by Lawrence J. Magid

Computer Currents
January 6, 1998

The Internet has been in the news a lot lately, and I'm not talking just about the technology press. These days it's not uncommon for the nightly news to open with an Internet story. During the first week of December, the airwaves were filled with reports about the Internet Online Summit: Focus on Children. Less than two weeks later the newshounds turned their attention to a federal judge's ruling that Microsoft could no longer force PC makers to include an Internet Explorer icon on the desktop of Windows 95 machines.

These two stories have a common thread: They're much ado about almost nothing.

Let's start with Internet porn. There's no denying you can find smut on the Internet. I'm even willing to concede that a bright, inquisitive, interested kid could locate pictures of naked people, stories with sexual content, and XXX-rated, hard-core stuff that we all agree is not for kids. A group of Internet insiders, including yours truly, attended the Internet Online Summit: Focus on Children to discuss these issues and debate courses of action. Much of the discussion was useful and interesting, but many people at the conference failed to focus on the real threats.

Porno Debates Miss the Point

Although it's disturbing being able to view pornography on the Internet is not high on my list of critical threats to children. In fact, if you really want to get into a discussion about child safety, I can think of many other issues: molestation by relatives, secondary smoke, neglect, malnutrition, and inadequate health care, just to name a few. And don't get me started about commercial daytime television.

There are substantial online threats to kids, but they're more complicated than dirtypictures. Kids can get into serious trouble by using poor judgment during online interactions. They can literally put themselves into the hands of pedophiles and other people who might harm and exploit them. Some people promote filtering software as the hero that will save kids from the seamy side of the Internet, but that's only a tool. Parents who rely solely on such technology are failing to protect their children from the biggest risks. Kids need to be taught the basic rules of online safety (see www.safekids.com/myrules.htm); they need to understand they should never give out their name, address, or any other information that could put them in harm's way.

Filters and site ratings don't stop kids from agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with people they meet online. And despite some efforts to this effect, filters can't completely prevent kids from typing something that could reveal their identities or location.

Schools of Smut?

A number of speakers at the summit addressed the issue of pornography in schools and libraries. The ACLU and the American Library Association are opposed to using software filters on library computers. They argued that public libraries are government institutions that should not be in the business of limiting what patrons can see. Some speakers disagreed, saying that libraries have an obligation to keep inappropriate material away from children.

I haven't done a formal survey, but I have discussed this issue with a number of educators and librarians. Most people I spoke with can't think of any cases where kids used school or library computers to view porn. I've heard about a couple of instances where kids stumbled onto porn or sought out an adult Web site. But before you worry too much about smut in schools, remember what pornography is used for. If kids are going to spend a lot of time looking at dirty pictures, they're going to do it in their own bedrooms or other private places. They're not going to do it in a large public room crowded with people. The best way to protect kids against porn is to keep the computers in public spaces and be sure an adult is present. If we follow that procedure, the "problem" will remain trivial.

Internet Explorer Ruling Was One Big Zzzzz

The other recent Internet news story that got heavy coverage drew a big yawn from me. The fact that a federal judge ruled-sort of-in favor of the Department of Justice in its suit against Microsoft was hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

So far, the net effect is that Microsoft can no longer force PC makers to include a copy of Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows 95 systems or display the Internet Explorer icon on the desktops of new PCs. While that is some cause for celebration at the Justice Department and at Netscape, which stands to lose the most from Microsoft's potential domination of the browser market, the ruling isn't likely to have much impact on PC makers or users. True, PC companies now get to choose whether to include Internet Explorer, but I have a strong suspicion most will continue to do so. Internet Explorer is free, it enhances the value of vendors' machines, and, as long as competitors bundle Internet Explorer, systems without it will be seen as a bit inadequate. The judge's ruling may spare PC users the hassle of uninstalling Internet Explorer if they don't want it, but I can't foresee any other impact.

Nor can I understand why Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale is happy with the ruling. Just because Microsoft can no longer use its operating system monopoly to force the browser onto PC desktops doesn't mean that Microsoft won't dominate the browser market and the Internet. Microsoft can still use the profits it makes from its operating system and application software to finance giving away Internet Explorer. Even if a handful of PC makers stop bundling the browser, you can bet plenty of users will continue to get their hands on free copies. As long as Microsoft is giving away something Netscape is trying to sell, Microsoft will have a strategic, long-term advantage.

Wake me when it's over.