Children 'upset' by Internet images

Three out of four children have seen Internet images that disturbed them, according to a new poll commissioned by the NSPCC.

377 out of 497 votes cast by children in the poll claimed to have been disturbed by Internet images.

One child posted a comment on the message board of NSPCC children's website There4me.com saying: "I've seen violent images I didn't search for. I was freaked out." Another youngster said his eight-year-old sister typed in 'pictures of animals' and ended up with pornography adverts.

The NSPCC said it wants social networking and video hosting sites to remove all offensive and harmful material within hours of finding it. In February it was revealed that a rape video on popular internet video sharing site YouTube was online long enough for 600 to view it and comment.

Policy adviser Zoe Hilton said: "We are alarmed by how easy it is for children to access disturbing internet material.

"Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling across upsetting or even dangerous pictures and films such as adult sex scenes, violent dog fights, people self harming and children being assaulted.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Cuil up and fall into obscurity

Next Story

Can Seesmic survive the storm?

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

As Stewie might say, "Get off your lazy *** and do some parenting!"

But instead we get a sensationalist headline repeating what we've known for a long time: There are parents out there that just can't be bothered to do their job.

Well, as someone who was raised without internet filters I don't see how sheltering them will help in the long run. Unfortunately there are some very sick and unpleasant things in life, not just on the internet, which affect adults as well as kids. Unfortunately we must a) get used to it, b) encourage both companies and the legal authorities on a sensible execution of 'in poor taste' as a means of censorship. To shut them out of this will only do harm in the long run (by the way, the same goes for sheltering adults in news programs). I second Rhodekills comment.

Bushco's been a hell of a lot more disturbing to our children that this crap will ever be. Can we get an Internet/miracle technology filter for these scumbags? 8P

I say censor nothing and educate your children on what they are seeing.

Putting blinders on kids only shocks them more when they reach the age that parents no longer feel blinders are needed. Leave the blinders off and educate them on what they are see and explain how it is wrong.

I actually went and searched for "pictures of animals" to see what came up. The answer? Something horrible? something disgusting? Nope, nothing. In 20 pages, I only got ONE dodgy image (on page 6). In 20 pages! With safesearch OFF!

This leads me to believe that this article should be taken with a big lump of salt.

here is an idea, parents pay attention to what their kids are doing, or be there while their doing it.

my sister does it with her kids, they don't get online period unless she is there beside them.

^^^meh, someone was probebly searching for porn on google before and forgot to turn the filters back on...

and the problem with state or countrywide censorship is where does it end?

1. legitimate sites can be blocked if they happen to share a web server with a bad one (as proven in Finland, I believe)
2. the government/operators have the opportunity to go trigger-happy, and could start blocking music videos for mentioning/showing guns or w/e, cos they're hellbent on "keeping people safe" e.t.c.

So what?
I have seen disturbing images on the Internet... I have also seen disturbing images in magazines, on TV and on billboards. I have even seen disturbing tings in real life. Does this mean we should sensor all those mediums and prevent people from going outside? No it doesn't. It only means parents need to look after their children. End of no story.

Another youngster said his eight-year-old sister typed in 'pictures of animals' and ended up with pornography adverts

Liar liar pants on fire.

I just did that exact same phrase in Google and got this http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/20477/Pictures/animals.JPG

Sensationalistic headline.

"Three out of four children exposed to disturbing pictures on the internet, warns NSPCC"

What it should actually read is;

"Three out of four children exposed to disturbing pictures on the internet, due to parents being lazy and bone-idle by not taking responsibilty for thier childs internet safety, warns NSPCC"

But then, I suppose some people wouldn't be able to cope with the facts, would they?

that article is about nothing. No real statistical data, no real facts. Of course, some kids could have seen something, but does that mean that everyone is seeing it? Definetely not.

Honestly, author of this article is an idiot. Yes, he raises valid concern (but he took it from another place anyway) and on top of it, he doesn't even offer any solutions, just whining about .0000000000001% of data he found on another site.

Lastly, how is this news? Or how is it difficult to write a paragraph that will consiste of more than one sentence?

Here is an idea....

Parents censor and watch what your kids do on the internet! Be a parent instead of letting electronic dictate how your kid grows up....

I'm confused by the article's mention of the rape video on YouTube. It has always been my impression that 600 hits on the *internet* is a phenomenally insignificant number, and it'd be more effective just to say the amount of time it stayed up before being removed. If there's any evidence that this is just fearmongering at the computer illiterate, it's the fact that they're throwing around numbers like these as if they said something.

Less than 500 kids is not statistically significant.

This is nothing but fear mongering.

"Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling" That is just bull ****. Kids know what they are doing.

ahhell said,
Less than 500 kids is not statistically significant.

This is nothing but fear mongering.

"Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling" That is just bull ****. Kids know what they are doing.

Ditto. Kids know their way around the internet 100x better than most Tree-Quarters of adults lol

It's up to parents to teach their kids to avoid such material and to be knowledgeable and educated in how to handle it when they inevitably come across it...which they will.

I don't think it's possible to control every single bit of information on the net. That's where parents come in, they should control what sites their children visit. I for myself would not let my children visit YouTube (not without watching what they do there at least), just to put an example, because there is way too much visual information and way too much is not suited for them, and I'm not talking about rape videos, but simple music videos.

yeah but I think YouTube and other similar sites need to introduce some kind of user rating settings so that you can report videos and after say 50 reports it automatically hides the video. It's hard for parents to keep their children off these things if they have access elsewhere at friends houses or even at school.

Music Videos - I've been amazed by how much sexual imagery there is in modern music videos and the fact that you can easily watch them on daytime TV. I certainly would be wary of letting my children watch them.
Children viewing violent content is far more of a concern but easier to monitor as not many music videos feature violence. As for Youtube and other video sites, they'll be blocked unless I'm with my children at the time.

creamhackered said,
yeah but I think YouTube and other similar sites need to introduce some kind of user rating settings so that you can report videos and after say 50 reports it automatically hides the video. It's hard for parents to keep their children off these things if they have access elsewhere at friends houses or even at school.


It does. Go to any Youtube video and underneath you can "Flag" the video as inappropriate. It's not like Youtube doesn't have measures against this kind of thing.