Group Seeks to Protect Kids from Harmful Interactive Ads

The Center for Digital Democracy wants the FTC to block interactive ads and online gaming sites that target children until they figure out whether or not technology has gotten ahead of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (aka COPPA). According to the CDC, "Other groups that target children through ads placed inside entertainment pose significant risks to the psychosocial development of youth. Play, imagination and physical health will all be further compromised." Here's a thought: Perhaps parents could take an active role in ensuring the "psychosocial development" of their own children, like limiting the time their children spend on the computer, making sure their children get out and interact with other children, buying their children coloring books and crayons, so on and so forth. Should it really require an act of Congress to ensure their proper "psychosocial development? Read More.


But that would require turning off the TV, something a large number of people don't have the energy to do.

Those are all good suggestions but the point seems to be that these companies are advertising products to kids they maybe shouldn't be advertised to kids. Its not a new idea. Your not allowed to target adult products to kids. Joe Camel anyone?

Its funny I was just thinking the other night how its weird that you can't see tv ads for Jack Daniels but you can watch ads for drugs that give you an erection. Go figure.

I know that I'll get flamed for this, but is there a fundamental difference between the liberal cause of blocking ads and the conservative cause of blocking pornography?

Well, yes, maybe, I guess.People have different reasons for blocking ads and boobies. I think most of the reasons to block ads have to do with speed and privacy, concentration... more practicle reasons, I think, than anything else.Blocking porn, from what I've seen, usually comes from people who have religious reasons.Good question though.

Come on Blake, do you really have to be religous to keep kids from viewing porn?

As for the pop up ads, the ad I come across most is the one for the mini cameras for 'home protection' that always show an attractive woman on it. They're selling spyware for peeping toms.

"Come on Blake, do you really have to be religous to keep kids from viewing porn?"No, of course not, and that's not what I said:"Blocking porn, from what I've seen, usually comes from people who have religious reasons."From what I've seen, that's usually who's calling for the blocking. That doesn't mean you have to be religous, that means, well, it means just what I said, as a matter of fact, I'll take it a step further and say I don't think I've ever seen an organization or person pushing the anti-porn line that wasn't religious. (Because I've never seen it doesn't mean it's not out there.) And I'm excluding filtering companies, and other companies selling stuff.Blocking ads is commonly a liberal thing, blocking porn is commonly a conservative thing.

But by saying that you imply that it must be a bad thing. If I apply a liberal tag to something I'm automatically classifying it as a bad thing. Its usually when we support something that the tags go away.

Are we even reading the same thing? I tagged both sides here wasn't passing judgement (in a bad way), just answering a question that made me stop and think.

I think I'm so used to labels I just glazed over the initial post labeling blocking pornography as conservative.

I don't think labels apply to either of these issues. You can be a liberal parent who doesn't want their child to have access to porn and a conservative who swears everytime a pop-up pops up.

Subscribe to Comments for "Group Seeks to Protect Kids from Harmful Interactive Ads"