English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

'Your children are no longer your children. They are sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. You may give them your love, but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts. Their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams' Khalil Gibran, The Prophet. The question of whether Internet content should be screened by Internet service providers, schools and libraries has been the subject of hot debate since 1990, especially in the USA, Europe and the Antipodes. ISPs, content providers, legislators, politicians, librarians, schoolteachers and parents have all been part in this thorny debate. Issues involved were not only related to protecting young minds against objectionable content, but to the freedom of access to information, personal privacy and even defamation. Many jurisdictions have either attempted or are considering legislation. Others have promoted labelling systems with nanny software to screen out undesirable sites, but their methods are crude, eliminating breast health together with sexually explicit sites, for instance. By the year 2000, the US had passed The Children's Internet Protection Act, forcing schools to have acceptable usage policies, despite the outcome of the Reno v. ACLU case, and the EU was implementing similar ventures. Australia has set up its Net alert government-sponsored community-based organization, while various states within the country put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the ISP providers, demanding the blocking of objectionable sites. Software companies and multi-national content providers (having offices all over the world and broadcasting in half a dozen languages) jumped on the wagon by releasing parental guidance software, filters and family-friendly Web sites. Amid this entire hubbub about controlling access to Internet resources, the librarians have a longstanding and well-reasoned opinion that minors should have free access to Internet content in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and free enquiry, since the Internet is, in effect, a huge library, for example, ALA (1991). As mentioned above, Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have enacted legislation to impose penalties on those who make 'objectionable' (undefined) material available to minors via the Internet. Surprisingly, the Australian Library and Information Association has rejected such software not because it abrogates the human right of freedom of access to

Underage and wired. Safeguarding children in the age of Infobahn