The Byron Review
TO ADD YOUR OWN COMMENT OR VIEW OTHER COMMENTS, CLICK ON THE BLUE BAR. THIS SERVICE IS IN BETA - PLEASE ALSO FEEDBACK ON BUGS AND SUGGESTED FUNCTIONS.
Launch Date 9 October 2007. Respond by 30 November 2007
The Byron Review is an independent review of the risks to children from exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games. This consultation calls for evidence from all groups and individuals. The Byron Review is an independent review supported by officials from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Skip to:
Context
1.1 The Prime Minister, Secretary of State Children Schools and Families and Secretary of State Culture Media and Sport announced on 6 September 2007 that Dr Tanya Byron, consultant clinical psychologist, would conduct an independent review of the risks to children from exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games.
The objectives of the review are:
To undertake a review of the evidence on risks to children’s safety and wellbeing of exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games.
To assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to such material and help parents understand and manage the risks of access to inappropriate content, and to make recommendations for improvements or additional action.
Further details are available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview
The review will conclude with a report to the Secretaries of State at the end of March 2008. Dr Tanya Byron will be supported by a team of officials from the Departments for Children Schools and Families and Culture, Media and Sport.
This call for evidence has been launched to gather information and advice from the widest possible range of people involved with the issues of the review. It is open to any interested person. Responses will be received and considered directly by the Review team and should not assume knowledge of any prior positions established in correspondence with the Departments. Details on how to submit your responses and views can be found later in this document. The Review will also be launching targeted consultation activity on these issues for children and young people.
2 Introduction
2.1 Children and young people are at the heart of this review. Video games and the internet are an established part of most children and young people’s lives, providing huge benefits and opportunities but also presenting potential risks. The Review’s starting point is that risks are a reality of life and that it is important that children and young people learn to understand, assess and manage risks as part of growing up. Nevertheless, some levels of risk may simply be unacceptable and the Review will explore how we can promote shared responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.
Play and exploration are essential to healthy child development and positive childhood experiences, and rapidly changing technologies mean new and exciting play and learning opportunities are now available to our children. To make sure that playing video games is healthy, happy and fun, we need to check that games are suitable for the children who play them. This Review will look at video games in all their forms: hard copy, download and played online.
The Review will also be looking more widely at material and experiences available to children on the internet. The internet is a global community that is expanding at a phenomenal and exhilarating pace and with ever-changing ways of accessing it, including through new mobile technologies. Like the front door of a house, the internet is a portal to the community beyond. And while going online can offer children many new and positive experiences, they need to be prepared for what they might find on the web and helped to enjoy it and benefit from it safely. Just as we show our children how to use the local shop by walking the route with them, teaching them how to cross the road and how to spot potential danger, so we need to show them how to find their way safely and confidently around the internet. But we also need to feel confident that this virtual community has its own system of rules, safety checks and local people who care about protecting our children just as much as we hope those outside our front door do.
Throughout the review process we will seek to balance the value of qualitative and quantitative evidence with the views and experiences of all those who are affected by the issues under consideration. Everyone can contribute and the Review team has no doubt that strong opinions will be expressed alongside facts and evidence. The views, attitudes and beliefs we will hear have a significant role to play in our assessment and analysis because of the crucial role they will play shaping the social and cultural context of our work and recommendations.
Key questions for the review are:
What are the benefits and opportunities that new technologies offer for children, young people, their families, society and the economy?
What are the potential or actual risks to children’s safety and wellbeing of going online and playing video games and how do children, young people and parents feel about those risks?
To what extent do children, young people and parents understand and manage those risks and how can they be supported to do so?
What, if anything, could be changed in order to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of going online or playing video games, and what are the pros and cons of different approaches?
Over the course of the Review the team will consider views gathered from a wide range of stakeholders: parents, children and young people (0-18); those involved in the welfare, education and safety of children; the academic and research community; the video gaming industry; gamers; the internet industry (producers, content aggregators, web hosts, internet service providers, search and navigation providers, consumer device manufacturers and retailers and the representative bodies of these groups); advertising and retail bodies; government agencies; other statutory and non-statutory public bodies and third sector organisations.
This Review will consider all potentially harmful or inappropriate material that children and young people might access or experience online or in video games. The Review will not tackle the existence of illegal content or activity online given that there is legislation and enforcement activity in place to address this – for example: online grooming of children, the creation and distribution of abusive images of children, under-age online gambling or content that incites racial or religious hatred. Nevertheless, the recommendations of the Review will no doubt be relevant to protecting children and young people from such illegal content and activity, because the primary objective of the Review is to help children, young people and parents understand, assess and manage the potential risks of going online and playing video games. The Review will also need to take into account the emergence of new ways of accessing the internet and video games such as mobile technology to ensure that the analysis and recommendations remain relevant in the future.
This Review will not cover television content as there is already extensive statutory regulation in this area, but the team welcomes any contributions on this or other areas where there may be lessons, examples or comparative approaches which would deepen our understanding of the issues.
We welcome all feedback and opinions and would encourage any person with views relating to this review to participate. Respondents do not need to answer all of the questions. This call for evidence closes at 5pm on Friday 30 November. In addition to this call for evidence, the Review will also be launching targeted consultation activities for children and young people.
3 CALL FOR EVIDENCE
3.1 This document sets out some key questions on which the Review Team would particularly welcome responses. The objectives for this Call for Evidence and other consultation activity that the Review will undertake are to:
- Gather a range of opinions from children, young people, parents, people who work with children and young people to ensure their welfare, safety and education and all those with knowledge of the video gaming and internet industries;
- Highlight issues on which the Review should focus its attention, shaping the direction that the Review takes over the forthcoming months;
- Gather evidence that the Review Team can use to develop its analysis, helping the team to make the most of existing research and minimise duplication.
There are three sections:
- Video Gaming;
- The Internet;
- General comments
The sections are organised under four key themes, as follows:
- Benefits and opportunities
- Understanding the potential risks
- Helping children, young people and parents manage the risks
- Need and potential for improvement and change
3.2 - Section One: VIDEO GAMING
The increasing sophistication of video game technology, the availability of video games for download online as well as on the high street and the emergence of interactive, online gaming, all bring new opportunities and potential for children’s learning, enjoyment and development. They also could present new potential risks for children and young people, which need to be understood and, as necessary, managed.
Video games can be accessed and played in different ways: hard copy games (e.g. those bought from a shop; borrowed from a friend); games downloaded from the internet; games played on the internet with others across the world. All questions below relate to all of these ways of playing video games.
Benefits and opportunities
Video games offer our children valuable play and learning opportunities. They are generated by a highly creative and successful industry in the UK and internationally.
1. What are the benefits of video games to:
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example: what evidence is there of children and young people’s enjoyment of video games and their role in enhancing their development (e.g. cognitively, emotionally, socially and economically etc.)?
2. What are the opportunities presented by video games to
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example: in what ways can video and online games be used to support children’s learning and development in the future?
3.3 - Understanding the potential risks
Children and young people playing video games, individually or with others may have experiences that challenge or unsettle them or be affected in other ways. Understanding, assessing and managing risks are essential life skills that can mediate and enhance the impact of such experiences.
3. What are the potential and actual risks to children and young people who engage with video games and how should the Review approach defining and measuring the risks?
For example: what evidence is there of the impact on children and young people’s emotional and social development and their behaviour from playing video games?
Risk can mean many things to many people (e.g. is it harm or is it offence?) We would welcome evidence, views and experiences on useful ways of classifying risks, for example in relation to a child’s age, stage of development or experience.
4. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
know already about the potential and actual risks of playing video games?
For example: what are the experiences of children, young people and parents of the potential risks of video gaming?
5. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
think and feel about the potential and actual risks of playing video games?
For example: are children, young people and parents concerned or indifferent about the potential or actual risks that may come from playing video games?
3.4 - Helping children, young people and parents manage risks
Children, young people and parents will probably use a range of techniques to manage the potential risks of video gaming. These might include using the mechanisms that are in place to help manage the access that children and young people have to video games in the first place. This is largely based on an age-rating system which is partly voluntary and partly required by law. Given the availability of games online (both to download or play with the involvement of others across the world) other mechanisms used to protect children and young people on the internet are also likely to be relevant to video gaming.
6. What are the range of mechanisms that exist to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of playing a) hard copy video games b) games downloaded from the internet c) games played on line? For example: classification systems; internet filtering of inappropriate content; kitemarks etc.
7. To what extent do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
understand and use the video games age classification system and/or other descriptions of content?
For example, do they understand the meaning of letters, numbers and symbols on game packaging and are they able to judge the content of online games before playing them?
8. In what other ways do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
seek to manage perceived risks of video gaming and how do they feel about their ability to do so? For example, playing together, taking an interest (“shoulder surfing”), time limited play, restricted access, filtering, open discussion etc.
9. How well do these different approaches and mechanisms work? For example, do they give children, young people and parents the confidence and ability to manage risks and get the most out of video games and online gaming?
10. What roles do the retail and advertising sectors play in supporting children, young people and parents to manage potential and actual risks in playing video games? For example: how are games marketed and sold to children and young people, etc?
11. What opportunities exist for children, young people and parents to learn about safe, responsible and fulfilling video game playing – and do they help?
For example: is there access to learning opportunities at home, with the family, in schools and colleges or provided by the video gaming and internet industries?
3.5 - Need and potential for improvement and change
The review needs to understand the full range of views on how systems could be developed to increase the ability of children, young people and parents to manage the potential and actual risks of video gaming, where necessary. The review is also keen to understand the potential contribution of new developments in technology to this.
12. What, if anything, could be changed in order to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of playing
a) hard copy video games
b) games downloaded from the internet
c) games played on line,
and what are the pros and cons of different approaches? For example: in terms of knowledge and awareness; physical and virtual safety mechanisms; and reduction or enhancement of regulatory systems etc
13. What are the emerging opportunities for developing other ways of supporting children, young people and parents? For example, what developments in soft or hardware might benefit children, young people and parents in managing the potential or actual risks, especially as the ways in which they use technology change.
3.6 - Section Two: THE INTERNET
Benefits and opportunities
There is no doubt that the internet has already brought a huge range of benefits – it has changed the way we communicate at every level and has opened up new worlds of possibilities for us as individuals and societies.
14. What are the benefits of the internet to
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example, what evidence is there of the learning and developmental benefits for children and young people and the role of the internet in enabling them to reach their full potential?
15. What are the opportunities presented by the internet for
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example, how might the internet be used to support children’s learning and development in the future?
3.3 - Understanding the potential risks
Children and young people playing video games, individually or with others may have experiences that challenge or unsettle them or be affected in other ways. Understanding, assessing and managing risks are essential life skills that can mediate and enhance the impact of such experiences.
3. What are the potential and actual risks to children and young people who engage with video games and how should the Review approach defining and measuring the risks?
For example: what evidence is there of the impact on children and young people’s emotional and social development and their behaviour from playing video games?
Risk can mean many things to many people (e.g. is it harm or is it offence?) We would welcome evidence, views and experiences on useful ways of classifying risks, for example in relation to a child’s age, stage of development or experience.
4. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
know already about the potential and actual risks of playing video games?
For example: what are the experiences of children, young people and parents of the potential risks of video gaming?
5. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
think and feel about the potential and actual risks of playing video games?
For example: are children, young people and parents concerned or indifferent about the potential or actual risks that may come from playing video games?
3.4 - Helping children, young people and parents manage risks
Children, young people and parents will probably use a range of techniques to manage the potential risks of video gaming. These might include using the mechanisms that are in place to help manage the access that children and young people have to video games in the first place. This is largely based on an age-rating system which is partly voluntary and partly required by law. Given the availability of games online (both to download or play with the involvement of others across the world) other mechanisms used to protect children and young people on the internet are also likely to be relevant to video gaming.
6. What are the range of mechanisms that exist to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of playing a) hard copy video games b) games downloaded from the internet c) games played on line? For example: classification systems; internet filtering of inappropriate content; kitemarks etc.
7. To what extent do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
understand and use the video games age classification system and/or other descriptions of content?
For example, do they understand the meaning of letters, numbers and symbols on game packaging and are they able to judge the content of online games before playing them?
8. In what other ways do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
seek to manage perceived risks of video gaming and how do they feel about their ability to do so? For example, playing together, taking an interest (“shoulder surfing”), time limited play, restricted access, filtering, open discussion etc.
9. How well do these different approaches and mechanisms work? For example, do they give children, young people and parents the confidence and ability to manage risks and get the most out of video games and online gaming?
10. What roles do the retail and advertising sectors play in supporting children, young people and parents to manage potential and actual risks in playing video games? For example: how are games marketed and sold to children and young people, etc?
11. What opportunities exist for children, young people and parents to learn about safe, responsible and fulfilling video game playing – and do they help?
For example: is there access to learning opportunities at home, with the family, in schools and colleges or provided by the video gaming and internet industries?
3.5 - Need and potential for improvement and change
The review needs to understand the full range of views on how systems could be developed to increase the ability of children, young people and parents to manage the potential and actual risks of video gaming, where necessary. The review is also keen to understand the potential contribution of new developments in technology to this.
12. What, if anything, could be changed in order to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of playing
a) hard copy video games
b) games downloaded from the internet
c) games played on line,
and what are the pros and cons of different approaches? For example: in terms of knowledge and awareness; physical and virtual safety mechanisms; and reduction or enhancement of regulatory systems etc
13. What are the emerging opportunities for developing other ways of supporting children, young people and parents? For example, what developments in soft or hardware might benefit children, young people and parents in managing the potential or actual risks, especially as the ways in which they use technology change.
3.6 - Section Two: THE INTERNET
Benefits and opportunities
There is no doubt that the internet has already brought a huge range of benefits – it has changed the way we communicate at every level and has opened up new worlds of possibilities for us as individuals and societies.
14. What are the benefits of the internet to
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example, what evidence is there of the learning and developmental benefits for children and young people and the role of the internet in enabling them to reach their full potential?
15. What are the opportunities presented by the internet for
a) children and young people,
b) society,
c) the economy?
For example, how might the internet be used to support children’s learning and development in the future?
3.7 - Understanding the potential risks
Realising the full benefits of engagement with any community relies on being able to understand, assess and manage the risks as well as the opportunities that being part of community presents. Most children and young people will engage with the internet either individually, with peers or with adults. At times they may have experiences that challenge or unsettle them or which affect them in other ways. Understanding, assessing and managing risks are essential life skills that can mediate and enhance the impact of such experiences.
16. What are the potential and actual risks to children and young people who use the internet and how should the Review approach defining and measuring those risks?
For example, what evidence is there that the things children and young people see or experience online can have a negative impact on their emotional and social development or their behaviour?
Risk can mean many things to many people (e.g. is it harm or is it offence?) We would welcome evidence, views and experiences on useful ways of classifying risks, for example in relation to a child’s age, stage of development or experience.
17. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
already know about the potential and actual risks of using the internet? For example: what are the experiences of children, young people and parents of the risks of going online?
18. What do
a) children and young people and
b) parents think and feel about the potential and actual risks of using the internet? For example: are children, young people and parents concerned or indifferent about the potential or actual risks that may come from going online?
3.8 - Helping children, young people and parents manage risks
At present a range of mechanisms are in place to help manage the access that children have to content and experiences on the internet. There is a framework in place that defines illegal content. Other mechanisms exist across all parts of the internet, from content producer through to end consumer, that can help children, young people and parents manage risks
19. What are the range of mechanisms that exist to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of engaging with the internet?
For example:
content labelling and filtering;
user community agreements and acceptable use policies;
take down policies;
demonstrating and rewarding positive community behaviour;
moderation, kitemarking or age-related classification systems etc.
20. Are children, young people and parents aware of the tools available and to what extent do they use them? For example, what data is there of access to and use of different tools (e.g. reported complaints, software sales) and what evidence is there of user satisfaction with those tools?
21. In what other ways do
a) children and young people and
b) parents
seek to manage the perceived risks of using the internet and how do they feel about their ability to do so? For example, using filtering systems or other technology, taking part, monitoring, supervising (“shoulder surfing”); restricting access in other ways; open discussion about online activity and experiences.
22. How well do these different approaches and mechanisms work?
For example, what evidence is there of user satisfaction with the different approaches and do they give children, young people and parents the confidence and ability to manage risks and get the most out of using the internet?
23. What roles do the retail and advertising sectors play in child safety online?
For example: how is the internet and means of accessing it marketed and sold to children and young people and what role does online advertising play?
24. What opportunities exist for children, young people and parents to learn about safe, responsible and fulfilling internet use – and do they help?
For example: is there access to learning opportunities at home, with the family, in schools and colleges or provided by industry?
3.9 - Need and potential for improvement and change
The review needs to understand the full range of views on how the system could be developed to increase the ability of children, young people and parents to manage the potential and actual risks of engagement with the internet while maintaining and enhancing its opportunities and benefits. The review is also keen to understand the potential contribution of new developments in technology to this.
25. What, if anything, needs to be changed in order to help children, young people and parents manage the potential or actual risks of going on line and what are the pros and cons of different approaches?
For example: in terms of knowledge and awareness; physical and virtual safety mechanisms; and reduction or enhancement of regulatory systems etc
26. What are the emerging opportunities for developing other ways of supporting children, young people and parents?
For example, what developments in soft or hardware might benefit children, young people and parents in managing the potential or actual risks of going online as the way they use technology changes?
3.10 - Section Three: GENERAL
A key challenge for the Review will be to make recommendations which can keep pace with the emergence of new technologies, including the increasing diversity of ‘ways in’ to the internet through mobile technology.
27. What impact will new ways of accessing media have on the questions being considered in this review? For example, the use of mobile phones or other technology to access games and the internet.
3.11
The Review Team would welcome any other thoughts, comments and contributions to this Call for Evidence.
4 - How To Respond
You can respond on-line or in writing (to DCSF, Area 1A, Castleview House, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 2GJ) or by email.
5 - Additional Copies
Additional copies are available electronically and can be downloaded
6 - Plans for making results public
This consultation will be used as evidence for the review, and will be published at the end of March 2008, on the DCSF website.
Can we get figures from the DCMS Creative Economy work? Or from the Work Foundation report on the Creative Industries?
“But we also need to feel confident that this virtual community has its own system of rules, safety checks and local people who care about protecting our children just as much as we hope those outside our front door do.”
Do we? It would obviously be nice, if we believed the rules and safety checks were appropriate, but there’s obviously a risk that they will not be. In any case “would be nice” is not the same as “need”.
“local people” is just archaic. What does locality have to do with it?
Nanny statism: why do children need to be protected from _potentially_ harmful material? This language looks like an excuse to introduce or support censorship not based on clear evidence.
There’s that “potential” word again.
We need to emphasize the filtering of “inappropriate content” is broken on many levels:
a) Inappropriate classification of inapproriateness
b) Filtering of entirely appropriate content by mistake
c) Failure to filter truly inapprorpriate content
and probably other failings
Why would we want to manage perceived risks? Surely only actual risks need managing?
Perceived risks need education, not management.
I thought it was well established that humans don’t do “safe” - that is, increasing safety causes increased risk-taking until the level of danger is restored. For example, I believe that introducing soft surfaces in children’s playgrounds did not change the number of accidents because of this affect (I’m afraid I have no idea if that is anecdotal, though).
This fact needs to be taken into account - the idea that you can make any recreational activity completely safe is a fantasy.
Perhaps I am being overly geeky, but “shoulder surfing” has strong negative connotations, since it means observing surreptitiously, usually for criminal or at least anti-social reasons.
This kind of privacy invasion should not be encouraged.
Obviously we should react against “filtering” here.
Something of a leading example! What about evidence to the contrary?
I’m 17 years old, and therefore in the age range the Byron Review is trying to “protect”. I took part in this survey, and found it continuously asked questions about how well I understood the protections in place, or what I thought the risks are, but not giving me a chance to dispute the requirement to censor information for children at all, or the necessity of the methods already put in place. I found myself losing patience with answering questions that were obviously rigged to show how bad the internet and gaming is, with the pretence of asking about both sides with hugely generalised questions such as “What are the benefits to video gaming?”, but going into a huge amount of depth into how better to “protect” our children from “unsuitable” material …Won’t somebody please think of the children…
[…] You can read and respond to all the questions here. […]
The original title and context provide a good structure for which risks can be offset or balanced by benefits. I don’t think a general benefits of video games questions is helpful, especially if no risks are associated. In my opinion this question is too general and a potential cause of bloat.
I was going to dismiss question regarding the benefits of the internet as another out of scope daydream of the consultation authors.
However it does give me the oportunity to state that the benefits of avatars, nicknames as well as the benefits of losing cultural, social, national and personal identity, not to mention the abnegation of sexual and racial identifiers is all being undone. The benefits of many-to-many interaction on the basis of merit and content which the engineers, scientists and programmers (of THE INTERNET) envisioned and created are being lost.
Virtual learning environments, micro$oft outlook and the social web are promoting the transfer of culturally-stagnant social interaction models to the internet. Why is anyone surprised at the concomitant risks ?
I think that reversing the trend towards one-2-many internet will make it safer. Away from a consumer dominated net towards a producer dominated net.
Thanks for the out of scope daydream.
Framing the internet in terms of ‘use’ is quaint. Lol, it is not a public bath or a motorway. In terms of risk; perhaps exploring the internet is a better phrase. Also I think every isp that adheres to the concepts of net neutrality will offer opportunities for children, young people and parents to learn about safe, responsible and fulfilling internet exploration. Please note that this excludes most library and school internet connections.
I think i.m.banks would call this an ‘out of context’ problem.
The term “potential risk” is tautologous. A risk is a potential for something (be it good, bad or indifferent) to occur. I imagine that what the author had in mind was something like “risk for a bad thing to happen.” As Ben also points out, this fuzzy writing is probably from fuzzy thinking.
- I understand that the UK is producing a good number of top titles, so one benefit is job creation and exports.
- Gaming is a major driver of technology, which is an economic driver.
- Gaming-type technology is used extensively in aviation and the military for training. It would be hard to measure this benefit, but I’m sure it’s up there.
Benefit: Technical awareness, familiarity with computer technology, familiarity with the kinds of ways software tends to operate.
My personal observation is that young people are not very technically literate. (I realise that’s controversial!).
I may have a biassed viewpoint since I am a professional programmer, but I actually think that this gives me the ability to be more objective because I can get a sense of what people know compared with everything there is to know. The previous sentence is intended in the most humble way!
Exposure to technology-driven experiences such as surfing the internet, using mobile phones, playing video games, even using a GPS, can only benefit children individually by making them more au fait with things which will become increasingly important as they grow up.
Society benefits by having more people who are technically able.
Playing video games, and operating the required hardware and software increases an individual’s technical ability and makes them more comfortable with technical equipment generally.
I immediately think of the “Child of our Time” episode where the video-game addict was very popular at school. The hypothesis was that he had experiences which the other children did not have, and this gave him something to talk about with them. So, at least some of the opportunities are not restriced to a technological sphere.
There is an assumption in here that there are in fact some high levels of risk that may be unacceptable risks. This seems to make a conclusion that the risks are low and therefore acceptable an unlikely one.
“we need to check that games are suitable for the children who play them” sounds suspiciously like a conclusion being made e.g. in favour of censorship measures.
Broken analogy, the real world has real dangers like cars and poor weather conditions that materially affect a child’s physical safety. Physical safety is not endangered by exploring the Internet.
The benefits are stupendously obvious, and by asking such a question they set up the situation where they have a small list of benefits that people took the trouble to brainstorm and submit and can “weigh” that against a longer list of people’s unsubstantiated and unquantified fears. The result predetermined.
Are the benefits really so mysterious? I’m not a gamer but have seen that games are typically based around either:
- Skills be they physical such as reaction time and accuracy analogous to sports training, or intellectual / problem solving analogous to board games, cross words and Soduko.
- Stories, with associated cultural themes, references, philosophical and even political content. You might as well ask what the benefits are to films or novels.
As well as these structural elements there is the artistic and creative element. Pictures, music, sounds, and even acting. All of which would not be questioned in other circumstances.
Films might be a useful analogy here. My parents hadn’t watched every single film in the store, but still knew what films I should watch. I believe this is because the medium of film did not pre-date their own childhood and they recognised the genres and themes available.
The current or - at worst - the next generation will all have similar knowledge. Eventually this will hold true even of mobile gaming and mobile internet.
Hey - thanks for posting this, came up before the offical page and I love the blue bar comments :)
By the way - the links are broken - they are trying to open on your own website rather than DCSF’s
I raised this with Tanya Byron when I met her at the beginning of the month. From our discussions I concluded that she used it as shorthand for “the risks you have identified”. IE - the risks you have identified may be real, or they not be, potentially they are risks, potentially they are not. You may think that your child is at risk from being swallowed inside the computer and teleported to another dimension where children are put to work as slaves (my example, not hers). Therefore, of these things you have identified that are potentially risks, how do you manage them?
I’m not sure if this totally dismisses the problems others have identified in the comments (ie leading language), but it certainly made things clearer for me.
Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Young Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Jessie…
After this soaks in, I am sure what you have here is really brilliant….
Banks On The Internet Online…
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus - I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox - Just for your Info….
Hot Air Balloons | Up Up and Away…
Did you see my story Thursday morning on WKMG- Channel 6’s David Pingalore? He delivers the sports in a distinctive, off- the- wall manner. He uses quizzes, games and rapid- fire interviews….
resveratrol…
My face has been so bad for so long now (a little over a year) that I had grandiose that it had marvelously looked good. Retin- A gel publicly. Is DIFFERIN triangular for the Differin ungainly months and I am in the rosa long after the DIFFERIN had tri…
crohns disease…
De Grey uses much more optimistic rhetoric, and talks about ultimate goals, but this doesn\’t mean that investing in his approach will be more cost- effective than working to increase NIA funding, or passing the money through the Glenn Foundation, wh…
The default "Block" is always the title block for the post, that is where general comments are posted:
To comment on any "Block" within a post, click on the comments bar next to that block:
To view comments about a "Block" within a post, click on the yellow comment indicator next to that block: