smacking the windbag
Kim Beazley:
The EFA actually reads the reports published, and says, erm, no actually:
So, let's be generous, and assume that 5+4+3% (in the second last para) could be the ones Kimba the White Prat was referring to. I make that 12%. Which is, ahem, not two thirds using the mathematics of this planet. Not even close.
However, 50% (trust the child) and 17% (other safeguards) is close to two thirds. Fancy that. Rather than 2/3 of people needing the benevolent government to tell them how to raise their children, in fact that 2/3 feels that they know perfectly well how to do it themselves. And their own preferred way to do this doesn't involve a giant filter telling us what we're allowed to read.
I mean, this was only a report by the sodding Australian Communications and Media Authority (the entity formerly known as the Australian Broadcasting Authority) and NetAlert. You know, the government agencies responsible for enforcing the existing regulations. What would they know, after all?
So: Kimba, lazy, incompetent or just a fuckwit? Either you didn't bother to make the most minimal effort at research before you shat your idiotic policy into the public arena, or you didn't think to ask the ACMA or NetAlert, or you did and thought this shameless piece of grandstanding wouldn't get noticed.
Please, please, please - won't someone put this useless fuckstick out of our misery? Pretty please?
The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers.
The EFA actually reads the reports published, and says, erm, no actually:
According to research undertaken by the Australian Communications and Media Authority ("ACMA") and published in their 2005 report kidsonline@home Internet use in Australian homes, it is true that almost two-thirds of parents (of children aged 8 to 13 years) do not have Internet filters installed. However, approximately 90% of those parents do not install filters for reasons other than "cost and poor computer literacy" as claimed by Kim Beazley.
The ACMA report states:
"Software to filter inappropriate websites was reported to be used by 35 per cent of parents: 29 per cent used filtering software on a regular basis and six per cent on an occasional basis. This is an increase since 2001, at which time 17 per cent of Internet-connected households with a child aged under 18 reported using such software. The use of filtering software was similar across all children's age groups, however, parents with three or more children were also more likely (p<0.05) to have blocking software in use than parents with fewer than three children (54 per cent compared to 33 per cent)."
The ACMA report also provides information about why other parents did not have filters installed:
"Parents' reasons for not installing filter software varied.
Fifty per cent did not install filters because they trusted their child. Seventeen per cent of parents felt that installing software was redundant because of their use of other safeguards.
A minority of parents did not use filters because they were either unsure how to install the software (five per cent), unaware of the utility of filters as a safety strategy (four per cent) or unsure where to obtain filter software (three per cent).
A small proportion of parents (four per cent) reported not using filter software because it had proven too restrictive."
So, let's be generous, and assume that 5+4+3% (in the second last para) could be the ones Kimba the White Prat was referring to. I make that 12%. Which is, ahem, not two thirds using the mathematics of this planet. Not even close.
However, 50% (trust the child) and 17% (other safeguards) is close to two thirds. Fancy that. Rather than 2/3 of people needing the benevolent government to tell them how to raise their children, in fact that 2/3 feels that they know perfectly well how to do it themselves. And their own preferred way to do this doesn't involve a giant filter telling us what we're allowed to read.
I mean, this was only a report by the sodding Australian Communications and Media Authority (the entity formerly known as the Australian Broadcasting Authority) and NetAlert. You know, the government agencies responsible for enforcing the existing regulations. What would they know, after all?
So: Kimba, lazy, incompetent or just a fuckwit? Either you didn't bother to make the most minimal effort at research before you shat your idiotic policy into the public arena, or you didn't think to ask the ACMA or NetAlert, or you did and thought this shameless piece of grandstanding wouldn't get noticed.
Please, please, please - won't someone put this useless fuckstick out of our misery? Pretty please?