Lets Play Commissar

Caitlin Flanagan's article about cyber-stalking in the new Atlantic contains this description of Club Penguin, a social networking opportunity I'd never heard of:

What fun they had! Club Penguin is a cute, happy virtual world in which you create an adorable little penguin in whose guise you can travel to all sorts of fun spots and play video games (making pizzas against the clock, playing ice hockey, going inner-tubing), for which you win coins. With the coins you can buy clothes and furniture and cool stuff for your virtual igloo. The boys loved it. Everyone loved it. Club Penguin was the most happening event of the second grade; to be denied it was to be denied not just a pleasure but an essential mode of schoolyard discussion and inclusion, a way of being a second-grader.

But I never let them play again, be-cause something about it scared me: The penguins could chat with each other. True, the chatting is monitored by paid professionals and a citizens’ army of tattlers, children who’ve been members for more than 30 days and who’ve been commissioned as “Secret Agents” to loiter in the public spaces and report on inappropriate chat, including the exchange of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. But these protocols only highlight the paradox at Club Penguin’s core: It’s certainly the safest way for unsupervised children to talk to potentially malevolent strangers—but why would you want them to do that in the first place?

Maybe this is the difference between being a parent and being a callow youth, but to me the salient point here is that I'm not sure I'm thrilled with the idea that today's youth are hanging out in a cutesy, virtual East Germany. Who wants their kids playing a game where they get commissioned as "Secret Agents" charged with informing on their fellow avatars to the authorities? It's creepy and weird.

Comments

Jesus.

I agree, the secret agent thing is creepy. And yes, there are dangers on the Internet, and in the world.

But it depresses the hell out of me that absolutely anything to do with children has to be surrounded by this constant dread. We've become a society that lives in terror over our children, at all times. Everything in and around them is viewed as a threat. It's hysteria. And it's all encompassing. Kids can't do anything anymore, because of the latest boogie man, supposedly lurking around the corner. Having children is becoming defined by fear.

Yes, there are tragedies involving kids everyday. But your child is more likely to be hit by lightning than murdered by a pedophile. And I think that the culture of fear that's sprung up around children is terribly sad.

Posted by Freddie | June 7, 2007 7:43 PM

Yeah, what he said. And, since I know the parents out there will assume I just don't know what it's like and I'll change when I have kids -- you're right, I don't have kids. But my parents managed to raise two pretty tough-to-raise boys without being scared shitless all the time. Or if they were, they never showed it.

Posted by too many steves | June 7, 2007 7:55 PM

Back in MY day, video games involved heroic themes such as blasting space invaders, not cavorting with cutesy penguins. We played baseball in the street and yelled "CAR!" whenever danger approached (or when we felt like distracting the batter.) We made endless fun of the unfortunate kid whose mom made him wear a bike helmet. Stasi snitches were dealt with severely-- pantsed on the school playground, at minimum.

Kids today. Feh.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 7, 2007 8:04 PM

In the US, fear for the safety of children has been for many years the psychological dumping ground for free-floating fears and for specific fears that would be to challenging to honestly confront. It's a cultural neuroticism. The tragedy of this is that it's actually the children who suffer most from this maladjustment. But hurting one's child in the self-proclaimed effort to protect or help one's child is the ancient ironic tragedy of parenting, so in this way it's nothing new.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | June 7, 2007 8:16 PM

Who wants their kids playing a game where they get commissioned as "Secret Agents" charged with informing on their fellow avatars to the authorities?

Anyone who understands that in our dangerous world, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for them to become College Republicans.

Posted by Swopa | June 7, 2007 8:21 PM

Worries about children likely have increased as # of children per family have decreased. It's completely sensible, coming from that angle.

Posted by Klug | June 7, 2007 8:41 PM

I have played the "Do you want kids to inform on their parents, too, like good little Soviets?" card to considerable success when arguing with a conservative of my acquaintance over warrantless eavesdropping, imprisonment without charges, habeas corpus, etc. I guess that won't shut down arguments any more.

Posted by Woody Bombay | June 7, 2007 9:15 PM

I told my wife about this, curious if she'd find it creepy. I forget what she said, but now she's playing it.

Posted by Steve | June 7, 2007 9:39 PM

My parents warned me 1) not to talk to strangers, 2) not to get into cars with strangers, and 3) not to tell strangers where I lived. I assume those rules are easily enough updateable to the Internet era that parents and children shouldn't need comissars?

Posted by Jackmormon | June 7, 2007 9:51 PM

I wonder whether these tendencies will persist as strongly when a generation that grew up with the internet has kids.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 7, 2007 10:02 PM

Lebron is fond of telling the public how he tells his team that if they get him to the 4th quarter, he'll get them the rest of the way. Lebron needs to keep in mind that such a promise does NOT remove his duty to show up *before* the fourth quarter.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 7, 2007 10:17 PM

I'm afraid child rearing has seen a long, slow, downward spiral since Tantalus cooked his son Pelops and fed him to the gods.

Posted by Primigenius | June 7, 2007 10:30 PM

My kid plays Club Penguin. Here's some random points:

- the fear of predators is almost certainly overblown, but not completely unjustified, either.

- The Stasi analogy is misguided. Stasi informers told the authorities about people's private affairs, but the intent here is to create a safe public space. You don't really want to be creating private spaces for the target age group of Club Penguin (7-9 year olds, in my experience).

What's totalitarian for adults is just parenting when applied to children. I restrict their freedom of speech, movement (can't even cross the street without permission).

Posted by mtraven | June 7, 2007 11:14 PM

What's totalitarian for adults is just parenting when applied to children. I restrict their freedom of speech, movement (can't even cross the street without permission)

All true. But do you want OTHER CHILDREN to be restricting the freedom of speech, movement of your children? That's not parenting. That's training for "Lord of the Flies."

Posted by Constantine | June 7, 2007 11:35 PM

Sounds like this game is getting them ready for the Brave New World of government surveillance that awaits them.

Posted by Renwick | June 7, 2007 11:56 PM

But do you want OTHER CHILDREN to be restricting the freedom of speech, movement of your children?

Sounds like the other children were asked to keep their eyes open for anything suspicious occurring regarding other children. I think it's a great idea.

Posted by blah | June 8, 2007 12:11 AM

Sounds like the other children were asked to keep their eyes open for anything suspicious occurring regarding other children. I think it's a great idea.

I don't object to the monitoring itself-- my preference would be for adult supervision.

Posted by Constantine | June 8, 2007 12:17 AM

I wonder how I made it through my childhood without parents, or strangers telling me all this stuff. By grade 2 all that was required is that I let my parents know where I'd be after school, and that I got back for supper in time. After supper that I got back in time for bedtime.

And by the time I was 14 I was wandering the streets of Dkaha, Kathmandu, Delhi and Calcutta by myself.

Somehow I survived all that.

People overly supervise their kids, often right up through their teen years, and as a result they wind up young adults who can't handle themselves in tough, strange or unexpected circumstances. And if they go wild, they go over-wild, having never been allowed the responsibility that comes with controlled freedom.

Same reason why the US has way more problems with teenagers and young adults binge drinking than a place like France, which introduces them to liquor in a way that doesn't make it into a big rite of passage and doesn't freight it down with the lure of being forbidden.

Posted by Ian Welsh | June 8, 2007 12:58 AM

This is OT, but the "recent comments" menu on the main page of the blog gives you a nice idea for how much comment spam there is.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 8, 2007 1:03 AM

Nobody has mentioned this, but, in the real world, most sexually abused children are assaulted by male relatives.

Typically, the abuser will be a stepfather, or the mothers boyfriend, or a grandfather, or an older brother ect.

Sometimes, the abuse will come from a friend of the family, or from another trusted adult authority figure - a priest/imam/minister/rabbi ect, a teacher, a cop from the local precinct ect.

In some cases, the abuser will be a FEMALE relative - mother, older sister, aunt ect, or a close female friend of the family or female authority figure.

But, in general, children who are sexually victimized are attacked by somebody they and their caregivers KNOW AND TRUST.

And all the online Junior Stasi Agents in the world aren't going to stop that!

But, I guess it's easier to blame the anonymous "pervert in the bushes" (or, in this case, the "virtual pervert in the chatroom") than to take a long hard look at America's families, and why this kind of abuse happens in them!

GREGORY A. BUTLER
New York, NY

Posted by Gregory A. Butler | June 8, 2007 2:20 AM

Well, I have kids, I raise them in a foreign country where most of the adults they're chatting with all the time don't even speak my language; and I think the US hysteria over threats to children is completely, utterly insane. Beyond insane -- actively harmful to the children it supposedly protects.

Posted by mattsteinglass | June 8, 2007 2:59 AM

"..take a long hard look at America's families, and why this kind of abuse happens in them!"

I understand your point, and agree that we should look within, but the simple fact is a certain number of people are fundamentally imprinted with these sexual desires that are rightly verbotten by polite society, and I doubt that will ever change. Parents would probably better serve society by obsessing over what their neighbors are doing to their children than what is going to happen to their own.

Incidentally, having studied psychology I feel a great amount of pity (among other things) for those who are attracted to children - it must be incredibly confusing and embarrassing to have this urge you must fight your whole life.

Posted by Tim P. | June 8, 2007 4:01 AM

It may be that listening out for inappropriate language is part of the game, and not necessarily meant to actually police the game.

A script within the program could very easily flag obscene words, suggestive language, or sequences of numbers. Flagged users could have their conversations read (quickly) by a single individual at the company.

Posted by Saam Barrager | June 8, 2007 4:56 AM

"Typically, the abuser will be a stepfather, or the mothers boyfriend, or a grandfather, or an older brother ect."

Oh man, now that's a can of worms you're opening!

Its amazing that you can't adopt a pet without a criminal background check and there's a far more intensive screening process if you wish to become a foster or adoptive parent. Yet an unrelated male can move into a home with minor children as long as their mother is willing to sleep with him.

A family friend who's divorced with a small child was making plans to have her boyfriend move in. Her parents thought he was sketchy, so I pulled his criminal record-- dude had a felony child abuse conviction on his record.

I was bizarro Cupid on that one, but its a big problem:

"Almost all child abuse takes places in single parent homes. A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. HHS has its own figures demonstrating that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes."
http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Baskerville/20060415.shtml

Posted by beowulf | June 8, 2007 5:29 AM

"Nobody has mentioned this, but, in the real world, most sexually abused children are assaulted by male relatives."

No one has mentioned it because it has nothing to do with the post. Pedophiles aren't likely going to need to solict personal information online from a relative they planned to abuse.

Just because there is little chance that my child might get solicited by a pedophile at a social networking site for kids doesn't mean I shouldn't be aware and control the situation, it is a lot easier not to let them access the site and not worry about their being exposed to a potential pedophile. This site doesn't offer anything more than any $10 software game package I can get at Target except for the fact that a pedophile can get access to my kids (not to mention other kids who might be bullies).

The internet is a great tool, but life for a child is easy and just as rich and robust without it. When my kids are more mature they can use the internet alone, otherwise there is absolutely no reason for them to get on there without my being there to supervise. To me the internet is like the mall, but without the security of watching eyes that dampen the enthusiasm of would-be criminals. I wouldn't let my preteens go to the mall unsupervised even though I know the chances of them coming to harm are almost nil.

Posted by ricky | June 8, 2007 9:00 AM

I disagree that the "informing" is a bad thing to teach kids.

The reason informing in totalitarian regimes is wrong is because it involves you in the perpetuation of an immoral totalitarian government.

There's nothing wrong with kids "snitching" when it is to protect someone vulnerable from doing something stupid.

On the other hand, there are surely lots of ways to accomplish the goal of exercising appropriate supervision over kids online that doesn't involve some layer of superficial dishonesty. It seems to me that clearly that part of the program is just supposed to get people more invested in the game.

Posted by Chuck | June 8, 2007 9:01 AM

Don't really see the big deal here. This seems to me to be akin to the "if you see something, say something" signs you see allover the subways. I mean, shouldn't we be encouraging people (even kids) to speak up if they see something potentially problematic?

Posted by Al | June 8, 2007 9:04 AM

"Don't really see the big deal here."

But that's because you're a Giuliani-loving authoritarian, Al. You're not expected to have a problem with this kind of stuff.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 9:10 AM

Oh, let me add that yes, Matthew, the fact that you aren't a parent probably has you thinking from a different point of view. Just like beowulf or Gregory, there is the tendency to look at likelihoods rather than controlling the situation. Sure it is easy to say that a child is unlikely to get in trouble with a pedophile on line, but as a parent you aren't playing entirely with a rational deck.

Just as you wear a seatbelt everytime you get in the car, lock your door at night, or even just make sure your chicken or pork is well-cooked before eating it, when parenting you also do small things that help make sure your child is safe even if the likelihood of danger is basically none. So while I don't get a background check on my childrens' friends or their parents, I do make sure I have met the parents and feel comfortable with them before I leave my child with them. Same with the computer, it is no skin off my back to watch them while they are on the internet or barring that take away the ethernet cable if they are playing on the computer unsupervised. I fasten my seatbelt a thousand times for every time I have removed the ethernet cable. Neither is rational when playing the percentages, but both are easy enough to do for the piece of mind they give you.

Posted by ricky | June 8, 2007 9:14 AM

Well, as both a parent and a no-longer-callow-youth (by way too many years) the East Germany comparison was exactly the thought I had. I'm way happy for my son to socialize in all sorts of settings and the fear of a evil stranger is pretty low down on the list of concerns. On the other hand, I would be way weird-ed out if I heard he had been asked to spy on others. This gave me an extreme yuck feeling.

Don N.

Posted by Don N | June 8, 2007 9:56 AM

I wonder if the comparison between virtual spaces and physical spaces isn't being a bit overblown. Fortunately, letting your children go on the Internet with only indirect parental supervision isn't like leaving them in a crowded city park and saying, "I'll be back in a few hours." A slightly better analogy might be letting them wander through a library where there's a kids' section but also passageways to other areas you don't know much about, which may contain books encouraging them to join cults, look at porn, and so forth (leaving out the interactive aspects, of course). It still doesn't seem like a terribly safe environment, even with the equivalent of hall monitors roaming around.

Posted by RSA | June 8, 2007 10:17 AM

My daughter plays Club Penguin, and happily snitches on kids who say where they're from, etc. I actually think it's helping her be aware of what is and isn't safe to reveal on the internet. In the future on less controlled websites, she will (hopefully) know that it's not OK to givg your real name, location, email address, etc to strangers online. Of course it *is* kinda creepy when she refers to penguins she's never met in person as her "friends"... but she also times it with her real friends to go "play together" on Club Penguin (let's meet at 7 tonight at the big clock, or whatever.)

All in all, it's harmless, and I think making her aware of internet safety in a way that I could never teach her without this experience. Kids WILL be online. The ARE bad people. This isn't 60's-70's suburbia I grew up in where we went and played in the woods behind the subdivision and rode our bikes to the pool and roamed the neighborhood by bike at will all summer as long as we were home by dinner. Let's let them learn what is OK and not OK online while it's supervised by paid adults and kid snitches.

Posted by edsel | June 8, 2007 1:12 PM

I wouldn't let my preteens go to the mall unsupervised even though I know the chances of them coming to harm are almost nil.

Yes, exactly. Unlike those who watch the news and think it is representational of reality as opposed to just sensationalized oddities (man bites dog), you know better, yet still let fear determine how you raise your children.

Thank God my parents believed their kid needed to learn how to swim and had faith that he could pull it off.

Posted by Ian Welsh | June 8, 2007 3:39 PM

Can I say a small word in favor of teaching kids to report questionable behavior? I have to sons, ages 9 and 5, and based on what I see among the older boy's friends, there is a very powerful peer-induced tendency to avoid "telling." I remember that from when I was a kid. The problem is that at this age what gets protected is never the kids' noble work on behalf of free speech and the peace movement, it's generally bullying, bad grades, and other anti-social behavior. As they get older, this version of Omerta conceals drug use, early sexual experimentation, drinking, and other really, really bad things that parents would, if the have any sense, try to stop. (Matt's employer, The Atlantic, ran a story on the bad effects of the code of silence on policing in its April issue.)

It's nice, I suppose, to be concerned that our kids are being turned into Orwell's Spies, but I'm a whole lot more worried that my kids will think it's uncool to talk to me about their own and other kids' problems.

Posted by Karen | June 9, 2007 9:45 AM

Congratulations, Karen and edsel - your kids will grow up to be "Good Germans"!

But you might want to be VERY careful about what you say around the dinner table - remember, snitching on your peers is a gateway to informing on your parents! [Ever read "1984"?]

GREGORY A. BUTLER
New York, NY

Posted by Gregory A. Butler | June 11, 2007 1:44 AM