Mandatory Monitoring of Childrens Internet and Social Networking Activities in the U.S - Research Paper Example

Mandatory Monitoring of Children’s Internet and Social Networking Activities in the U.S The free internetaccess of children and the craze with which modern children spend their time in the virtual world is a nightmare for most parents in the U.S today. Freedom, anonymity, and easy access to every subject under the sun make internet the favorite companion of children of all ages. Like every other debatable topic, children’s internet use raised a lot of controversy, with plenty of theoretical and empirical evidence attached to each aspect. Despite the unabated discussions, a considerable number of children fall prey to various traps on internet. This work aims to argue that children under the age of 18 are not mature enough to handle internet and social networking sites in a safe way. In addition, this work claims that family, government and other social institutions act as a buffer protecting children from excessive exposure to sexism, anger and such other situations of extreme emotions in the real life society. However, internet fails to introduce such elements of social control and conformity. Based on this, this work suggests that the government should introduce a new law making it mandatory to monitor the online activities of children under the age of 18. A Look into the Theoretical Background It is rightly said that children are like clay. The meaning is that they can be molded into any shape through training. In other words, they are highly vulnerable to external influences. It is pointed out by American Psychological Association, “Neuropsychological research demonstrates that the adolescent brain has not reached adult maturity” (9). This means that children are more impulsive in nature than adults are and are more likely to violate social norms. In addition, one has to infer that it is the fear of punishment which stops young people from disobeying rules and regulations. For added support, there is the revelation by American Psychological Association that “Adolescence is a period in which character is forming and often involves heightened risk-taking and even criminal conduct which are moderated or eliminated by the individual in adulthood” (5). Based on these biological and neurological claims which are undisputedly authoritative, one reaches the realization that children are biologically not mature enough to be fully independent in decision-making; not only on internet but also in the real society. Admittedly, one can see that this reality is accepted by the wider society while dealing with children. For example, children are not given stiffer punishments even in very serious crimes in most civilized societies. This can be illustrated through the infamous “affluenza” case in the U.S in which a teenager who killed many people in a drunk-driving case was set free by the court. The observation of the court was that the rich parents of the boy are as guilty as the culprit for not properly observing and controlling their son (Strauss). Thus, one can see that the immaturity and inability of young people in functioning independently is accepted by the society. Now, it is necessary to see what elements in the real society keep children on track as they grow up. According to Campbell and Bond, there are various factors like innate qualities, early childhood experience, behavior exhibited by important adults, influence of friends, the general social and physical environment around, communications, education, and the various situations one passes through which decide how children behave (56). From this, it is clear that society, family, school, and friends play an important role in setting children’s behavior. In the opinion of Mahalihali, “family, especially parents, play a fundamental role in forming the values of children” (par. 5). The scholar shows that parents’ behavior, education, and way of life considerably influence how children form their character. From these points, one has to infer that parents and family play a significant role in deciding how children behave. In real society, children remain under the constant observation of their parents and other family members, and this does not happen in the virtual world. A look into the social learning theory will further explain how social institutions influence the way one behaves. Cantor explains that an individual learns how to behave from the behavior modeled by others (112). If that is the case, children behave well because they observe good models of behavior in the real society, and this role model is not available on net. In addition, the models available on net are inappropriate. Along with this, it is necessary to identify what Arousal Theory holds. According to this theory, exposure to feelings like anger, fear and sexual arousal results in a rise in heart rate and blood pressure and such other peripheral indices. This arousal results in more violent behavior in real life situations (Bryant, Roskos-Ewoldsen, and Cantor 56). In addition, the scholars point out that when an individual is exposed to such contents for long, it results in the development of a long-lasting hostile mental framework. With this realization in mind, it is necessary to look back into how family and society often acts as a buffer in protecting children from such contents in real life society. In most societies, children are kept away from witnessing violence and explicit sex, as children are considered immature to deal with emotions. However, internet offers them unconditional access to such content and significantly affect the way children behave both in the short and long term. In the opinion of Cialdini, “Most organizations would cease to operate efficiently if deference to authority were not one of the prevailing norms” (596). This claim has a lot of significance in the present case. To illustrate, it shows that fear of authority is a necessary element in making people obey social norms and adults are no exception. If that is the case with mature adults, it is necessarily so in the case of immature children. In other words, social conformity has an important role in forcing people to stay within the prescribed norms. Evidently, the absence of this element will result people’s going off-track (Sacconi and Faillo 43). The element of social reward is to be read along with this. In the opinion of Cantor, in order to promote a good behavior in children, it is necessary to reward them in some way every time they show the desired behavior. Thus, it becomes evident that proper behavior of children develops piecemeal, through constant observation and influence of various social institutions. The Arguments against Observation To begin with, there are people like Ziccardi who possess the view that children should be allowed “their own space” in the digital world (149). The scholar is of the opinion that in order to facilitate this, it is necessary to keep the regulators away from the space for children. One reason pointed out is that this will result in poor decision-making abilities in children. Supporting this view, Paton claims that “Restricting pupil’s access to websites may actually impair their judgment, making them more vulnerable to pedophiles on-line” (par. 1). Similarly, in the opinion of Bristow, “Just as the stranger at the swimming pool is highly unlikely to abduct our children, mobile phones are not about to lure them into the great unknown (par. 3). Thus, the core of the opposition is that interfering with children’s freedom on internet is detrimental in the fact that this will result in inability to make independent moral judgments. Discussion The above analysis proves that various aspects in the real life are not present on internet, making the virtual world quite different from the real society. First of all, the qualities and behaviors which are considered desirable in the real society do not get any reward or recognition in the cyber world. Secondly, internet seriously lacks in social conformity and observation. In fact, these two factors are very important in real life society in keeping the members loyal to the norms of the society. Thirdly, while the real society protects children from extreme emotions like fear, anger, and sexual arousal by keeping them safely away from such content, internet offers them a chance to get access to such content in abundance. Thus, this work argues that allowing children their own space on the net free from the interference of parents and authorities is a dangerous proposition. Therefore, there is the need to ensure proper monitoring of the activities of children online. In fact, this cannot be considered a breach of freedom as the opposition claims because as already seen, there are such elements present in the real society. Therefore, this work intends to suggest that all the websites which contain extreme levels of violence, cruelty, immorality and sex should have restricted access. More importantly, it is necessary to properly observe children’s activities on social networking sites. People under the age of 18 should not be allowed to have independent accounts on such sites. Instead, those children who want to use social networking sites can be allowed to use their parents’ accounts instead. Moreover, there should be a government body exclusively dealing with this issue and strictly monitoring what children do online. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that the virtual world is considerably different from the real world for the absence of important elements of social stability like social conformity and social reward. Therefore, raising children in the virtual world is far more dangerous than raising them in the real society. Thus, the solution is to introduce those elements of social stability in the virtual world. That means mandatory monitoring of children’s activities online is a necessity and is fully justified. Works Cited “Briefing for the American Psychological Association and the Missouri Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent.” Roper v. Simmons. No. 03-633. Supreme Court of the United States. 19 July 2004. PDF file. Bristow, Jennie. “Children should be Allowed Their Freedom.” Spiked. Spiked ltd., n. d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Bryant, J., D. Rokos-Ewoldsen, and J. Cantor. Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. Print. Campbell, V, and R. Bond. Education for Values. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1982. Print. Cantor, J. Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. Print. Cantor, J. Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Print. Cialdini, Robert B., and Noah J. Goldstein. “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology 55 (2004): 591-621. ProQuest. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Mahalihali, Kwalombota. “Family Influences on the Development of a Child’s Behavior.” URC. Undergraduate Research Community, n. d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Paton, Graeme. “Stop Blocking Internet Access, Schools Told.” The Telegraph 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Sacconi, Lorenzo, and Marco Faillo. “Conformity, Reciprocity and the Sense of Justice how Social Contract-Based Preferences and Beliefs Explain Norm Compliance: The Experimental Evidence.” SSRN Working Paper Series Jul. 2008:1-46 ProQuest. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. Strauss, Gary. “No Jail for Affluenza Teen in Fatal Crash Draws Outrage.” USA Today 06 Feb. 2014. Web. 09 April 2014. Ziccardi, Giovanni. Resistance, Liberation, Technology and Human Rights in the Digital Age. New York: Springer, 2013. Print. Read More