Ted Stevens Is An Idiot

Ted Stevens, one of the leading Republican Senators, has sponsored a bill that seeks to ban social networks, blogs, and wikipedia from schools and libraries.

The user generated web is the future of the web. Banning it from schools and libraries is like banning books from schools and libraries.

How can someone so powerful be such an idiot?

Comments

[jackson]

"How can someone so powerful be such an idiot?"

Easy, he's a republican.

[John Dodds]

While I disagree entirely with the motivation behind the bill - namely the misguided belief that the web is all about predators and kids aren't smart enough to avoid them - I am surprised to realise that my immediate reaction is to ask whether there might not be a case for, at least, limiting access within schools on the grounds that users need first to have developed critical and analytical faculties in order to evaluate the validity of wikipedia and blogs. I'm prepared to be roundly chastised for this "nihilistic" view but don't think it's quite as clear-cut an issue as it first seems.

[Erik Schwartz]

"Banning it from schools and libraries is like banning books from schools and libraries."

He'd probably be in favor of that too. Don't give him any ideas.

[fred]

John

do we limit our kids access to books until they've developed the critical and analytical skills to know what is fiction and what is fact?

come on everyone. let's get real.

Fred

[Jamie]

How can someone so powerful be such an idiot?

yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to to simple questions.

But seriously, Wikipedia is a great resource, although not 100% accurate 100% of the time, but neither is Encarta. I think a valuable lesson of learning to cite, document, cross check, and corroborate facts can be learned from web resources far easier then Encarta or some other source where they are often held up as the Gospel.

Though I think kids updating their myspace profile is a bit of a stretch, I also think kids engaging in that activity at school are probably bored. The correct response, I would think, would be to provide an atmosphere where kids are both challenged intellectually and are engaged in the learning process.

Banning "teh intertubes" would be a step in the opposite direction. Too many people think schools are like factories.

[bijan]

we are on same wavelength today. i had a similar post earlier this morning.

[Sean Ammirati]

Hi Fred,

As some of your other commenters have pointed out this is the same guy who called the internet a 'series of tubes' I thought I'd use some of these social media sites to find more about that quote (posted here -
http://profitablesignals.com/blog/?p=93)

Needless to say YouTube & Wikipedia were great resources to find that information!

- Sean

[michael]

also Stevens idiotic viewpoint (and your openness to it John) presupposes that our schools (let's leave libraries on a separate plane of absurdity here) are effective at teaching critical and analytical skills in the first place. I would argue that blogs, wikis, and the net as a whole are also to be viewed as tools that will teach us about cognition and learning and it's future helping to improve a broken system. In other words, our school suck so what the hell is Stevens suggesting we protect? Besides, these same idiots will spend billions to "retrain" or "retrofit" our workforce as it is turned on its head by digitization and offshoring which might look a lot like getting them out of tired old classrooms and onto the net (wherever it may be). Let's skip the middle man and let the kids find what they need out there. We adults are only pretending we know what's best in an uncertain future anyway, and they at least are quite aware what they're going through. ...changes.

[Andy Swan]

Headline is a little misleading on the article. The bill is aimed at myspace and other "social networking" sites where pedophiles are a problem.

It is so broadly and badly written that it COULD include Wikipedia, which is likely not the intent of the bill at all.

In either event, Fred is right that Ted Stevens is an idiot.... and the bill (as it is currently written) will fail.

What's really scary is that people like this (on both sides of the aisle) are actually in charge of educating kids.

As if I needed another reason to keep my kids out of public schools.

[TheBillfold]

What I'd like to see banned all together is the trashy antics of Paris, Lindsay and Britney - they are more of a threat to our children.

[Helmar]

That last question should be rephrased: "Can someone so powerful not be an idiot?"

Looking at powerful people all over the world, the vast majority strike me as utter idiots, otherwise we'd have a more peaceful and equitable planet.

Just my 0.02

PS: Brilliant read here: http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Featured/Green2507.html

[Chris Kerns]

Wow. Great job in contributing to the political discourse. "I disagree with you, therefore you are an idiot"

You cited a another blog as your source. Nice. How about reading the proposed bill then commenting directly to its flaws and how it could be improved.

Surely you aren't against protecting minors from sexual predators? I think it is hard to argue against the intent of the bill. It seems to me the bill basically boils down to this:

* There are child predators out there using things like MySpace and other forums.

* one in five children has been approached sexually on the Internet

* We want to protect minors from this

Now, let us discuss the merits and the flaws of the proposed legislation aimed at dealing with this problem.

Do you find restricting access by 5th graders to MySpace while at school draconian?

I don't have any kids yet, but I think I'd be a little upset if I found out that a child of mine set up a MySpace profile that revealed excessive personal information during study period on the school library computer and I never even knew about it.

I'm not necessarrily for the bill, but I certainly believe that it is a subject worthy of discussion. Even the author you cited actually seems to support about 2/3rds of the bill.

I apologize if talking about the actual issue is out of line. I didn't mean to get in the way of the name calling. I guess I just expected a bit more from someone of your standing.

--Chris

[Chris Kerns]

Here is a working link to Bill S.49

[iain]

* The "open-ness" of the Internet can be terrifying.
- I have kids.
* There are many "good" reasons to try to control it.
* But they will all fail.
* DRM is a good example of a "well financed" attempt at controlling the internet. It is a massive failure.

[John Dodds]

Fred

I think what's nagging at me is that the nature of education is such that we do to some extent limit the books to which children are exposed - high school books are less advanced than undergraduate texts for example (because of the critical faculties of the students)and, of course, things such as racist texts are similarly withheld.

I'm not sure if the misnamed phenomenon of "happy slapping" has reached the US, but that is something that is definitely enahanced by access to user-generated sites.

In no way (Michael), am I open to the senator's thinking - particularly as it overlooks the real issue of stranger danger - and, of course, I'd advocate unlimited access before I'd advocate any sort of ridiculous ban, but I'm just saying that educationally-speaking, it's worth considering what you allow children access to at which stage of their educational development.

[Stephen L. McKay]

This is exactly the thinking that makes me a democrat. I remember a few years back, former congessman Bob Barr argued against mandatory DNA testing (paid for by the government), in cases where DNA eveidence was available. "We have been doing fine with fingerprints, and eye witnesses", he said, and I'm not making this up!

[John Dodds]

Apologies all - I mistyped.

I meant to write that the flaw of the bill is that it overstates (and not overlooks) stranger danger. Some ninety percent plus of child abuse occurs within the extended family. Limiting school and library access to the internet will not change that.

[kid mercury]

IMO ted stevens can only be considered an idiot if people think he is doing his best to make decisions that will yield the most benefit for his constituents(aka his job). the sad reality is that this is just an attempt to get more regulation of the internet. this will then lend itself to laws being passed that satisfy lobbyists, which in turn incentivizes more lobbying.

IMO the situation will only get worse until people start waking up to the problems in our government and recognizing the need for significant change.

[Christian]

Well let's leave the partisian bickering aside.

The guy plain and simple is a moron regardless of party affliation.

Remeber this is Ted "series of tubes" Stevens.
Ted "bridge to nowhere" Stevens
Ted "my son is corrupt crook" Stevens.

[Zoli Erdos]

Of course he is right... in fact this is just the begining :-)

[Jed Christiansen]

"How can someone so powerful be such an idiot?"

As said above... "Easy."

He likely rarely uses a computer, but does have lots of interactions with whacko stakeholders on the religious right that are probably pushing for this. (It also explains his tubes remarks... he doesn't know anything about the Net, and relies on lobbyists for any arguments.)

He's an old guy who's been doing his job for a long time, and probably has no idea of the real impact of his decisions.

My two cents...

[Jed Christiansen]

"How can someone so powerful be such an idiot?"

As said above... "Easy."

He likely rarely uses a computer, but does have lots of interactions with whacko stakeholders on the religious right that are probably pushing for this. (It also explains his tubes remarks... he doesn't know anything about the Net, and relies on lobbyists for any arguments.)

He's an old guy who's been doing his job for a long time, and probably has no idea of the real impact of his decisions.

My two cents...

[Hockeydino]

Easy...he's a career politician. Most politicians have sold their soul. This equally applies to dems as well.

And you wonder why your boy Obama doesnt get it...because none of them get it.

I'm on myspace alot, and some of the stuff I see on there is pretty sickening, there's no doubt. But let Myspace police their own site. Let the community stand up and bitch about what they see. I report sites often to Myspace, and they do delete those profiles. I'm not prudish, but I watch enough of Chris Hanson's reports on Dateline to know something has to be done.

Choose Ron Paul.

[Pramod]

I was thinking, yes there are issues with sites like Myspace and wikipedia and obviously they have their positives, but instead of banning them would it not be wiser to educate our kids to their negatives so they can make a more informed decision. Just by banning these sites you will not be able to prevent kids from setting up a myspace profile, but maybe if they understood the issues they would be better protected.
If the govt spent some money to setup a site that kids would find interesting and would explain the issues with social networking sites, the kids in my opinion might actually be safer. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more effective in my opinion.

[Andrew Johnson]

No suprise, its pretty common for people in power to be complete nutcases. The quickest path to power is to over-promise and under-deliver.

Will banning Myspace, forums, and wikipedia from schools and libraries protect any children? Perhaps it will provide a limited amount of sheltering from those of the lower class who still have no internet conntection at home. Give mobile phones technology another 3-4 years and its not going to matter at all.

This is a textbook example of a law over promising an end goal (child protection) but the law is completely incapable of delivering any protection to anyone.

Come on, if libraries can't censor adult content how in the hell does anyone think they could block Wikipedia? Someone needs to stop these guys from wasting our time.