BBC: Facebook Should allow under 13s

[elsiegee40]

BBC - Newsbeat - Facebook should allow under 13s says Mark Zuckerberg

 

Discuss!

 

Given that half the population on there is probably under 13...

Personally I'd drop the age to 10 or 11 when kids go to secondary school

[Steve21]

Discuss!

 

They should all be burnt for using Facebook in first place!

 

 

Steve

[Hightower]

Like Zucker's gives a donkeys neck about education for the kids. All he will care about is the income those 10/11/12 years olds are going to generate for him.

[elsiegee40]

I agree, but I'd rather kids were on there giving there giving their correct age than lying about their age. It's easier to give them some form of protection.

[sted]

tbh you cant stop it so make you may as well allow them BUT make it so their profile has absolutely minimal info so their name and maybe county thats it no school/birthday etc the boxes for that info should just be greyed out

[Theblacksheep]

I'm shocked he wants to get them all on the giant datamine younger!

 

Its funny that the people who laughed that you went on the internet in the 90s all revolve their life around facebook now. Personally I wouldnt let anyone under 16 on the cancer of the internet.

[Hightower]

When I was a kid I used to get in from school, get changed, and then go climbing trees, or building camps, or play football, or cricket. That's the problem with the world today.....

[elsiegee40]

When I was young, the world was black and white

[AngryTechnician]

Much more detailed article on this: Digital Life - Facebook is coming for your children

 

Unmentioned in the Fortune article on NewSchools Summit talk, however, is that lifting the age restriction might be a really, really good way to avoid future lawsuits like the three Facebook currently faces for failure to obtain parental consent for the use of minors' images in ads on the site.

 

Also unmentioned: Facebook's alliance with Google, Skype, Yahoo, Twitter, Zynga and — um — eHarmony to oppose a California children's privacy bill that would require users’ permission to display personal information, such as home addresses and phone numbers.

[Gatt]

Personally, I think the limit should be RAISED to at least 16 - maybe even 18

 

FB at the moment is a paedophile's wet dream.

 

I agree that anyone under the age of 18 should have, by default, a fully locked down profile and WITHOUT the option to unrestrict it, I also think that it should automatically notify parents/carers of all

chat and PM transcripts, as well as requiring parents to counter approve friend requests.

 

Draconian - perhaps, but as a father of a (as of today) 4 year old, who is already starting to find his way around FB simply by watching us, then I think it needs to be!!

[elsiegee40]

Personally, I thin the lmit should be RAISED to at least 16 - maybe even 18

 

FB at the moment is a paedophile's wet dream.

 

I agree that anyone under the age of 18 should have, by default, a fully locked down profile, I also think that it should automatically notify parents/carers of all

chat and PM transcripts, as well as requiring parents to counter approve friend requests.

 

Draconian - perhaps, but as a father of a (as of today) 4 year old, who is already starting to find his way around FB simply by watching us, then I think it needs to be!!

It would never work though. As a parent of teenagers, there would be no way of stopping this age group having their accounts. Although, I find it interesting that my two (aged 15 and 17) hardly ever go on facebook these days. The eldest uses skype to chat to her mates and the younger is on the xbox with his.

 

I think Zuckerburg would have a completely different view of this if he was parent though.

[maniac]

Personally, I think the limit should be RAISED to at least 16 - maybe even 18

 

FB at the moment is a paedophile's wet dream.

 

I agree that anyone under the age of 18 should have, by default, a fully locked down profile and WITHOUT the option to unrestrict it, I also think that it should automatically notify parents/carers of all

chat and PM transcripts, as well as requiring parents to counter approve friend requests.

 

Draconian - perhaps, but as a father of a (as of today) 4 year old, who is already starting to find his way around FB simply by watching us, then I think it needs to be!!

 

Nice ideas, but it just wouldn't work - kids would just signup for accounts and lie about their age like they do now, and there is absolutely no way of verifying it.

[pete]

Disagree, not because of age, but because Facebok is insecure by default and kids don't realise how insecure until they get bitten by it.

 

If I secure a Facebook account against people that I don't want to access my info, it only takes a Shiny! New! Feature! or back-end fiddling at FB to expose my info again.

 

That's unacceptable if you've got idiot children using it. (Yes, idiot adults as well, but I have no loco parentis responsibility for them)

[elsiegee40]

The trouble is that facebook is already here and kids are already seeing their parents, siblings and mates using it, so they want it too. That will not stop. It's better to have regulated use by children than banning everyone under the age of 18 and having every child under that age lying about how old they are.

[maniac]

The more you tell kids they can't do something, the more they will want to do it - that's pretty much a proven fact. Getting a Facebook account is almost becoming a rite of passage for kids these days and to them lieing about their age to get it doesn't seem such a big deal so regardless of any 'age limit' facebook might put on it, it's not going to stop kids signing up.

[Theblacksheep]

Raising the age limit for cigarettes havn't stopped kids smoking, doesnt mean its a bad idea.

[TechMonkey]

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.

[elsiegee40]

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.

[NikChillin]

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.

[Gatt]

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

[maniac]

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.

[elsiegee40]

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.

[Gatt]

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!

[elsiegee40]

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!

 

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.

[Gatt]

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