The Batch (2014) report Fencing out knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 years later, is a very interesting read and brings up relevant and critical issues for our Australian context about internet filtering. The report begins by describing the origins of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) that was passed in 2000 in the USA as a means to block internet users from accessing child pornography and for minors accessing images that are deemed “harmful to minors” by installing internet filters in public libraries and schools. Schools and public libraries that did not abide by these rules would lose their public funding. While this sounds reasonable in theory, actually the ramifications of the internet filtering have caused much damage and widened the opportunity gap between those who have access to mobile data/broadband internet at home and those who rely on schools and public libraries for internet access.
I am unaware of similar laws or acts in Australia, and am keen to find out as soon as time allows. However I do have a reference point: in my previous context, we had quite severe internet filtering. At the time I thought it was a little strange that I had to ask for permission to unblock sites including Kids Lit Quiz and other educationally relevant websites. This is a perfect example of over-filtering – if these sites are blocked then many sites students would need to find out more about themselves (e.g. LGBTQI support networks, mental health, physical health) would also most likely be blocked. I had no qualms in requesting the sites I needed be unblocked and I am embarrassed to admit that I did not consider that there would be many students who would not feel comfortable asking for sites about the aforementioned topics to be unblocked. I did not think consider that this type of extreme filtering would widen the class divide between the “haves” and the “have nots”.
What a complex world we live in with the rise of the internet. While I do sincerely wish to protect children from viewing inappropriate images and shudder to think how early our children are exposed to such images, libraries must provide free and open access to information and with algorithm-generated filters, library users can lose access to information including safe sex, health, and genocide. It is widely recognised that if we do not learn about the events that have led to genocide, we are doomed to repeat these harrowing mistakes. The overreach of filtering negatively affects access to learning opportunities and of course this disproportionally impacts those already living with economic disadvantage.
Another vitally important skill students and library-users (who do not have mobile data/home broadband) will miss out on with the over-implementation of filtering is the acquisition of information literacy skills. Teacher Librarians play a vitally important role in ensuring students acquire information literacy skills – a set of skills that underpins not only the entire educational frame, but is also widely recognised as fundamental to participate fully in our globally competitive democratic 21st-century society.
Students with the advantage of unfiltered access at home have the opportunity to practice their information literacy skills while students who only have filtered access at school become further disadvantaged and do not have a chance to truly build this vital set of skills. Information literacy is complex and not only involves literacy, but also critical thinking and ethical understanding. By limiting exposure to complex and challenging websites, we hinder their opportunities to develop the skills they need to function in our rapidly changing world. Through missing these critical opportunities, students can finish school and be unprepared when faced with unfiltered internet. How can we then expect them to be responsible users, consumers and producers of online content?
I am not sure if my previous context was aware of the negative impacts of over-filtering. If I was still there, I would definitely create awareness as to the harmful flow-on effects of over-filtering. I am unaware of the filtering status of my current school but have not come upon any sites that have been blocked.
The water safety analogy described in the report was very appropriate in the case of internet safety: we can give our children floaties, pool gates and lifeguards, but actually the best way to protect them is to teach them how to swim. Savvy students can work out how to bypass the filters, and filters may create even more curiosity around topics that are harmful and inappropriate for them. We need to have the opportunity to teach students digital safety and creating a wholesome digital footprint in an environment where they can practice their skills to reinforce their learning.
Public libraries in Australia are a place where digital skills are taught to migrants and those living with disadvantage, so over filtering poses major challenges to intellectual freedom. Filtering can constitute censorship as those creating the filters are not aware of the values that librarians are committed to uphold to protect democracy. Filter based decisions may be created by algorithms but those algorithms are created by humans who may not be aware or committed to the professional standards librarians must uphold during the selection process.
If I am in a situation again where I sense that over-filtering is a concern, I definitely feel much more well-equipped and knowledgable about how to approach this with leadership. The negative impacts are far too great to ignore.
Reference:
Batch, K. R. (2014). Fencing out knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 years later. Office for Information Technology Policy, American Library Association.