Family-friendly social networking site accuses popular sites of profit before responsibility

EasySite.com, a subscription-based family-friendly social networking site, has called out the likes of Facebook and MySpace for putting revenue and profit before taking responsibility for the privacy and safety of their users.

They cite the usual horror stories of paedophiles stalking teenagers, false profiles, and compromising photographs.

“Sites like MySpace and Facebook choose popularity over responsibility. Popularity means more traffic, which means more ads served and ultimately more money,” saidSteve Sivulka, CEO of Easysite.com. “Easysite has chosen a different path. From day one we created Easysite as a family-friendly website builder with safety and security in mind.”

EasySite prides itself as being ad-free, instead being supported by users paying for the service itself.

Sivulka says that people don’t realise how expensive “free” really is, suggesting that most services are advertising based and place ads on pages the individual user may believe to be theirs.

“A friend of mine found this out the hard way,” he says. “After sending out a link to his newly created personal website, friends and family complained that pop-up ads with strippers on them were appearing on his site. Some ‘free’ services will even send out junk email (spam), sell your personal information to other companies, or track your movements online to better target ads to you.”

I’m all for the concept of more family-friendly sites like EasySite, but I’m a little concerned that they seem to suggest that they’re the solution, when in fact people placing reliance upon their services could still face problems elsewhere.

Firstly, EasySite can do nothing to stop someone else publishing false information about you on another social networking site, blog, or forum.

Neither can it stop other people from publishing compromising photographs of you, if in fact you got yourself into an embarrassing situation in the first place.

While it’s true that some sites like Facebook do target adverts based on what a user does, this isn’t much different to what supermarkets do based on your purchase history, or what companies who conduct consumer surveys do. While some adverts may be questionable, responsible sites don’t show porn. Neither should users be under any illusion that a profile page (such as that which would be set up on Facebook, Bebo, or MySpace) belongs to them.

Finally, while some users might be content to stay in “safe” sites like EasySite.com (and I personally don’t believe a 100% safe web site exists) there’s a whole Internet out there which many people want to explore. That’s the time children and adults need to know how to keep themselves safe.

Social networking sites should take more responsibility for protecting minors, particularly as preteens are using these sites even though they shouldn’t be.

Staying safe online requires parental knowledge and openness.

I’m all for sites like EasySite.com, but they’re only a part of the solution to a safer Internet experience.

D&D video game couple neglects children

A 22-month-old boy and 11-month-old girl were found severely malnourished and near death in the home of a Nevada couple who were so engrossed in a Dungeons and Dragons video game that they neglected to feed and care for them.

Doctors treated the boy for starvation and a genital infection. He lacked muscle development, causing him difficulty walking.

Hospital staff had to shave the girl’s head because her hair had been matted with cat urine. The 10-pound girl also had a mouth infection, dry skin and severe dehydration.

The prosecutor says the couple had food, but just chose not to give it to their kids.

Read

Violence on TV: Legislation or parental responsibility?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the USA has concluded that Hollywood isn’t doing enough to protect children from viewing violent programming on cable and satellite TV, and that Congress should authorise government action.

Unsurprisingly, the TV networks aren’t keen to bend to this kind of pressure.

There’s plenty of talk on both sides about what the right thing to do is.

Read more

Caring for family results in fewer career opportunities

A new Canadian study suggests that those who have a greater involvement in their family life, particularly when it involves significant care of a child or relative, are less likely to be offered challenging and progressive career opportunities in the workplace.

McMaster University professor Rick Hackett collaborated on the project and says employees who feel the pull from their family life tend to have fewer resources to devote to their paid jobs.

That results in declining work performance, which makes their bosses less likely to provide them with challenging tasks or opportunities to build their careers.

When this happens, the study suggests, employees have fewer chances to show their capabilities and, as a result, fail to win the confidence of their bosses.

“I think things can be done both from the employer perspective, but also on the home front to help people cope with these home demands,” Hackett said.

That’s all very well, but it does beg the question as to what value society as a whole puts upon family life. Having said that, in today’s world of work, with its pressures and ‘work all hours’ mentality, the balancing act is a hard one to maintain. Wanting to care for one’s family is very admirable, and perhaps it demands a sacrifice in career.

What do you think?

Via Canada.com