+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
e-Safety Thread, BBC: Facebook Should allow under 13s in School Administration; Raising the age limit for cigarettes havn't stopped kids smoking, doesnt mean its a bad idea....
  1. #16

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,935
    Thank Post
    138
    Thanked 290 Times in 210 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    Raising the age limit for cigarettes havn't stopped kids smoking, doesnt mean its a bad idea.

  2. #17

    TechMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    3,295
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 406 Times in 303 Posts
    Rep Power
    162
    I did chuckle when I read that his reasons were for education. Yeah educating them about what you can sell their details for, educating them how much money you can rake in!

    Real life translation: If I can open up the youth market I can sell even more advertising, have their details even longer AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!

    Still I am shocked at the lack of understanding by some kids. I had a friend up in arms because at their school an assembly was held where a teacher went through and posted (carefully vetted) highlights from a year groups status' and pictures. She thought I would be on her side about how it was an invasion of their privacy, how out of order it was, that it must be illegal & was shocked that I laughed and told her it was her own fault. Didn't understand that if she put it up and it was public, it was public and fair game! It was a good lesson as I know a lot of them locked their accounts down after that, but still grumble about it.

  3. #18

    elsiegee40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    9,776
    Thank Post
    1,813
    Thanked 2,229 Times in 1,645 Posts
    Rep Power
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Theblacksheep View Post
    Raising the age limit for cigarettes havn't stopped kids smoking, doesnt mean its a bad idea.
    If a person smokes, they will get lungs full of black gunge and may get cancer. The longer you smoke the more likely it is that you will permanently injur your health. There is nothing that can be done to make this less likely for youngsters who smoke, so a ban makes sense until the person is legally old enough to make their own mind up.

    If a person goes on a social networking site they may get groomed or have their personal information cloned. The longer you use social networking sites does not make it more likely that this will happen. There are things that can be done to restrict accounts either by the person themselves and/or by the site to help reduce risk. A ban doesn't make sense to me.

  4. #19

    NikChillin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    on the sofa
    Posts
    945
    Thank Post
    60
    Thanked 122 Times in 86 Posts
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by elsiegee40 View Post
    If a person smokes, they will get lungs full of black gunge and may get cancer. The longer you smoke the more likely it is that you will permanently injur your health. There is nothing that can be done to make this less likely for youngsters who smoke, so a ban makes sense until the person is legally old enough to make their own mind up.

    If a person goes on a social networking site they may get groomed or have their personal information cloned. The longer you use social networking sites does not make it more likely that this will happen. There are things that can be done to restrict accounts either by the person themselves and/or by the site to help reduce risk. A ban doesn't make sense to me.

    I agree, my motto is that we teach kids how to navigate dangers carefully, not stop them from encountering them. We teach them to cross the road carefully, not ban them from crossing the road.

    When I do e-safety presentations I suggest that if you don't want the world to know something, don't put it online. Be economical with your personal data - think of the information you may be giving out unnecesarily.

  5. #20

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,678
    Thank Post
    861
    Thanked 650 Times in 431 Posts
    Rep Power
    499
    I am surprised at the majority of the comments here seem to be in favour of this or to at least to leave it as it is..

    Surely, considering that the majority of us work in a school environment where safeguarding pupils is of the utmost importance, to the point where a school can go straight into Special Measures if their safeguarding procedures are poor!

    As a parent, the welfare and safety of my child is of the utmost importance to me..
    If that means a bit of grief between us to keep him safe, then so be it! I would rather he hated me for that than he became the victim of a paedophile!

    I am shocked to see these comments focus more on whether the founder of FB is intent on "taking over the world" than on the importance of whether our children are safe!

    I can educate him as much as I can on how to remain safe online, but there is only so much I can do, it wont fully stop people from pretending to be other children!

    If there is an option to limit their exposure to these people then it should be taken, without question!

    I remain firm in my comment above that FB should either increase the minimum age to 16 or 18
    OR
    Introduce a system where anyone between a certain age is put onto a restricted profile without the option to change that restriction, and that certain activity is reported to parents - whose details MUST be entered, and verified by said adults. All chat/PM transcripts should be sent to the parents so they know what is happening, and all friend requests should be "countersigned" by the parents..

    Is it really worth putting our children in jeapordy when there are measures that can easily be implemented to ensure their safety?

    /rant

  6. #21

    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3,069
    Thank Post
    210
    Thanked 430 Times in 310 Posts
    Rep Power
    144
    The fact remains that a very large percentage of children do sign up to facebook already and lie about their age to do so. Wouldn't it be better for facebook to be in control of the situation and know the proper ages of the people signing up to their service, than the current situation of thousends of children lying about their age ,signing up and probably not even telling their parents they've done so for fear of getting in trouble.

    At the moment it seems children are almost encouraged (mainly by peer pressure) to sign up behind their parents back, because of the age limit, so parents don't have the opportunity to teach their children how to use it properly and that's where the problems start. Lowering the age limit means they may be less likely to be secretive about it because there won't be any reason to be, and that gives parents the chance to educate their children on how to use it properly.

    Children are very resourceful and they will quite often find a way to do what they want regardless. If that want is signing up to facebook, then wouldn't you rather it was able to be done ligitimately and openly rather than the child feeling like they need to lie and go behind their parents back?

    The fact is regrdless of what facebook do, children will still signup so there comes a point when it's got to be better to embrace this and put proper systems in place to handle it rather than let the current situation continue.

    Just my opinion.

    Mike.

  7. #22

    elsiegee40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    9,776
    Thank Post
    1,813
    Thanked 2,229 Times in 1,645 Posts
    Rep Power
    801
    It has to be education in most cases rather than 'prevention'. I've used the quotes, because you can't prevent young people using these sites or anything else on the internet. With game consoles, phones, music players, TVs and occasionally computers providing internet access young people are constantly exposed and your router and net nanny software won't stop them.

    When we were young we used to go out all day and come home for food. We were taught stranger danger, to test the branches of trees before climbing and how to cross the road safely. We weren't locked in our homes. If we walked to school in the dark, we wore reflective bands to keep us safe and busy roads near the school had a lollipop man.

    Young people must be taught to use these sites safely rather than be locked out of them. They need to learn that stranger danger applies online as well as in real life. These sites can build in the 'lollipop man' precautions that help them to stay safe.

    It's no more putting them in jeopardy than letting them travel to school on their own. That first day of Year 7 is hell as your child disappears off to the bus stop and hopefully returns intact later that afternoon. It's important the child learns to do it on their own, working out the bus routes, not losing their bus pass or their PE kit, avoiding strangers and crossing the road safely... they might get hurt, but you wouldn't insist that your child travels only in your car until they're 18.

  8. #23

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,678
    Thank Post
    861
    Thanked 650 Times in 431 Posts
    Rep Power
    499
    Sorry, but I fail to understand the "lower the age limit then teach them of the dangers" argument - IMHO, this is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    Would we accept a suggestion to lower the age for alcohol or cigs or driving to, say 8 - THEN teach them about the dangers of them?
    I very much doubt it!

  9. #24

    elsiegee40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    9,776
    Thank Post
    1,813
    Thanked 2,229 Times in 1,645 Posts
    Rep Power
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatt View Post
    Sorry, but I fail to understand the "lower the age limit then teach them of the dangers" argument - IMHO, this is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    Would we accept a suggestion to lower the age for alcohol or cigs or driving to, say 8 - THEN teach them about the dangers of them?
    I very much doubt it!
    Quote Originally Posted by elsiegee40 View Post
    If a person smokes, they will get lungs full of black gunge and may get cancer. The longer you smoke the more likely it is that you will permanently injur your health. There is nothing that can be done to make this less likely for youngsters who smoke, so a ban makes sense until the person is legally old enough to make their own mind up.

    If a person goes on a social networking site they may get groomed or have their personal information cloned. The longer you use social networking sites does not make it more likely that this will happen. There are things that can be done to restrict accounts either by the person themselves and/or by the site to help reduce risk. A ban doesn't make sense to me.
    Answered in a previous post. When your child is older, maybe you will change your mind.

  10. #25

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,678
    Thank Post
    861
    Thanked 650 Times in 431 Posts
    Rep Power
    499
    Yes, lets lower the price of ciggies so 5 year olds can smoke them, THEN when they have lung cancer by 10 tell them of the danger of smoking!

    Sorry, but I'd rather he had nice healthy lungs until 16 and I educate him on the dangers and when he hits 16 - let him decide whether he wants to take that risk

  11. #26

    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3,069
    Thank Post
    210
    Thanked 430 Times in 310 Posts
    Rep Power
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatt View Post
    Sorry, but I fail to understand the "lower the age limit then teach them of the dangers" argument - IMHO, this is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    Would we accept a suggestion to lower the age for alcohol or cigs or driving to, say 8 - THEN teach them about the dangers of them?
    I very much doubt it!
    But you can police those items because they are sold in shops or licensed, so you have control over who uses them or can do them. Even if there was an 18+ limit on facebook, there is no mechanism in place to stop children lying about their age and signing up - the only way to do this would be to require some proof of age before you can sign up which just isn't practical. By having the age limit, you are effectively almost encouraging children to lie which is not a good thing. Facebook is harmless when used in the proper manner, the same can not be said for cigareattes and alcohol.

  12. #27

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,678
    Thank Post
    861
    Thanked 650 Times in 431 Posts
    Rep Power
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by maniac View Post
    But you can police those items because they are sold in shops or licensed, so you have control over who uses them or can do theml.
    Which obviously works because we don't have underage drinkers or smokers anymore

  13. #28

    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3,069
    Thank Post
    210
    Thanked 430 Times in 310 Posts
    Rep Power
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatt View Post
    Which obviously works because we don't have underage drinkers or smokers anymore
    Of course it doesn't work, but then neither does the age limit on facebook.

  14. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,792
    Thank Post
    82
    Thanked 296 Times in 227 Posts
    Rep Power
    87
    Kids aren't allowed to soley own data untill their 13th birthday so no, unless a mechanism was put in place so that parents have access to the account but how that could ever work I haven't a clue.

  15. #30

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    395
    Comparisons to tobacco are fatuous at best in my opinion. There is no way to use tobacco "safely"; it's not a question of risk over whether or not it will harm your health, it's just a question of how much it will harm your health. On the other hand, something like Facebook presents risk, not an absolute guarantee of harm, and can be used safely if you know what you are doing.

    I'm not in favour of lowering the age at all; despite being trivial to ignore, it does still have value as a deterrent (more so to parents than children). However, until there is a workable way to actually enforce an age limit, discussions on raising or lowering it are largely a moot point. Education is the only option that makes sense right now.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th April 2011, 08:29 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13th December 2010, 02:44 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12th April 2010, 01:40 PM
  4. FACEBOOK!
    By Dukey in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10th February 2010, 12:26 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •