The Blog From Hell

After this article on the bbc website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/analysis/2587965.stm) a big debate broke out on the ofset (http://www.ofset.org) mailing list about whether there was any truth to the article's suggestion that computers in the classroom isn't really worth the effort, and the research suggesting it may even be harmfull.Of course a golden-rule when reading any published media is to check what the writer's bias is – it's quite ironic how the article hammers on this (as a discredit for the internet) while carefully trying to look as if the article itself is not heavilly biassed. One respondent remarks how powerfully she was using computers for intercultural education – and the journalist rewords this as meaning computers areonly usefull for rare special cases like imigrants . Ironic indeed because the most important point in my rebuke is exactly around this point. I will not pretend to be balanced – it's not humanly possible to do that. Everyone however knows my biasses in this debate- so at least I am stating them clearly up front. Having said that, I am also aware of my biasses and capable of the critical thought process to avoid arguing purely from them and so I focussed on those parts which are purely philosophical rather than the parts where I clearly dissagree with the findings. Luckilly the philosophical points I believe apply here are so strong as to make the research completely unimportant. Somebody suggested I post my rebuke to this blog. Actually, I haven't even started yet, click the read-more link to see it, but without the context I just gave, my response would make a lot less sense. Now read on.

Sunday night Carte Blanche had a story about cellphones. The story spoke about the use of cellphones and services like mxit.co.za (http://www.mxit.co.za) by paedophiles, as well as the use of cellphones by minors to access adult materials. The response all over was the same old kneejerk we know so well. What is the government doing to protect our children. These phones/services are evil The consistent view of the reporter as well as all interviewees was apparently that the problem is that there isn't sufficient regulatory censorship and controll over cellular content. My view on this is perhaps best explained by analogy.I think that policemen carrying guns is evil. Policemen should never ever resort to deadly force and should not even have the ability to do so. But that would be in an ideal world. In the real world, criminals do not care what is evil, they do carry guns, and they do use deadly force to escape arrest. Therefore the police need to carry guns, they need to be able to resort to deadly force sometimes. It is evil. But it is a necessary evil.Censorship is exactly the same. It is evil. It is always and without any exceptions evil. However, in some cases it may be a necessary evil. I can understand banning childporn, the censorship is still evil – but it's the only way to combat another terrible evil – child molestation.But we do not just give policemen guns and free reigh with them. The law very clearly understands that the use of those guns is an evil – even if it's an inescapable one – and therefore it requires them to use the minimum possible force. If a suspect can be apprehended by just telling him to stop – that is what you do. If he can be shot in the leg, you cannot shoot him in the head. You can't shoot a man who surrendered… etc. etc.Censoring anything must always be seen in the same light. Even when it's an inescapable reality, it must be limited to the very least that can be successfull. I know that the majority of South Africans do not value freedom of speech, they were raised in an age of a totalitarian govenment who propagandised a value system based on government control. Their value system seems to be based on the concept that the goverment's very purpose is to make their moral choices for them – and so they advocate censorship for the worst possible reasons.Technology, luckily is the natural enemy of censorship. Were it not for the uncensorabillity of the internet the Bosnian conflict would have at the very least quadrupled it's deathtoll (see The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age by Peka Himanen for details on the many ways that geeks and the internet worked to save lives during that crisis). During the final days of the cold war – when massive forces were stacked against the transformation in Russia, a small usenet server at the university of Moscow became the only source of news that could get around the media blackout – and without it, it is unlikely that the cold war would have ended – and certainly not without a massive deathtoll.Freedom of speech is not just a nice idea. It's a lifesaver. In fact, just the difficulty of censoring information technology alone (not counting any of the other ways it saves lives – like rapid notification to medical emergency systems) – has saved twice as many lives in only the last twenty years as peniciline saved in the nearly 70 years we've had it. I know that sounds unbelievable – but it is (easilly) verifiable fact. We don't need freedom of speech for the sake of rock bands who shout 'swearwords'. We need the rockbands who shout swearwords for the sake of saving innocent civilian lives.So the only possible conclusion is that censorship is decidedly not the answer to the problem here. Technology cannot be blamed for how it is used, nor should it be government controlled to any but the very least possible degree. The answer here – is responsible parenting. Too long had South African parents lived in a world where the government told them it was the government's job to decide what their children could see, read and by implication – think.It isn'tParents – the job of raising your children is your own. You have the responsibile to ensure they are informed, and able to make educated decisions in their lives – so that they can protect themselves. It is not the governments job and the government is the worst possible place to seek help – if only because they are bound to use it as an excuse to commit attrocities against you and your children (this is not an opinion, it's a fact of history – all governments abuse all the power they have, safe societies are smart enough to limit their power to only the barest they can get away with). And parents, it is your responsibility to get educated yourself. To learn about the internet, and the abilities of new phones – to stay in touch. If your children know more about it than you – this is natural, but it also places an even bigger responsibility on you to learn even faster.You have to teach them how to be safe. You have to give them the information critical to surviving in the information age. It is what you are there for and you have absolutely no excuses for failing to do so. Blaming the government is not an excuse either – this is a responsibility that cannot be shirked, and if you continue to do so – then you are just as much to blame for the results as the monsters who will take advantage of your lazyness.