Despite that, once in a while, I'll forward on a good cause or show my 'Like' for others' efforts. So when, a few days ago, several friends decided to follow the trend of changing their icons to their childhood cartoon character of choice (showing some abstract support for anti-child abuse charities) I figured what the heck and changed mine to a Clanger (Yes, I'm aware that Freud would have a field-day!). It didn't require any real effort and I didn't anticipate any controversy. I was amused when challenged as to whether a woolly clanger was suitable for a 'cartoon' choice (my argument: it's stop-animation!) but that was it. But, of course, things are never quite that simple, are they?
NOW comes a new message, spreading even faster than the original idea, proclaiming that we've all been hoodwinked and the original meme was all the work of dastardly paedophiles and we've been shamedly roped into spreading their peversion. SHOCK! HORROR! SHAME! I... Wait. Really? I mean... SERIOUSLY? Actually, no. Could we perhaps stop to think for a moment before we spread that kind of accusation?
In what POSSIBLE way could this benefit a paedophile? The general stereotype is a dirty old man trawling the 'Net for kids to abuse by pretending to be younger and the argument seems to be that if a huge amount of people suddenly change their icon to reflect cartoon characters, then it'll be harder for people to judge ages. Which makes no sense at all, if thought about for more than a indignant minute, because...
a) If everyone's doing it then a paedophile has no way of working out if he's communicating with a child or not. I'm pretty sure a dirty old man would be horrified to find out he's actually grooming another dirty old man rather than a school-kid, so murking the waters surely works against their peversion to begin with.
b) This isn't pretending to be kids, it's remembering your childhood. Surely people using icons of characters that were popular TWO or THREE decades ago gives a bit of a clue to their pop culture demographic. If you're featuring Noggin the Nog, Trumpton, Bagpuss, Danger Mouse and - yes - a Clanger, dammit - I'd feel safe in betting you weren't born yesterday. So unless the nefarious plan is to target all those who DON'T feature Barnaby the Bear, Babar the Elephant or the original Wombles, then it all seems somewhat self-defeating.
c) Dear Parents. If you're allowing your children to surf ANY massive social-networking sites without observation and safety measures and which has a 'poke' option, YOU'RE the ones putting your kids at risk. Now, put that nice TV remote down and come meet your offspring...
d) The NSPCC reports that though it has no idea who started the idea and that it has no official backing, they HAVE seen a marked increase in traffic to their website. So - while I wouldn't have actually ever believed my Clanger would really affect things one way or another - it appears something positive has been generated. So even if the original plan WAS conceived by the love-child of Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, turnaround is fair play and it has acheived something positive. *Yay*, no?
So what have we learned today, kids?
Firstly, I don't wear bra-straps and while I kinda like your invisible deity of choice, I don't appreciate cold-calls on his behalf. AND - perhaps - that Facebook can be a valued communication tool and a cause for good...but with a little mixture of apathy and armchair alarm, also has all the power and indiscrimate damage-control of a ballistic chain letter or a copy of the Daily Mail.
And, dammit, a Clanger IS an animated character.
