RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/how-apple-google-and-microsoft-can

The current system for protecting children online does not work. It relies on parents understanding and managing their children’s online experience across a wide variety of applications. I live in the Bay Area and have many friends who work at large technology companies. I don’t know a single parent among them who feels completely comfortable with the options that currently exist. If the people who build technology products do not know how to protect their kids, we clearly need a better solution.

Parents are left on their own to figure out how to stop strangers from contacting their children and how to prevent anonymous cyberbullying. They need to figure out how to prevent their kids from seeing something they are not ready for in a world where 58% of teens report seeing sexually explicit content by accident and 19% of Instagram teens report seeing unwanted sexually explicit content every 7 days. And then there’s sleep: How do they ensure they don’t receive notifications at 1 am on a school night? Few parents feel confident in addressing these real and important concerns. 

The providers of operating systems, which is a market that Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate, could help. It would not only be the right thing to do, but it would also be a huge relief to the many parents who want their children to have rich social lives that require the ability to interact with their friends (who are online) — but do not have the time and energy to manage the myriad settings that exist across services. Parents need a simple way to protect their children online that doesn’t require them to know the difference between Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube settings and how to manage each of them separately. There is even a business incentive here: Many parents might be *more* willing to buy a device that promises a simple solution.

Of course, the best solution might be for children to stop using these products altogether. The four norms suggested in The Anxious Generation—which include delaying entry into social media until age 16—would do a lot of good, but there will still be youth who need protection from technology-enabled harms, even if such usage is drastically reduced. Children mature continuously and at very different rates, and so a child is not necessarily more able to handle a smartphone when they start high school or able to interact productively on social media on their 16th birthday, as compared to the day before. Even if legislative changes occur such that children cannot sign up for social media accounts without their parent’s permission until their 16th birthday, most families will still want an option that reduces the risk of their newly eligible sixteen-year-old receiving unwanted advances from others, should they choose to use social media at that time.

Some children may develop slower and may need more time before fully engaging with these technologies. On the other hand, some children may benefit from access to technology sooner. Many researchers have pointed out the benefits of social media for kids who have specific support needs, such as some LGBT children—and parents of those children—may want to provide earlier access. Even as many may disagree with their decision, some parents may still want their children to have a smartphone in order to be able to access YouTube, which has a wealth of educational content, or to be able to FaceTime their grandparents – even at earlier ages. Those parents may want solutions that enable their children to use these devices more safely.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/boycott-divest-and-sanction-columbia

The images of the recent protests at Columbia University have grabbed the attention of the American public: students chanting for a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea”; activists setting up a mass tent encampment on the campus lawn; masked occupiers seizing control of Hamilton Hall. For some, it was a sign that ancient anti-Semitism had established itself in the heart of the Ivy League. For others, it was déjà vu of 1968, when mass demonstrations last roiled campus.

After weeks of rising tensions, Columbia president Minouche Shafik resolved the immediate conflict by summoning the New York City Police Department, which swiftly disbanded anti-Israel student encampments, removed the occupiers of Hamilton Hall, and arrested more than 100 students, who were subsequently suspended.

President Shafik feigned surprise. In a statement to students, she expressed “deep sadness” about the campus chaos. But to anyone who has observed Columbia in recent decades, the upheaval should not come as a surprise. Behind the images of campus protests lies a deeper, more troubling story: the ideological capture of the university, which inexorably drove Columbia toward this moment. Columbia for decades has cultivated the precise conditions that allowed the pro-Hamas protests to flourish. The university built massive departments to advance “postcolonialism,” spent hundreds of millions of dollars on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and glorified New Left–style student activism as the telos of university life.

Terms like these might sound benign as euphemisms, but the reality is sinister. As the protests revealed, postcolonial theory is often an academic cover for anti-Semitism, DEI is frequently a method for enflaming racial grievances, and student activism can become a rationalization for violence and destruction.

The university, founded by royal charter in 1754 and a great American institution for more than two centuries, has lost its way. There will need to be a reckoning before it can return to its former glory.

The first part of that process is understanding what went wrong. To do so, we will attempt to uncover the roots of Columbia’s Intifada.