Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

High School smackdown
May 18, 2004 9:24 AM   Subscribe

Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer.

Unless you're in high school and you deserve to get preached to because you're still a teenager.
posted by PrinceValium to Etiquette/Policy at 9:24 AM (72 comments total)

I think we would be preached by their parents enabling one to break a rule which could have bigger repercussions than Meta-Talk, alternative schooling.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:28 AM on May 18, 2004


What is the issue here?
posted by sudama at 9:33 AM on May 18, 2004


Anyone tells my kid how to get around the proxy, I'll break my foot off in their ass.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:36 AM on May 18, 2004


Yes, eleventh-graders are WAY too unsophisticated to be trusted with unfettered 'net access. (Please read that sentence abosolutely dripping with sarcasm.)
posted by callmejay at 9:40 AM on May 18, 2004


i thought the group consensus was that this was ok, given the preaching doled out to keyser soze?
posted by andrew cooke at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2004


"Anyone tells my kid how to get around the proxy, I'll break my foot off in their ass."

Translated as - Anyone tells my kid how to do something they already now how to do if they were so inclined, I'll break my foot off in their ass.

Who's more naive? The child who thinks getting around a proxy is cool? Or a parent who thinks a proxy will stop their child from seeing whatever they want to see?

A proxy server is like putting a very expensive lock on a door which is right next to a glass window. The door is secure. The stuff on the other side of the door isn't.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2004


Considering prior instances of proxy workaround questions in places where it probably shouldn't be done, I'd say that it's setting a really crummy double standard.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2004


y6y6y6, it's not the parent's proxy.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2004


I thought the preaching sounded more like the usual way that hackers like to assert how exclusive their clique should be -- "Don't let just anyone know our secrets! You have to earn them."

I was bothered a lot more that there's apparently no one with enough knowledge of US school rules to warn meatpuff about the possible consequences of what he might be doing.

Or, what thomcatspike said (at least I think that's what he said).
posted by fuzz at 10:00 AM on May 18, 2004


I'd help the kid out if I knew the answer. It's disingenuous to discourage others from helping someone with an honest query like this one.
posted by vito90 at 10:00 AM on May 18, 2004


thomcatspike, I'm not talking about the parent's proxy, I'm talking about the parent's naivete.

And I should add that naivete is fine, up to the point where I get beaten up over it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:03 AM on May 18, 2004


Has anyone ever thought of giving crash davis some sort of hilarity award? From what I've seen, his posts win hands down.

Seriously, no sarcasm.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:07 AM on May 18, 2004


"there's apparently no one with enough knowledge of US school rules to warn meatpuff about the possible consequences of what he might be doing."

Or nice enough to tell him that the school's firewall and log files are still going to tattle on him while he's looking at man-on-dog porn.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on May 18, 2004


I'd help the kid out if I knew the answer.

So would I.

"Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

-- Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., in Preliminary Injunction Memorandum and Order in ACLU v. Reno.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:17 AM on May 18, 2004


What happened to Keyser anyways? I haven't seen him on here since he posted that thread.

And this is way different than Keyser's question.
posted by loquax at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2004


meatpuff perfectly knows that once his/her question is out there on AskMeFi, a user who knows the answer can simply e-mail meatpuff the answer, without making the community here look bad -- if providing anti-blocking tips to a high-schooler is indeed bad, of course

*imagines crash's face when his kids finally hack into whitehouse.gov, replacing the President's seal with the MeFi logo*
posted by matteo at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2004


Anyone tells my kid how to get around the proxy, I'll break my foot off in their ass.

"Dad.....what's a quonsar?"
posted by dflemingdotorg at 10:28 AM on May 18, 2004


heheh. ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:29 AM on May 18, 2004


What happened to Keyser anyways? I haven't seen him on here since he posted that thread.

sweet jesus, give me strength.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2004


What's the problem? He's getting answers + opinions. If he doesn't like the opinions, he's going to mutter "fuck off" under his breath and ignore it. Nobody in that thread is violating the friggin prime directive.
posted by Hildago at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2004


As with all other questions, if you don't have anything helpful to say, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
posted by scarabic at 10:52 AM on May 18, 2004


Question: Which comments are not "answers or help in finding an answer"?
posted by mischief at 11:02 AM on May 18, 2004


andrew cooke: huh?
posted by loquax at 11:11 AM on May 18, 2004


Whatever happened to "Internet access is a privilege, not a right" ?

Next thing you know, we'll be giving suggestions on getaway cars for bank robberies. (bad analogy, I know..)
posted by mrbill at 11:20 AM on May 18, 2004


That's not an analogy, mrbill, it's the slippery slope logical fallacy.

If you think answering the question is wrong, then don't. If Matt thinks asking the question is wrong, he'll delete it. Preaching and wisecracks serve no purpose.
posted by scarabic at 11:27 AM on May 18, 2004


A proxy server is like putting a very expensive lock on a door which is right next to a glass window.

Sometimes the purpose of the proxy server is not to prevent access to forbidden sites, but to delineate which sites are acceptable. I wouldn't expect a proxy server to stop the really bright younguns. For them, it's the sign that says, "Warning! Go around me and you're breaking the rules." In other words, it tells them that breaking that glass window is wrong.
posted by joaquim at 11:49 AM on May 18, 2004


(Please read that sentence abosolutely dripping with sarcasm.)
callmejay, whose sentence, the poster's "I'm in 11th grade and my school is WAY to strict about the web sites kids go to." or yours?
posted by thomcatspike at 12:02 PM on May 18, 2004


Er, I have to echo loquax's "huh?" andrew cooke, what are you asking jesus for strength to do? (or not do?) Do you know something about the Keyser situation?
posted by bingo at 12:05 PM on May 18, 2004


slippery slope logical fallacy.
The answer would have been easily obtained with a simpler question: direct question minus fluff, My school has. When asking legal advice, it became a similar situation.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:49 PM on May 18, 2004


i was hoping our lord would give me inspiration, because i, too, cannot understand why a young man would not want to "hang out" (as youngsters these days are fond of saying) with chaps like us, listening at our knee as we continue to dispense wisdom in our usual carefree, friendly, even - dare i say it? - approachable, way. heck (excuse my language), we'd even buy him a lemonade, the young whippersnapper.

yes, i am indeed truly mystified as to why the youth in question has not returned to our kindly fold. but perhaps, if we pray together, we may come to some kind of conclusion?
posted by andrew cooke at 1:25 PM on May 18, 2004


andrew cooke: You might be right, I just thought it odd that he didn't comment once throughout that thread, although the split was about 50-50 harsh advice and not-so-harsh advice, and hasn't been back to comment on anything since. He's been roasted on here before. Considering the nature of the post, I asked out of some degree of concern, nothing else. And that was relatively serious, nothing like this thread. A high school student won't be going to jail for bypassing his proxy, no matter how many slippery slopes he slides down.
posted by loquax at 1:29 PM on May 18, 2004


if we pray together, we may come to some kind of conclusion?
From his last askmes, he is in full production of his movie, sure it's keeping him more than busy; director, writer, cameraman, actor ect. Plus he talked about obtaining his GED & joining the military.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:30 PM on May 18, 2004


thomcatspike: I meant mine, but I see where you might be confused.
posted by callmejay at 1:37 PM on May 18, 2004


callmejay, I was being sarcastic as your comment pointed out to me the only problem here, question overload.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:16 PM on May 18, 2004


For god's sake, won't somebody just tell the poor kid how he can look at the nice naked people already? Until there's some method by which said images can be transfered onto sheets of material made out of the pulped fiber from trees so that he can obtain them from somewhere else other than the computer at school, I don't think it's very fair to toy with a young man like this.
posted by scody at 2:19 PM on May 18, 2004

then I would like to have a site to go to were it hides were I go
Maybe, instead of surfing the web, he should spend some time working on his grammar? But really, those who are up in arms about not wanting to give a schoolkid a work-around for web filters are guilty of double standards if they have given advice to those wanting to find the same work-arounds for blocks their employer has put in place. The principle is the same.

Like mr_crash-davis, I would be very unimpressed with anyone who provided my kids with a way of getting around filters the school has put in place. If my kids are going to have unrestricted access to the web, I want it to be at home where I can keep an eye on it. First amendment or whatever be damned - there are predators out there looking for our kids.
posted by dg at 3:06 PM on May 18, 2004


If you think answering the question is wrong, then don't. If Matt thinks asking the question is wrong, he'll delete it. Preaching and wisecracks serve no purpose.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to offer an answer of "don't do it". There was a question posted several weeks ago involving, what turned out to be (apparently), some potentially dangerous electronics. Those in the know offered a few basic suggestions, but strongly discouraged the person not to fool around with it.

In my opinion, this 11th grader shouldn't be trying to get around the school's firewall (through a variety of hacks or whatever) just because he/she disagrees with it. Had the original poster left out the fact that he was an 11th grade student, as dflemingdotorg suggested, the thread may have gone differently.

"How does one go about circumventing a firewall's restriction by the using a proxy server?"

Both of the following questions are also acceptable to ASK, but they might require different advice:

"How do you make a pipe bomb?"

"I'm an emotionally unstable drunk that just lost my job. How do you make a pipe bomb?"

...are guilty of double standards if they have given advice to those wanting to find the same work-arounds for blocks their employer has put in place.

Not really. I don't pay for the employer's firewall, computers, etc. (assuming the kid is in public school).
posted by Witty at 3:32 PM on May 18, 2004


Not sure if this or the other thread would be more appropriate, but I don't see the problem with wanting to get around the filter. My own high school had Bess (ugh) and it blocked as many helpful sites as it did harmful. Also, I think perusing metafilter would be a perfectly good way to spend his free time. There's a lot of mind-enriching stuff posted in the blue, as corny as that sounds. Public high school is very prison-like these days.

Maybe I'm just reckless, but the child predator concern seems far-fetched.
posted by Hypharse at 3:37 PM on May 18, 2004


We're talking about an 11th grader, not an 11 year old. If it keeps him from getting behind the wheel of a car to go to the library, all the better.
posted by yerfatma at 4:00 PM on May 18, 2004


Maybe I'm just reckless, but the child predator concern seems far-fetched.
Or maybe you are just not a parent?
posted by dg at 4:01 PM on May 18, 2004


yerfatma, yes breaking rules is the adult way showing how one to live a respectful life. You ever complain about the youth today not living up to the youth of old? & No, don't think the youth of today are worse than the past.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:05 PM on May 18, 2004


.
posted by seanyboy at 4:23 PM on May 18, 2004


We're talking about an 11th grader, not an 11 year old.

And? An 11th grader is still a kid... generally only 4-5 years older than an 11-year old. So I'm not sure I buying your point.
posted by Witty at 4:36 PM on May 18, 2004


First amendment or whatever be damned - there are predators out there looking for our kids.

For the love of God, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?
posted by majcher at 4:36 PM on May 18, 2004


Mmmmm, children...

/evil homer
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:21 PM on May 18, 2004


Public high school is very prison-like these days.

Hypharse nailed it.
When I was his age (strokes gray beard, curses staircases) my BBS was the only way to break out of the social and political rut that high school had become. When I was sysop, I was king, dammit! And I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, so it wasn't a death trap or anything. But a blacklist or whitelist approach to internet access takes away the impetus for independent thought, it takes away the power to self-teach, and it cuts you off socially from people who aren't in your peer group and/or homeroom. These policies are bogus, and unless any advice would breach the DMCA or something - which I doubt - ill-formed school policies restricting expression and outside access are perfect test cases for civil disobedience.

So it got me mad that people were making fun of the poster for his age, his desire to challenge what he saw as ill-considered school policy, and his interest in learning. I think the AskMe thread has gotten better since I posted this thread, so I am willing to dimiss the writ as improvidently granted.

(sorry, con law final tomorrow.)
posted by PrinceValium at 5:30 PM on May 18, 2004


And? An 11th grader is still a kid... generally only 4-5 years older than an 11-year old. So I'm not sure I buying your point

Also generally 1 to 2 years from voting or joining the army or getting married or etc....and usually able to drive.
posted by LionIndex at 5:32 PM on May 18, 2004


An 11th grader is still a kid... generally only 4-5 years older than an 11-year old. So I'm not sure I buying your point.

Schoolteacher here. Let me tell you: Huge difference. Almost incalculable.
posted by argybarg at 6:10 PM on May 18, 2004


Pedantic bastards.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:21 PM on May 18, 2004


dg, I just don't think school filters are a key component in preventing predation. No, I'm not a parent, but I was recently in high school and I still talk with high school students, which I think gives me a valid perspective on teenagers' judgement and how they use the internet -- most 17 year olds know better than to hang around in skeevy chatrooms freely giving out their home addresses to UncleJoe39; that is probably not so for someone 6 years younger, but I was under the impression that we were talking about high school.
posted by Hypharse at 6:50 PM on May 18, 2004


I stand corrected: children only discover what we teach them. They're mindless lumps of clay awaiting our instructions. And then they grow up and point out my obvious mistakes on message boards.
posted by yerfatma at 7:03 PM on May 18, 2004


Hyperpharse, I agree that schools filtering web access is not the solution to any problem (except perhaps potential lawsuits from parents when they find out that their kids have been accessing p0rn at school). However, showing them how to circumvent the filters that are in place is not the solution. The only result of that will be even more draconian action on the part of the schools in order to comply with the requirements that are placed on them by those who control their funding.

Honestly, I don't know what the real solution is and am disappointed that the authorities universally take what is an easy way of washing their hands of a perceived problem. My understanding is that, as a rule, schools provide an individual log-in for each student and I would have thought that a monitoring approach would be better, something that could probably be semi-automated with little effort, using scripts to search access logs and human action for any problems that pop up, but I guess the kids would find ways around that, too.
posted by dg at 7:20 PM on May 18, 2004


I don't think *any* of you are old enough for unrestricted 'net access.

(Well, maybe quonsar.)
posted by timeistight at 7:42 PM on May 18, 2004


Let's not be poking overprotective parents with a stick, people. Them's dangerous folk all riled up.

And, please, think of the children. Won't someone please think of the children?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:11 PM on May 18, 2004


I don't think teachers should be allowed to access the internet. They're the ones who are at work. By instituting a program in which teachers' surfing activity is monitored by students, we can make the students' exploration of networking security issues a learning experience, and keep the teachers focused on pythagorean theorems and whatever else we're using to distract them these days..
posted by bingo at 9:43 PM on May 18, 2004


wow, some people here sure are fucking stuck up. I say fuck the internet filters. Fuck them right in their stupid asses. and fuck people with fucking moral standards.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:46 AM on May 19, 2004


Someone have a sweater? It just got so damn cool in here all of a sudden.
posted by yerfatma at 12:00 PM on May 19, 2004


PrinceValium - When I was his age, we didn't have the internet. I graduated from college without visiting the first website. So I think your statement that "blacklist or whitelist approach to internet access takes away the impetus for independent thought, it takes away the power to self-teach, and it cuts you off socially from people who aren't in your peer group and/or homeroom" is just a tad over-the-top... a little dramatic, don't you think. I mean sheesh, how did the world manage to function without the internet? It's called the Dewey Decimal System (hehe).

argybarg and LionIndex - We're still talking about a kid. I know that at 18, a person can go to war. But are you going to argue with me that we do, indeed, send kids to war? Is the term high school kids foreign to you? I applaud your efforts in showing the person in question the respect he or she deserves, but to me, no matter how you slice it... no matter how "grown up" a 15-16 year old is, we're still talking about a kid.

...his desire to challenge what he saw as ill-considered school policy...

Challenging the policy or breaking the rules? Again PV, you're fluffing this up a little. He never asked how he could "challenge the policy". He asked how he could break the rules without getting caught.

All I'm saying, is based on that fact, I think it's within people's right to chime in and say that they oppose the idea altogether... which is what this thread is all about.
posted by Witty at 12:58 PM on May 19, 2004


I didn't have the Web in high school either, so let me give you a 1993-appropriate analogy: In AP calculus we were given use of these really sweet graphing calculators. Sure, we could have done everything longhand, caveman-style, but that was then, this is now, and we were better off for having access to technology that benefits us.

The no-internet policy would be the same as if my math teacher had said, "No calculators for you - you can program those things, and I don't know enough about them to trust you with them. So use slide rulers, like I did."

A backwards policy, right? Public school students have the right to education, a right explicit in most state constitutions. If they're not giving you the education you need, give yourself a better one. That's really what the Internet is about.
posted by PrinceValium at 3:25 PM on May 19, 2004


And I don't like it when people act condescendingly toward teenagers. Is it too much to presume that you should be treated like an adult? Keep in mind that many of us over-18 folks are trying to get around their web filters at their places of employment right this very minute. What's the difference, exactly?
posted by PrinceValium at 3:27 PM on May 19, 2004


Keep in mind that many of us over-18 folks are trying to get around their web filters at their places of employment right this very minute. What's the difference, exactly?

Which was my point way back here.

As far as treating teenagers like adults go, I don't think they should be treated like adults, because they are not adults. Nor should they be treated like kids, because they are not kids either. They should be treated like teenagers. That means they get to practice acting like an adult under supervision of their parents until they prove that they can act like adults and accept the responsibility for their actions that goes along with being an adult.
posted by dg at 4:05 PM on May 19, 2004


As far as real life goes, dg, you're right. But online, the quality of your words counts, not how old you (say you) are.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:08 PM on May 19, 2004


My brother is a 16/17-year-old. I *wish* he would have spent his free time trying to break the rules at his high school trying to access MeFi instead of skipping school, doing heavy drugs, and B-and-E's.

Most likely, this kid is trying to access sites like Mefi during his lunch hour and/or after/before school. High school wasn't that long ago for me (I'm 22), and I remember the things my friends were doing off-campus during lunch while I was the one in the Media Center. It's one thing to be concerned about the kids (Think of the children, yeah, I get it), but weigh the negatives of this option against the alternatives. Sure, the kid should be aware that suspension is a definite possibility if he were to be caught, but come on...other than that the worst thing that could happen involves him seeing a few nudie pics or reading a couple swear words.
posted by quasistoic at 5:57 PM on May 19, 2004


Sure, we could have done everything longhand, caveman-style, but that was then...

I graphed EVERYTHING by hand... every parabola. Graphing calculators were a few hundred bucks at the time (and weren't allowed anyway). I underdstand your point, but the internet, you have to admit, is a much bigger beast, a bigger mess. A firewall doesn't wreck or throw the education of a high school student into a tailspin. Sure, some websites that should be accessible are wrongly blocked by the firewall. But it's hardly the end of the world.

The no-internet policy would be the same as if my math teacher had said, "No calculators for you - you can program those things, and I don't know enough about them to trust you with them. So use slide rulers, like I did."

Hmmm... actually, my teachers did exactly that, to an extent. We weren't allowed to have fancy programmable scientific calculators. Only basic calculators were allowed (when they becamse necessary)... for square roots, sine, cosine, tangent, etc.

Keep in mind that many of us over-18 folks are trying to get around their web filters at their places of employment right this very minute. What's the difference, exactly?

That's fantastic. As soon as your employer or someone else besides us tax-payers (including you, assuming you pay taxes) starts paying for the firewall, the computers, the staff and everything else involved, then I won't see any difference. Otherwise that's the difference. See, you're an adult and if that's what you want to do, if that's the risk (losing your job perhaps) you're willing to take, then go for it. But if you a kid in a public school, then my advice is don't do it... go to class. I don't see why that isn't an acceptable answer to the AskMe question. Maybe you don't agree, but it's still a reasonable answer.

My brother is a 16/17-year-old. I *wish* he would have spent his free time trying to break the rules at his high school trying to access MeFi instead of skipping school, doing heavy drugs, and B-and-E's.

Or better yet, gone to class and did what he was supposed to do... but I hear ya.
posted by Witty at 12:53 AM on May 20, 2004


"Kid"????????????????

Some of you people DISGUST me. Calling a 16-year-old a "kid". Once, we had protests and riots about that kind of shit. Maybe some of you are too YOUNG to remember that. Hmm? Maybe others are old enough, but your brains have turned to gelatin. Some old enough to have forgotten.

Just 40 years after major upheaval, again we have people calling highschoolers "kids". They are not! There is a perfectly good word for them, its "youth".

Youth get so fucked by dumbass old farts that can't remember the difference. Too old for this, but too young for anything else. They end up hanging out some place stupid and getting in trouble. No one wants them around, then you complain about their attitudes.

Crash Davis: I'd like to be around when your own "kid" breaks his own foot up YOUR ass. You will get as much respect as you give. Clearly, none.

(geebus, I'm 47, and this shit STILL gets to me!)
posted by Goofyy at 9:48 AM on May 20, 2004


You're kidding right?

"Kids" isn't meant to be an insult. It's just a fact. Gimme a break duuude. OK, "youth" it is.

:1,$s/kid/youth/g
posted by Witty at 10:56 AM on May 20, 2004


Goofyy must live in some weird, alternate universe because in my universe, the upheaval of forty years ago or so were about civil rights for blacks and women, and against the war in Vietnam and the draft. I don't recall the "don't call me a 'kid' riot" and the agitation for more respect for sixteen year olds. I don't doubt, however, that were Goofyy actually a resident of our universe, that respect for sixteen year olds was his chief concern in 1972.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:43 AM on May 20, 2004


Just 40 years after major upheaval, again we have people calling highschoolers "kids". They are not! There is a perfectly good word for them, its "youth".

"Youth" is what you call a kid when you are a police officer writing up their arrest report. Otherwise, no.
posted by kindall at 12:14 PM on May 20, 2004


Only basic calculators were allowed (when they becamse necessary)... for square roots, sine, cosine, tangent, etc.
Ha! I had to do all this by hand, using a handbook with all those values in it and calculators of any kind were completely banned. Damned whippersnappers.

While I am a few years younger than Goofyy, I don't recall any protests or riots about the rights of 16 year-olds, but perhaps he is just living up to his name?
posted by dg at 3:24 PM on May 20, 2004


Well, somebody had to speak up for the rights of 18-20 year olds in order to enact the 26th Amendment. (Aided of course by supporters of the military.) I doubt that such an age group could assemble the political capital to do such a thing nowadays, which is a sad comment on the current state of affairs. When you find a teenager interested in politics, current affairs, technology, etc., encourage them as much as you possibly can.

"I believe the children are our future..." Thank you! Sexual Chocolate! Thank you! "Teach them well and let them lead the way.." Thank you! Praise the lord!
posted by PrinceValium at 5:13 PM on May 20, 2004


Much of the action back-when was about the draft and the war, as well as civil rights, there were other issues, some seen as related, some not.

School dress codes
Voting rights (draft age but no vote)
Drinking age (same as above)
Free speech (related to protesting the war etc)

As the upheaval lead to complaints about the behavior of teenagers, the issues of teenagers came under greater scrutiny.

As for whether "kids" is pejorative, when the same word applies to 6-year-olds as 16-year-olds, without being legal (ie, 'minor') then I say it clearly is.
posted by Goofyy at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2004


No no, see, 6-year olds are children. We have infants, toddlers, children, pre-teens, teens, adolescents, etc. But they're ALL kids... and I will always be my momma's baby. This is a joke right? You're just pulling our collective legs just to see how hard we'll bite. Because this a good one... perhaps the best I've seen. Whatever, it's really not even worth debating with you. The whole "kids or not kids" argument has got to be one of silliest things I've heard in a while. A 15-year old is a kid and that's that.
posted by Witty at 4:16 AM on May 21, 2004


« Older Why doesn't Metatalk have an R...  |  A post just vanished off the f... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments