[LINK] Onus on providers to clean up web content

[Irene Graham]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:04:50 +1100, Brendan Scott wrote:

> Irene Graham wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:35:18 +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/12/2007, at 6:29 PM, Brendan Scott wrote:
>>>> Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>>>>> Onus on providers to clean up web content
>>>> []

>>>>> A report by the Australia Institute in 2003 showed 84 per cent
>>>>> of boys
>>>>> and 60 per cent of girls using the internet had experienced
>>>>> unwanted exposure to sexual material.
>>>>>
>>>> Why would this figure be gender dependent?
>>>>
>>> The key word here is 'unwanted' perhaps, which might explain it...
>>>
>> Probably given the 'boys' and 'girls' surveyed by Newspoll for the
>> Australia Institute were aged 16-17 years and the question asked was
>> "When using the Internet yourself, have you ever seen sex sites
>> accidentally or when you didn't mean to?"
>
> Seems to go against stereotypes - ie girls more likely to want such
> material.  Maybe there is a gender difference in interacting w. the
> internet? Girls are better at not chancing upon it? Boys are falsely
> modest?

No, but I can now see my brief comment sounded like that, sorry. 

What I meant was that imo 16-17 yo males ("boys") are more likely than 
"girls" to be intentionally searching for "sex sites" and are therefore 
more likely to see sites that they "didn't mean to" as distinct from 
entirely accidentally, e.g. intentionally seeking pictures of naked bodies 
and, without meaning to, finding pictures of e.g. extreme/disturbing sexual 
practices/whatever.

Also, the AI report itself (p.18 of the paper version) states that a 
possible explanation for the higher figure re "boys" is that: 
	"some boys may be willing to admit to accidental exposure but not 
deliberate searching for sex sites and boys' greater deliberate use of 
Internet sex sites may therefore feed into an over-reporting of accidental 
exposure".

Other survey figures in the AI report appear to support the above...

Another question asked was "Have you ever searched for or looked at sex 
sites on the Internet on purpose?".  38% of boys and 2% of girls said yes.

So of the boys surveyed, 84% had seen sites accidentally and 38% had seen 
sites deliberately. Hence a proportion of those who saw sites accidentally 
apparently also admitted to deliberate exposure, and that number seems to 
me to be 22% (i.e. 100%-84%=16% without accidental exposure. 38% deliberate 
-16% without accidental exposure = 22%).

Then, if one takes that 22% off the 84%, one is left with 62% of "boys" 
with accidental exposure who had not deliberately looked for "sex sites". 
Remarkably close to the figure of 60% of girls with accidental exposure.

(If I appear to be overlooking some aspect in that analysis, please do 
point it out - I can't see any other way to interpret the figures).

Whether a figure of even 60% accidental exposure has any resemblance to 
reality is an open question. It's in stark contrast to figures in an 
academic study report issued in Feb 2003 (AI report issued March 2003), 
which found that:
	"Twenty-five percent of youth had unwanted exposure to sexual pictures on 
the Internet in the past year". 

However, the difference may be due to the AI having Newspoll ask 200 16-17 
year olds if they had *ever* seen *sex sites* accidentally or when they 
didn't mean to, while the US study asked 1507 10-17 year olds if they had 
had "one or more unwanted exposures to sexual pictures while online in the 
*past year*" (emphasis added). That report also presents the findings of a 
much broader range of survey questions than the AI survey, and it also 
details methodology etc (unlike the AI report).

(The latter report was on the findings of a survey undertaken by the Crimes 
against Children Research Center ("CCRC"), University of New Hampshire, 
titled "The Exposure of Youth to Unwanted Sexual Material on the Internet" 
A National Survey of Risk, Impact, and Prevention" (Mitchell Finkelhor & 
Wolak, 2003). The funding for the CCRC study was provided by the (USA) 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Exposure_risk.pdf )

Imo, the AI survey, with its very few but broadly phrased survey questions, 
can readily be perceived to have had the sole intention of obtaining 
sensational figures to support its campaign for mandatory ISP blocking. 

I also consider it pertinent that one of the co-authors of the AI report, 
Clive Hamilton, had been publicly saying for some 9 months before issue of 
the AI report that:
	"For all of the hype, the information superhighway is principally a 
conduit for pornography." [1]

I don't find surveys/report issued by people with such an opinion in the 
least bit credible.

Irene

[1] Quoted from:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/13/1021002429844.html
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/34.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=894