SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a new paper, education researchers from the University of South Australia (UniSA) say that while the technology may be innovative, ClassDojo encourages an archaic approach to school discipline and neglects a genuinely educational approach to developing behaviour.
Further, they express concern that the app conditions children to accept rising levels of surveillance and control.
"Class Dojo can be understood as yet another data-gathering surveillance technology that is contributing to a culture of surveillance that has become normalised in schools", said Jamie Manolev, a doctoral candidate at UniSA and the study's lead author.
Is ClassDojo helping parents learn what their kids are getting up to at school, or is it normalizing surveillance for students?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:21PM (7 children)
Thank you for bringing up auto restraints. Go back a little before baby seats though, to regular seat belts. And, even those have evolved - they started out as an entirely optional feature in cars, in the form of lap belts. Then they became still optional three point harnesses. Then they were no longer optional, they became a secondary infraction, IF the cops had a reason to pull you over. Then they became a primary infraction, and the cops can stop you even if they have no other reason to be interested in you. This is "progress" in the modern world.
There was a lot wrong with the world in which I grew up, so I don't mean to paint some rosy picture of the '60's. But, I sure wish we had made all the civil rights progress that we've made in 50 years, WITHOUT all the authoritarian bullshit. Take the kids of today, and transplant them into such a world, and they wouldn't recognize the place at all. Why, 6 year old kids could walk to the park all by themselves, to enjoy a carefree day of play with any other kids who happened to show up. Outrageous, huh?
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:33PM (2 children)
Even in the early 70s, I was a latchkey kid - making my own oatmeal in the morning and letting myself in the house after school, in 1st grade. Of course I could leave my parent's sight with very little other than a mention of "hey, I'm leaving" - and by age 12 I remember riding my bike for an hour+ away from home without much concern from them - and they were normal.
By 2003, we lived in a house with a neighborhood park across the street, and to let your kids under the age of about 12 go to the park without eyes-on supervision seemed like an invitation for an investigation by DCF. Friends of ours took their 1 year old to the hospital to treat minor burns (accidentally caused by bathwater and a muted pain response in the infant) and DCF took their toddler away from them for over a week while they investigated.
Learning to deal with the world on your own is part of growing up - we did it before age 10, now it seems to only come after you get a drivers' license (or friends with one) and lots of the younger generation doesn't seem to care nearly as much about getting their own car as we did back in the 60s-80s.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:44PM
You and I are probably the same age, and I was a latchkey kid too. One big difference is that we didn't have 24 hour news and Facebook feeds, so your neighborhood was seen to be what it really was, which was probably not a scary place. The scary things were happening overseas, or in some other part of the country, whereas in suburbia, things were pretty good. There wasn't a molester behind every bush like there seems to be these days (at least according to the news feeds).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:45AM
And then... Terminator 2 happened and the parents became aware of the risks, right? Dam' you, Robert Patrick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:07PM (3 children)
Fewer deaths and serious injuries from car accidents is progress. This equals less of a burden on emergency services and emergency care, which often affects others besides the individual that doesn't like wearing seat belts.
Your argument would hold up better against activities that only cause self-harm without an increased burden on society.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:19PM (2 children)
Ho-hum. A free man or woman decides for him/herself what risks he/she is willing to take. It is not the place of government to decide for me what risks I may or may not take. Government doesn't take the same sort of interest in my financial risks, does it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
It is in society's interest when they become a burden because of their actions. Uninsured and underinsured people without seat belts cause a financial burden on society as well as taking the time and resources of emergency services. Car manufacturers are required to design more expensive air bag systems because of how common it is for people to not wear seat belts.
The government does regulate financial risks. Not that those regulations have any bearing on your position.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 24 2019, @12:44AM
It's amazing how tyrants can rationalize the necessity of their tyranny.