Just wow.

Net nanny or a keylogger will tell you where your kids are going online, and you're crazy if you don't check. Think of the Internet as a big city full of temptations, addictions, thieves, bad judgement and sex starved pedophiles. You wouldn't send your 12 year old out there alone, would you? So why are you sending her online for what appears to be endless hours, unsupervised? It's not just about making sure they don't sneak out to meet that "cute older guy who looooves me" -- it's making sure she (or he) never gets the idea that the computer is a major part of life and friendship.

That problem aside, how hard is it for parents to limit their children's computer time? If a mother can't stop her daughter from spending so much time online that she bemoans having to take an 8 hour break from one site, who's in charge?

Bazelon lists several sites (and by that I mean every single one she lists) that I would not allow my child to waste his time on for a minute. None of them really teach much of anything except how to be profligate consumers. At least if she were playing War Craft she'd be learning some basic military strategy, helpful when the rest of her generation is old enough to vote and get enlisted in the latest ridiculous war that's dragging on because we're all too busy fucking around online or watching the other tube, to be bothered to demand the government be responsible to its citizens.

Isonomist:

No, tell us what you really think. Good post, great close.

Actually, World of Warcraft boils down to a shopping game, too. No military strategy there, just a lot of button pushing and picking the right stuff to help you kill more monsters to get more stuff.

While you're getting stuff, though, you can also play a role, which is fun and creative. Taking on another persona for fun is a worthwhile pastime, at least as worthwhile as posting on discussion boards.

And Internet dangers are way, way overblown.

The biggest 'danger' in WoW is losing a few brain cells trying to decipher the 1337zor insults of some idiot 13-year old. Other than that, it's pretty fun. I am somewhat surprised that the part of the article focused on boys didn't mention MMO's. Then again, the 'study' was flawed - the kids weren't at their own computers, etc, so they could only play free online games. My first instinct would also be to think that kids below 13 can't afford a $15 monthly subscription when I can't even permit myself one at 23, but somehow they do.

Really. Of course you have to monitor where your kids have been online. But my daughter has played on a lot of the same sites Emily mentions, (Millsberry, Club Penguin, Webikinz and another Disney site called Toon Town) and the site run by Nickleodeon. And they are fine. There's very limited ability to interact with people in the sites, so they can't be used to find out identities or personal information. The interaction is restricted to action between fluffy toonlike characters, which is strictly G-rated.

Who cares if they are not educational? I mean, really? As Yoffe's kids say, fun is important. I'm not advocating letting them spend hours at a time playing video games, but an hour a day to play a variety of games as cute animals isn't going to make children big consumers, and it isn't going to prevent them from learning how to read or do math or anything else. It's just relaxation. Kids deserve that too.

By the way, I suspect the problem with the webkinz site (based on the description) is that the tasks take about 5 minutes to do, then the kid is kicked out of the site for 8 hours. This is why the kiddie crowd often has more than one Webikinz (which, by the way, Emily seriously overpaid for).

As for computers not being a big part of life or friendship, geez, louise, then what are we doing here? Truth is it can be both. The problem is in assuring that it is only one method of interacting and that real meat knowledge is irreplaceable.