Google Is Teaching Children How To Act Online. Is It the Best Role Model? (nytimes.com) 96
Google is positioning itself in schools as a trusted authority on digital citizenship at a moment when the company's data-handling practices are under growing scrutiny. From a report: Google is on a mission to teach children how to be safe online. That is the message behind "Be Internet Awesome," a so-called digital-citizenship education program that the technology giant developed for schools. The lessons include a cartoon game branded with Google's logo and blue, red, yellow and green color palette. The game is meant to help students from third grade through sixth guard against schemers, hackers and other bad actors. Google plans to reach five million schoolchildren with the program this year and has teamed up with the National Parent Teacher Association to offer related workshops to parents. But critics say the company's recent woes -- including revelations that it was developing a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market and had tracked the whereabouts of users who had explicitly turned off their location history -- should disqualify Google from promoting itself in schools as a model of proper digital conduct.
Don't be Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Too late...
Google motto 2004: Don’t be evil
Google motto 2010: Evil is tricky to define
Google motto 2013: We make military robots... also, we help Hillary overthrow governments and help the Chinese oppress their people
Google motto 2017: Trump is evil
Google motto 2018: We do not care what you think, we are Evil, deal with it.
Dont worry citizen (Score:2, Interesting)
The corporation shall educate your child accordingly
Re: (Score:2)
It is cheaper to educate kids to browse safely then program in such safeguards into your product.
Also the Tech Industry moves much faster then the Education System. Most elementary school teachers in terms of technology teaching are often already behind their kids skill levels.
Sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
Listen - I won't argue that Google hasn't left behind something important with its "Don't be evil" philosophy.
But compared to 'adult' power morality in our nation, Google is still relatively saintly.
Our latest answer to violence is crueler violence - our adults are failing the most basic tests of civilization just to see their opponents squirm and laugh at it.
I think the kids are the sanest folks left, given the studies I've seen on how they're handling all this - and Google is one of the least horrible influences.
Re:Sure. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just because you've read about a few jackasses in the news, tv or interweb, doesn't make it the norm for the vast majority of parents. Those are all busy catching eyeballs to increase revenue with the latest train wreck...it's just not reality. Why do you think we hear stories about some beautiful young getting killed or kidnapped, for weeks, and yet every single day there are multiple murders across the entire country. It's because they're not interested in reporting the actual news, they just want your attention to sell ads.
How to Be Safe Online (Score:2)
Trust Google.
Google is there to keep you safe.
Use Google Products.
Give All your Data To Google.
Google Will Keep It Safe.
Sincerely,
Google for Kids
No, parents should be handling that (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone snaps does real harm or causes harm to themselves. Thoughts and prayers abound and suicide prevention hotlines are posted, when it wouldn't be needed if people were just nicer to one another online and in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world is really a group of overweight and unemployed incels. 4chan is a troll farm full of powerless young "men", nothing more.
A abundance of horny poor young "powerless" men, have historically been the main source of revolutions be it; American Revolutionaries in Boston protesting against Britains millitary occupation and taxes, Russian peasants in the Red October revolution, or young Arab men in Egypt on Blackberries With Arab Spring.
Re: No, parents should be handling that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
American parents. I don't really see a better alternative. Google has its wrongs, but I do not really see too many, if any institutions which have any more moral perspectives than Google.
Right. Now Yemeni or Venezuelan parents, they're the shizzle.
It's always those dang Americans ...
Re: Considering the collective failure called (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's not like Big (anything) is any better. Do people think Disney is wearing a halo? Google is probably in an ideal position to design this curriculum from.
I certainly understand being wary of the fuckers (re: Big Firewall, military AI, etc), but then how about stripping away the branding and sponsorship and Brought To You By.
Though, I doubt google's slideshows and flash games will actually give a comprehensive internet-guard upbringing. That would include wisdom like general practices against centr
Other version already exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is just wrong on so many levels. BSA's ban on homosexuals was never about safety - that would just be stupid and ineffective because straight men and women have also been known to sexually abuse boys at roughly the same rate. BSA has an entirely different set of policies [scouting.org] to deal with that. The ban on homosexuals was aimed at preventing boys from seeing homosexuality as a valid way to be. The ban, which ended for youth members in 2013 and leaders in 2015, specifically applied only to avowed homosexuals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NetSmartz program is childish and painfully out-of-date. My 3rd-grade scout had to watch a video where kids and robots singing about netiquette, that looks like it is based on the days of AOL chat rooms. It's totally inaccessible to any child. It doesn't talk about text messages, online games, or web sites. It treats the internet like some giant chatroom where saying mean things makes people turn smelly and singing a song fixes it. The stuff they put for Grades 6-8 should be for Grade 2. Once a ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, fair enough, I'll get down off my soapbox now. :-)
Corporations (Score:3)
No (Score:1)
Deal with the things that are practical. (Score:3)
You _can_ use better passwords, you _can_ be more careful with your social graph, these things are relatively simple to get right enough for most people. They are mostly geared towards protecting you from third-party activity which has not taken control of the infrastructure of the products you are using.
Yes, you could teach sixth graders about changing settings and using DuckDuckGo, but realistically the problem isn't the search engine or browser you use, it's the products you use. Yes, using Google for a search engine could expose various things to Google - but it's all the sites you go to that are strip-mining your information and selling it to each other, they don't need Google to do that. If you're using Facebook, then switching from Google to DuckDuckGo isn't helping you much. Likewise if you're using Amazon or YouTube or any other site. You're up against adversaries who control the horizontal and the vertical, there's not a lot you can do which isn't comparable to using crystals or magnets to address your arthritis. Hell, millions of people install malware-protection programs which turn out to be actual malware! THEY PAY FOR IT! We simply aren't equipped to effectively deal with this scale of issue at an individual level.
I think Google has good incentives to help teach you, the individual end-user, to avoid scams perpetrated by other individual end users (nigerian prince, identity theft), and also against organized and opportunistic data-collectors (black market trading in password databases types of things). And those are issues you actually can improve based on your actions. But protecting yourself from having Google or MasterCard or Target "steal" your privacy is a tough problem, individuals can only really solve it by opting out, or supporting regulatory changes.
Nothing but Ad Hominem Fallacy!!! (Score:1)
This is nothing but a good example of classic Ad Hominem logical fallacy/attack!!!
The real issue to consider is this: Is the training content provided by Google is right or wrong?
Tell us about that!!!
The real issue is NOT whether Google itself is a good role model or not!!!
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing but a good example of classic Ad Hominem logical fallacy/attack!!!
The real issue to consider is this: Is the training content provided by Google is right or wrong?
Tell us about that!!!
The real issue is NOT whether Google itself is a good role model or not!!!
So, what you're saying is, we should judge the Nazis who ran the Hitler Youth program based on their success/failure rate, and never consider the fact that they were goddamned Nazis?
Oookay...
Clearly and objectively, NO. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't be bothered to spend enough time raising your own children, then do not have them in the first place.
Not that I disagree (much the opposite), but since we're talking about Google getting into schools, and the fact that sending your kids to school is mandatory, I don't think that really applies here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BuzzFeed News Teaching Google About Online Fraud (Score:2)
You can't be 'Internet Awesome', Google tells children on their 'Certificates of Internet Awesomeness' [nyt.com], unless 'You know how to tell the difference between the real and the fake.' By that standard, Google itself is not 'Internet Awesome.' From Tuesday's Google Online Security Blog post [googleblog.com]: "Last week, BuzzFeed News provided us with information that helped us identify new aspects of an ad fraud operation across apps and websites that were monetizing with numerous ad platforms, including Google [buzzfeednews.com]. While our intern
Re: (Score:2)
Who Else Is There? (Score:1)
Are parents stepping up to handle this? Schools? Local governments? If not Google, or some other corporation, who else is attempting to fill this role? Google may objectively be the worst possible choice for this particular role, but they also seem to be the only choice.
Why complain about something positive? (Score:3)
While people can complain about how corporations may act behind the scenes, there is a huge problem right now with people who fall for what most of us might consider an obvious scam. Phishing attacks, phone calls "from Microsoft", and "Your computer is sending out viruses, let us come in and we will fix it for you" type things are becoming increasingly common. If Google is going to do a good thing and teach kids not to fall for these types of scams, is that REALLY a bad thing? We are not talking about classes talking about corporate ethics, we are talking about some pretty straight forward stuff that kids SHOULD be taught from an early age.
An ad company wants to (Score:2)
To spread its own domestic party political politics? For the ads?
Compared to what? (Score:2)
Considering how badly some parents handle their kids (or in some cases not at all) then Google might actually do a better job there. Google's already everywhere on the Internet almost. The only way to avoid Google is to go to their competitors which are probably doing the exact same things or worse. It's in Google's best interests to ensure our kids have a good experience from the Internet and not a tragic or bad one.
Log off your Android Phone (Score:1)
Does it teach kids how to log off their Android phone?
Your phone still works, with a few awkward workarounds*, if you log out of your Google account and keep using it.
(*some are really awkward, actually. If you log out of your phone, your 'contacts' disappear. The workaround is to export your Contacts to a vcard file and then read that Vcard file back into your 'contacts list' after you've logged out of Google.)
Kids can also learn how to make sure they are logged out of Google on their browser. And how