hard”? You can either access it or you can’t, and we’re arguing about parental controls in regards to accessing social media, the implication being that children are accessing social media. One last thing before I end my response this round: the statistics I provided represent real children. These people are not just part of a number, but are human beings, probably loved by their parents, probably with their own personalities, dreams and problems. It’s far too easy to look at a number and just see it as such, but try to remember that people’s lives are reflected in that number.