So, by now you've heard the buzz: Facebook wants to allow kids under 13 into their social media club. Here's what you may not know, or remember: This isn't new news. In fact, a year ago this month, Mark Zuckerberg made the exact same statement just as a report came out shedding light that 7.5 million kids under 13 were using his site.
I remember the issue well because I did a huge amount of interviews on the topic, such as this one with TIME magazine. In these interviews, I made it very clear that allowing kids under 13 onto Facebook is not a good idea -- and I wasn't alone in my opinion.
Has a year changed my position at all? No. In fact, given the events of the last year, I feel more strongly than a year ago that kids under 13 should not be on Facebook. The environment on Facebook is even more difficult to navigate than it was a year ago with even more privacy concerns. The staggering amount of ads clearly tailored to our searches. The push to play games and spend money on games and apps is much more pronounced and noticable than a year ago and the ability to get help should someone act inappropriately, bully someone, is simply not there. There is no help button clearly visible, for example.
These are not insignificant issues. As an adult, these issues are concerning. It's challenging enough to explain to our teenagers how to undertand these issues, how to exist on Facebook in a way that is fun but protects their privacy and digital footprints while also keeping them safe. To explain these issues to a child younger than 13 who doesn't have the life experience or developmental ability to abstract enough to make sense of the virtual environment -- or understand the complex interactions and the long-term impacts of what they post publicly -- is simply not feasible nor possible. They are truly too young.
Sherry Turkle explained it best in the TIME magazine article for which we were both interviewed last year: "Facebook is a place where you let adolescents go when they're ready to be unsupervised... It's like getting the keys to the cars."
I use the same car analagy in CyberSafe. When we teach our teens how to drive, we do so with care and with a plan, using age milestones that are based on not just the law, but development. We make sure our kids are old enough to undertand the rules of the road and have prior experience with other, more simple modes of transportation, including walking and riding a bike. We make sure they take driver's education, pass a test and gain experience before they take those keys and drive off.
If we allow our kids to drive without the necessary steps met before they get their license, mistakes will occur and accidents will happen. The same is true for social media sites like Facebook. It's when we give them those keys to Facebook too young, without social media driver's ed, that harm occurs -- their privacy is compromised, a permanent digital footprint made, cyber-bullying takes place or inappropriate content posted.
This isn't about parental choice and allowing kids to play games. This is about a large social media site wanting more users for their financial model to work out. Keep in mind that the ones pushing this plan are often on the Facebook payroll and have no background in child health and development.
Our job as parents isn't to say "yes" to everything our kids want, bending the rules and allowing others to do the same. Our job is to help our kids realize that there is a reason that age-limits exist and respecting those limits is what makes our society work and allow us to develop and grow as members of that society. So, just as our kids have to wait to be the right age to drive, drink and vote, let's help them understand that in today's world, they also have to wait to be the right age to use Facebook. They'll survive -- and be better off for it.
Follow Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drgwenn
Best Regards!
http://goo.gl/LMdcE
Thanks for all your great comments - sorry to be delayed in commenting back a bit. I so agree with all your points. This isn't about COPPA but about child development and digital citizenship. We have a big job to do - help parents understand the online world so they know when to get their kids of any age on the right sites. And, to help each company understand why their site may or may not be appropriate for each age.
Great points! I, too, agree that Facebook for kids is a very bad idea. In my opinion, i’s not about complying with COPPA that’s the issue. Here’s 5 questions every parent must ask themselves in order to make an educated and informed decision about whether Facebook is right for their child.
http://bit.ly/Kh6wHC
And now they want the minors - who by definition are not best able to decide - that being legally the right of their parents or guardians.
This is unchecked, amoral greed of the highest order.
This company should be unconstitutional.
But we can at least stop them getting their hands on the children. Those who stand to lose the most by having their futures open, the right to reinvent themselves, the right to be different things to different people, the right to be silent and private, the right to comment online without revealing who you are, the right to silence, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom from bullying, the right to freedom from predatory advertizing.
This company is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
Then there is the issue of publishing. Publishing is by definition, in the US, to people OTHER than close family and friends.
So what facebook does is trick people into thinking they are publishing to family and friends but in fact take over that information and sell it to the highest bidder. This may be a malevolent government, this may be a malevolent advertizer. This may be anyone they can make a buck off.
It is an outrage. You can fool most people most of the time. But not all the people all the time.
The wise, the educated in constitutional right to privacy
1. do-wat is "right"
2. say- wat is "right"
3. and dont question-wat id "right"
those are societys rules. good luck
Thanks you.
Team MDWebPro
Thanks again,
Tina
doublescoop.net