Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

New Jersey judge places Internet over Real World

By onyxruby in Technology
Mon May 07, 2001 at 09:29:01 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)

A judge in New Jersey recently ruled that "virtual visitation" was an acceptable substitute for the real thing. In this case he decided that a custodial parent could move out of state from New Jersey to California over the objections of the non-custodial parent.

The following was given: "online visiting -- along with face-to-face contact -- would be a "creative and innovative" way for a father to stay in touch with his 9-year-old daughter if the man's ex-wife moved to California over his objections."

A legal precedent has now been established making web cams and Internet connections acceptable substitutes for real world visitations. I think this can be a great supplemental way for a non-custodial parent to spend more time with their children than they would otherwise get. But to say that is acceptable instead of real world visitations is an outrage of justice.

To quote the article "Gaining access to their children for most fathers is difficult at best," Whitfield said. "It is likely to become more difficult when a mother says to a judge: 'Johnny can talk to his father on the computer whenever he wants to."

What do people think? Is a webcam an acceptable substitute for face time and a hug? Is typing out a conversation the same as having it in person? Change has always been inevitable, particularly in regard to communication. Is this simply what the "Real World" is becoming?


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Web cam vs hug
o Just fine, I can see the person can't I? 0%
o I like my cyber sex, what's wrong with cyber children? 7%
o Is an outrage perpertrated by the court? 47%
o Just another chapter in the gender wars. 14%
o Were all in the Matrix anyways. 28%

Votes: 101
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o ruled
o Also by onyxruby

Display: Sort:
New Jersey judge places Internet over Real World | 40 comments (38 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Questioning... (3.66 / 6) (#1)
by gammaraisin on Sun May 06, 2001 at 11:51:42 PM EST

Really, it probably just comes down to the fact that they have to make these judgments all the me and it probably starts to become just their job and a little seperated from reality for them.

Of course I'm probably wrong, since I don't really know any judges, but it's just a thought.

Simplicity is just that.
amazing (4.47 / 17) (#2)
by Seumas on Sun May 06, 2001 at 11:59:31 PM EST

First men are legally required to provide financial support for children that were proven not to be theirs (despite the mother's deception) and now father's being told that email and webcams are as good as holding, playing and raising your children.

I have to ask the obvious question -- would either of these things be tolerated if the situations were reversed?
I just read K5 for the articles.

Maybe it was the right decision. (4.00 / 3) (#3)
by www.sorehands.com on Mon May 07, 2001 at 12:19:06 AM EST

The fake father treated the child as his. The question, is if the fake father was denied access to the child, then would he then be due a refund.

Would the real father be liable for the child support payments made by the fake father?

I'd like to the the mother charged with libel and fraud.

In the Mass. SJC case, the court never answered these questions.

Mattel, SLAPP terrorists intent on destroying free speech.
[ Parent ]

I've seen that happen (4.33 / 3) (#4)
by FyreFiend on Mon May 07, 2001 at 12:26:34 AM EST

My half-brother was in much the same situation. He was with a woman who became pregnent and they split up she sued him for child support. To make a long story short it turns out that it wasn't his kid but the judge did the right thing. The real father is now paying child support and the mother has payments garnished out of her pay to pay back my brother. In fact the judge went one step farther. My brother has visitation rights for 8 hours, twice a month.

-- Working with Unix is like wrestling with a worthy opponent. Working with Windows is like attacking a small whiney child who's carrying a .38

[ Parent ]
the big problem (3.50 / 2) (#6)
by Seumas on Mon May 07, 2001 at 12:59:54 AM EST

The thing is, if the man who is unfairly being made responsible for someone elses child is forced to pay and then forced to seek retribution from the real father, why the hell not just make the real father pay in the first place? And second, in a lot of situations, the woman has no clue who the father is or how/where to find him. So because the woman can't keep track of the men who impregnate her, someone innocent is given the responsibility? That's rediculous.
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#37)
by FyreFiend on Tue May 08, 2001 at 03:33:42 PM EST

That judge that made the man pay for a kid that isn't his is nuts and I hop the guy appeals it.

With my brother the woman lied from the get to. It was only after DNA tests proved that my brother wasn't the father that she told the truth.

-- Working with Unix is like wrestling with a worthy opponent. Working with Windows is like attacking a small whiney child who's carrying a .38

[ Parent ]
Just a point... (2.00 / 1) (#27)
by sed on Mon May 07, 2001 at 07:26:25 PM EST

... but at least in the case of 'real father/mother', generally speaking it's hard to convince a woman that she's had a child when she hasn't. ;)

The only way a man is going to be able to deceive his female partner into thinking a child of his with another woman is hers is if:

1) she was already pregnant with a child at the same time, and
2) he somehow manages to swap babies,

which is a hell of a lot more premeditated and vicious, IMHO.

"Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
It's not acceptable (3.54 / 11) (#8)
by NightRain on Mon May 07, 2001 at 01:18:52 AM EST

But the thing is, the other option was the court making a ruling not permitting the mother to move? Get real, as much as 'internet connectivity' I'm more scared by the fact that court would even hold a session to judge the right of someone to move. That is so completely and utterly beyond wrong, it almost defies words.

Don't vote, it only encourages them!

if it was your child? (3.33 / 3) (#12)
by enterfornone on Mon May 07, 2001 at 07:31:33 AM EST

If you were a non custodial parent with visitation rights, would you like it if the custodial parent could just pack up and move to deny you those rights.

Perhaps it's not right that they should be forced to remain in one place, but if you have kids then you should (in my conservative 50s way of thinking) do your best to ensure that kid has access to both it's parents.

Kids shouldn't have to get up and follow you around when your lifestyle changes, you have to make some sacrifices for them, and if that means not moving then you just have to deal with it.

efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
I couldn't disagree more (1.80 / 5) (#15)
by NightRain on Mon May 07, 2001 at 08:57:01 AM EST

Your life is your own and should always be your own. You can choose to make sacrifices for people, including your own child, but NO ONE, including the co-parent of your child or the child themself has the rights to tell you where you can and can't move. In situations like these, you comprimise, and if you need to, you take it to court to work out access rights to the child, even it it means moving the kid back and forth every six months. But the simple fact is that having a child does not rob you of your rights to move

Don't vote, it only encourages them!

[ Parent ]
Nope, I think you're wrong there. (4.33 / 3) (#16)
by kaemaril on Mon May 07, 2001 at 09:27:17 AM EST

It's long been accepted practice in any such case that it is the GOOD OF THE CHILD that is the overriding concern. The parent's rights come second.

You may well say "Hey, I've got a right to move" but a judge may well respond "Yes, but your child has a right to see his/her mother/father.". That right, it may be decided, takes priority.

In an extreme case, suppose you had a low income and were the mother of a child. The boy/girl's father has custody, and he has decided to move back home to Spain, and it would thereby be impossible for you to visit as you can't possibly afford it. A court could certainly consider the right of the child to see his/her mother before giving the father permission to move. In 9 times out of 10 I would expect a compromise to be worked out (possibly the father might have to pay for you to come over, or for the child's flight to see you?), but it is certainly within the powers of the court to take action (or, at least, in the UK it is. I'm not sure about the States, I'll admit. IANAL)

The good of the child takes priority. And rightly so, imo.

Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?

[ Parent ]
Are you that self-centered? (4.25 / 4) (#18)
by Mad Hughagi on Mon May 07, 2001 at 10:29:49 AM EST

Do you have any children?

Did your parents treat you poorly as a child?

The reason why I ask this is because you seem to have the opinion that children are simply baggage when it comes to the life of a parent. Children are not something you soley make "sacrifices" for, they are something you take responsability for and nurture. Obviously this implies making certain sacrifices with regards to your previous lifestyle, but if you are trying to raise a child properly these are not choices, they are things you must do.

Here's the solution to your "rights to move".

My parents separated when I was 8. My mother got parental custody, and I lived with her till I was 13. She decided she wanted to move out of the country, so she gave up custody of me and my two younger siblings to my father. She lost her support payments, and gave up the ability to see us regularly to move. I have no hard feelings, she spent a great deal of time raising us alone and our father was more than happy to have us live with him.

If you absolutely have to move, and you have custody of the children, I think it might be wise to consider leaving the children with the other parent, at least they don't have to go through the troubles of moving - something which they don't have a choice in.


We don't make the products you like, we make you like the products we make.
[ Parent ]

Re : Self Centered (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by NightRain on Mon May 07, 2001 at 11:36:38 AM EST

My parents separated when I was 8.

Yes yes, we've all got out sob stories to tell. My parents broke up when I was 2/1/2. I was raised solely by my mother, with no support from my father, who lived 100's of kilometers away. I did visit him on occassion, thought without any formal 'vistation rights' or crap like that. Was I done wrong by my father in this instance? Possibly I guess, but it changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. The ridiculous thought of the possibilty of the court ordering my father to stay put for my benifit sends shudders down my spine. Damn it, kids are tough. Having both parents around can be a great thing, but fostering resentment between the parents, and maybe even the parent/child relationship by forcing parents to stay near each other would do far more damage IMO than letting them move apart.

Of course this is all moot, as your example points out, there is always the option to give up custody.

Don't vote, it only encourages them!

[ Parent ]
Somewhat of a difference there (3.33 / 3) (#24)
by fluffy grue on Mon May 07, 2001 at 12:38:49 PM EST

Just my two cents: It sounds like your dad didn't give a crap about you, making it somewhat of a nonissue as to which parent you ended up with. In the case of this article (and of the person you replied to), BOTH parents actually care about the child. Gee, go figure.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Somewhat. (none / 0) (#31)
by NightRain on Mon May 07, 2001 at 11:36:45 PM EST

It sounds like your dad didn't give a crap about you, making it somewhat of a nonissue as to which parent you ended up with.

You may have a point, you may not. My father loved me, but then, maybe not as much as he should. But the thing is I still loved my father fiercly. And in the kids eyes, that's the only important thing. It still doesn't change my (by now pointless) point though. :)

[ Parent ]
Where (none / 0) (#35)
by Ratnik on Tue May 08, 2001 at 12:34:48 PM EST

< In the case of this article (and of the person you replied to), BOTH parents actually care about the < child.

I cound't find anyplace in the article where it said that the father cared for the child. It just stated that he objected to his ex moving out of state with the child.

[ Parent ]
Things you lose... (4.00 / 4) (#19)
by darthaggie on Mon May 07, 2001 at 10:30:56 AM EST

Your life is your own and should always be your own.

Until you voluntarily take on responsibility and commitment. At which point your life is no longer yours, and others are entitled to place demands upon you.

But the simple fact is that having a child does not rob you of your rights to move

By what right does she rob her child(ren) and their father of a relationship?

It's real simple: if she wants her rights back, she should simply hand over custodial rights to the father. But no, he's expected to sacrifice for her...

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

Ok, you've got me :) (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by NightRain on Mon May 07, 2001 at 11:27:43 AM EST

It's real simple: if she wants her rights back, she should simply hand over custodial rights to the father. But no, he's expected to sacrifice for her...

Ok, point conceded. I've got no problem with that as an option, and realistically, it is an option.

Don't vote, it only encourages them!

[ Parent ]
You dont have children do you? (none / 0) (#42)
by Afty on Wed May 09, 2001 at 01:17:12 PM EST

work out access rights to the child, even it it means moving the kid back and forth every six months.

You think this is an acceptable environment in which to raise a child? Where they have no long term friends, cannot enter into meaningful and lasting relationships with others of their age?

But the simple fact is that having a child does not rob you of your rights to move.

Last I checked, no country in the world provides you with a 'right to move'. Can you explain exactly what this right is, as I'd like to enact it and move into the mansion 4 miles from my house.

Now the right not to have your child taken away from, to a distance where you cannot reasonably see them again - that seems to be a right that should be bestowed upon a citizen of a decent country, but the right to take a parent away from a child? I don't think so.

[ Parent ]
It wasn't about that... (4.00 / 2) (#17)
by darthaggie on Mon May 07, 2001 at 10:23:03 AM EST

I'm more scared by the fact that court would even hold a session to judge the right of someone to move.

I would agree with you, but that isn't the issue. She could have moved any time she wanted, all she had to do was give up primary custody of her child/children to their father.

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

Hoist by own quote (none / 0) (#13)
by DesiredUsername on Mon May 07, 2001 at 08:01:10 AM EST

"...online visiting -- along with face-to-face contact..."

F2F is in person, yes? Meaning that the online visiting is NOT a substitute, right?

Play 囲碁
Online visitation vs real life visitation (none / 0) (#20)
by Armaphine on Mon May 07, 2001 at 10:59:41 AM EST

In this case, I would have to say that, were I the father, I would raise holy hell about e-mailing and instant messages being used as visitation time. While yes, it is nice to talk with your son/daughter over the internet, and certainly would suffice for Mom/Dad being on a business trip or whatnot, there is a certain level of detachment from text on a screen. You can't be expected to have the same emotions from a chat line as you do from actually having the child there, seeing them grow, and spending actual time with them.

While the online thing is fine for the child keeping in contact with her father, it is no subsitute for the real thing.

Question authority. Don't ask why, just do it.

Raise holy hell (none / 0) (#28)
by mcherm on Mon May 07, 2001 at 07:33:39 PM EST

Unfortunately, "raising holy hell" about it does no good once a judge has ruled. Your kid's in California, and there's not much you can do about it.

I don't like it one bit. I don't, however, have a better solution. Fewer families breaking up in divorce would be a good start.

-- Michael Chermside

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

But... (none / 0) (#34)
by Armaphine on Tue May 08, 2001 at 07:36:49 AM EST

Raising holy hell can have an effect, even after the judge has ruled. Appeals court, letters to Congressmen & Senators, lobbying various politicos... all this can make a difference. If you make a big enough noise about the whole thing, they'll end up giving you what you want.

Question authority. Don't ask why, just do it.
[ Parent ]

I don't think there's any right way to handle it.. (4.20 / 5) (#25)
by Kasreyn on Mon May 07, 2001 at 02:51:03 PM EST

...when the mother is being so selfish and cruel.

In this country, men are treated as second class parents. Judges are FAR more likely to believe and listen to the mother over the father, and grant total custody to the mother. Anyone else notice the slant to the Elian Gonzalez case? Do you think if it had been Juan to take his son out on a leaky boat in shark infested waters without telling his wife (instead of the other way around), that there would have been ANY hesitation returning Elian to his mother? Of course not. It was hardly so much a Cuba thing as it was a demonstration that here in America the majority of people, and the law, seem to be convinced that men are inferior parents.

Well, let me tell you - I was lucky enough to grow up in a household with both my biological parents, who are are still madly in love. I don't rate my mom more highly than I do my dad. If she's been my "principal care provider" (in emotion-blind legalese), then you have to consider the fact that he's been my role model; my dad is my hero. How can you ask children to be without one of these things?

For one thing, part of the problem is people rushing into marriage and rushing into having children without stopping to think. A child is not a pet!! You can't just have it while it's cute and then toss it in the river (though even that practise with animals sickens me). It's a human being and you have a lifelong responsibility to it.

Honestly, I think the mother is moving because she could care less whether her ex ever gets to see his child again. If she cared about it, she would find a way. And the judge is foolish to think that a webcam can ever substitute for giving his daughter a hug, and taking a walk with her and explaining why the sky is blue. Something which mommy, with her new power-job out in California, doubtless won't have time to do.


"Intolerant people should be shot." - the best one-sentence troll I have ever seen.
Long distance lovin' (3.50 / 2) (#26)
by inert_mass on Mon May 07, 2001 at 03:21:23 PM EST

Let's look at this from a real world perspective, instead of a Net-centric one. What is the difference, emotionally, for a child, between the Net, calling on the phone, and having a parent there and in person. Speaking from personal experience (both from having a long-distance relationship with a parent when I was growing up, and a long-distance girlfriend when I was older) having someone to physically hold on to is immensely more fulfilling. Although, it is probably a good thing that the g/f thing was long-distance, she wasn't the nicest ;)
Long-distance relationships, no matter the method of communication are not as effective. Period.

"This is the end..."
good point (none / 0) (#39)
by eleonard on Tue May 08, 2001 at 04:03:37 PM EST

point taken. i think you are correct.

[ Parent ]
The thing that irks me... (4.50 / 2) (#29)
by rabbit on Mon May 07, 2001 at 09:34:30 PM EST

is that we're all here making judgements about the mother and about the father when the fact of the matter is that we don't jack about either of them.

Is it possible that the reason that "dad" doesn't have full custody is because he's a loser? Or maybe they spilt up because of domestic violence? Or maybe, he doesn't give a flying fuck about seeing his kid but just wants to prevent the ex from moving up in the world - for spite.

The converse could equally well be true: mom could just be a power-mongering bitch that wants to deprive her ex the right to see the child.

Who knows?

None of us do. And for us to pass judgement on so little facts is just ignorant and prejudicial.

-- I have desires that are not in accord with the status quo.
The precedent is the issue (4.00 / 1) (#32)
by onyxruby on Tue May 08, 2001 at 12:57:15 AM EST

In this particular case the mother decided not to move after all. You have to understand the individuals in this case don't mean a damn thing. It's the legal precedent that was set that is the issue. Once this precedent has been set, other judges can use this to keep Fathers away from their children in courtrooms far beyond the first one. For a society so hell bent on making Fathers be financially involved with their childern you'd think it should also want them to be emotionally and physicaly involved...

Sadly sexual discrimination is still rampant, with the traditional roles (Father = breadwinner, Mother = Caretaker) that the original Feminists fought so hard to overturn now legally enforced in the name of progress. I really have to wonder, in regards to sexual roles and discrimination, are we as a society really more tolerant and less discriminatory than we used to be?

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

Stupid lawyer (none / 0) (#30)
by spacejack on Mon May 07, 2001 at 09:54:01 PM EST

Should've played the privacy card.

This could be great! (2.50 / 4) (#33)
by Comblock on Tue May 08, 2001 at 04:55:47 AM EST

I feel this is a GOOD thing, as my partner has been in a seven year legal battle with her sons father (They were friends, and he raped her, and then declared "parental rights" when the boy was old enough to manipulate!).

No, she didn't ask for it! They were roommates, and she was asleep with a fever of 102 degrees and awoke just before he "finished", she knew she was fertle, and begged him to stop, but he didn't give a shit! And she was afraid to press charges, because they had been friends.

This man hates my partner, and has been using the boy as a "tool" to hurt her. It is quite obvious he doesn't care about the boy (No B-day call, or cards, or presents, no Xmas presents, etc.), yet he has been able to convince the court that his "Fatherly Rights" have been trampled on!

The boy was sexually molested under the "fathers" care, and the "father" deny's it completely, saying the boy lies, "he always lies". The boy is quite honest and sincere, and never lies around us, or in school.

When the boy was six and seven, the "father" told the boy to lie to everyone, and to cause as much trouble as he could when at home with us!

He only provides $50.00 a month in child support since he doesn't see his role as one of financially supporting the boy!

It goes on, and on... he's a monster.

I hope when we can save up enough money to fight him again we can use this new precident.

He outspent us again this last time, we only had $3,000 and he spent close to $20,000, yet won't buy the boy anything he needs, no school clothes, no soccer gear, nothing.

Except when the boy is at his court ordered visitation (which the boy dosn't want to do. But his rights don't matter.), then it's "Disneyland Dad" time, and he gets all kinds of worthless crap from "Dad", which impress's the boy since we are poor because of his "father's" continued legal "assults" on us.

And another thing, in the article it says that "In California, for example, a parent simply needs to demonstrate that a move is in the child's best interest;

That is pure bullshit! After two years of the "father" not visiting the boy, and a year without even so much as a phone call, my partner moved one county away to finsih her CIS degree so she didn't have to live in poverty anymore, and she almost lost custody of her boy because of the fathers consistamnt whine about "Fathers Rights", and how we were supposedly keeping the boy from him.

For two years we lived one hour away from the scum, and he refused to visit the boy, and blamed it on us!

Well you now have my strong feelings on this ruling, I think it could be GREAT! I hope it can be another tool that custodial parents can use against psychopaths like this guy.

i fail to see this as a good thing (4.00 / 1) (#36)
by mikpos on Tue May 08, 2001 at 01:46:30 PM EST

So, wrt child custody, the courts are severely fucked up. Rather than fix the problems, you would rather see a band-aid solution that removes rights from millions of parents just because there are a few instances where the courts screwed up?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you, I agree with you that allowing parents to move is a good thing, but I think your reasoning is a bit faulty.

[ Parent ]

agreement (none / 0) (#38)
by eleonard on Tue May 08, 2001 at 04:01:20 PM EST

i just wanted to say that i agreed with the reply here. this is just a "band-aid" solution at best. Im sure there are certain cases where this would be a good thing, but I am also sure there are many where taking away a father's right to see & hold his own child is just as much of a crime as any other. -evan

[ Parent ]
I'm hearing a lot of victim-speak here . . . (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by liberalmafia on Wed May 09, 2001 at 10:19:25 AM EST

Isn't it interesting how so many men see themselves as victims -- whether it's of "disregard of fathers' rights", "political correctness", "man-bashing", "liberal fascism" or whatever this week's whipping boy is?

Sure, it's wrong to claim that the Net is an acceptable substitute for face to face contact, but it's also wrong to claim you're a victim with no responsibility for your life and your situation.

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB! (none / 0) (#43)
by jwallwebcaster on Thu May 10, 2001 at 05:00:49 PM EST

There are just as many separations that happen because of the Wife as there are a Husband. OR this law could effect Women, if the Husband is the custodial parent.

You fricking idiot! Being upset about the other parent of your child taking it across the country is taking responsibility for your life.

If a woman decides she wants to screw another man, and gets a divorce, and then move out of state, how is this the man's fault, or how is he not taking responsibility for his life and situation.

Frickin Moron deserves to be shot!

[ Parent ]
This is so easy to fix... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by nytes on Wed May 09, 2001 at 12:46:05 PM EST

For his next child support payment, he should email her a JPEG of money. It's just as good as actually having the real thing, right?

Face-to-face time is not the same as online time (4.00 / 1) (#44)
by sera on Fri May 11, 2001 at 02:29:19 PM EST

So, uh, I'm going to skip all the "divorcing women are evil bitches" stuff, and just discuss the online-vs.-Real-World stuff.

I don't think spending time with someone online comes even close to spending time with them face-to-face. There are two reasons I can think of for this.

1. You learn more about somebody by seeing their unintentional behavior.
Online, all the communication the other person receives is intentional: Everything you see/read about me is because I consciously intended to give off that info. If you read "Sera says, 'How have you been?'" that's because I typed you that line. Even in an interface that allows emotes, those still have to be consciously sent off: If you read "Sera scratches his head" that's still because I meant for you to see it.

If you compare the personality traits people give off consciously vs. those they give off unintentionally, they can be very different. If I were a parent, I'd want an opportunity to see my child face-to-face to see these things for myself. As my (rhetorical) son grows up, what kind of clothes will he wear? How will he carry himself? How will he react when we're walking down the street and a cute girl passes him by? I can ask him all these questions, but the answers he gives me will probably be different from the answers I could glean through direct observation.

Now, videoconferencing mitigates this, but reports I've heard are that videoconferencing is still slow laggy crap. And there's still a difference between seeing a head-on view of someone while they sit down, and seeing them do all kinds of other things. Which leads into ...

2. You can do a wider range of things together off-line than you can do on-line.
If you want to get to know somebody really well, you don't do just one thing with them. You do as many things as possible together. If you were to have a friend who you did lots of different things with -- you work together, live together, go to parties together, go camping together, volunteer in the inner city together -- you'd probably know each other extremely well. (Probably too well, but that's a different problem entirely.)

Online interaction tends to be just one thing: Sitting down at a computer and typing about stuff. (Online games mitigate this a little, but it's still a pretty limited range of activity.) The two of you can talk about what kind of ice cream you like, but you can't actually go get ice cream together. As the theoretical parent, I'd find this annoying, too. I'd want to know how he acts. How does my rhetorical son treat other people? How does he treat the waitress at a restaurant? How does he react when his plans don't go off quite as he'd hoped?

These are the kinds of things you miss out on, quite a bit, when you don't get to spend actual face-to-face time with someone. I certainly wouldn't want my parenting to be online, for those reasons.

firmament.to: Every text is an index.

New Jersey judge places Internet over Real World | 40 comments (38 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!