Print
Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and chief executive officer of Facebook, feels that kids under the age of 13 should be able to use the social networking service. In all reality, pre-teens already flood Facebook, Zuckerberg just wants to make it official and said he plans to fight current regulation -- and specifically the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) -- that makes it illegal for children under 13 to join an online service which collects user information data.
"That will be a fight we take on at some point," Zuckerberg said, according to a report in International Business Times. "My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age."
A recent online survery conducted by Liberty Mutual's Responsibility Project suggests Zuckerberg would have at least some parental support. The number of parents who say they would allow children 10-12 years old to join a social networking site like Facebook or MySpace doubled in the last year, even though it's not permitted under COPPA. The survey pinged 1,000 adults and 17 percent of those questioned said they would be just fine with their pre-teen using a social media site, compared to 8 percent a year ago.
Still, not everyone is on board with the idea, and some are questioning Zuckerberg's motives. The Senate Commerce Committee held a sitting last week and listened to a handful of comments accusing Zuckerberg of lacking social values.
"I think he was focused on how the business model would work... He wanted to make it bigger and faster and better than anybody else ever had," said Panel Chairman John D. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller accused Facebook of paying little attention to monitoring the billions of posts on the site, and that by allowing children to join, it would put them at risk of being exposed to sexual predators.
"I want you to defend your company here because I don't know how you can," the Senator said.
Image Credit: smosh.com
Comments are closed on this article
stige
May 26, 2011 at 11:46am
maybe a 13yr old would be okay on FB. maybe not. all kids are different. however this legislation smacks of trying to get the gov't to parent for you and i'm against the gov't deciding how i get to raise my child.
how about parents actually take responsibility for "parenting" their child?
hiding FB from them is similar to not talking about sex, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or other social issues. interact with them, talk about it and it's really not a big deal.
you can't raise kids in a vacuum. they're going to fall down and get dirty from time to time. they'll be fine as long as you are with them, not ignoring them and teaching them how to get back up.
bpstone
May 26, 2011 at 12:11pm
Sure, that doesn't mean I'm going to let a 7 year-old use the chainsaw/chipper unsupervised or at all. (X_x) Allowing them to use Facebook brings new dangers. I don't think children should be raised in a vacuum either, yet it would be ignorant to let your child to do whatever they feel like if it endangers their safety. A parent should be a parent. Protecting them from serious dangers such as identity theft or pedophiles is just a couple of them. Children gradually learn about the world as they grow up. Throwing them in the lion's den to see who comes out the other side would be a bit much. lol
stige
May 26, 2011 at 6:11pm
You seem confused because your other comment and this reply vacillate between "It's parents responisbility" and OMGWTFBBQSAUCEFBISACHAINSAW. Who said anything about "unsupervised"?
I specifically said that parent's should take responsibility for parenting their child and not rely on gov't regulations to do it for them. This means you are interacting and participating with your child. No one is being thrown in to the lions den. Not alone, at least.
Government regulations can't stop people from sharing stolen software, music, games or drinking booze and smoking the sticky icky. Who really thinks any sort of gov't regulation would be effective against children using FB? If for no other reason than that, I oppose this sort of government behavior. It's all fluff and "feel good lets hug each other" bull shit and very little substance.
It's a flagrant waste of their time. Maybe they should start working on getting a damned budget balanced and passed on time, first. If they can handle that, then maybe spend some spare time on shit like this.
bpstone
May 26, 2011 at 12:16pm
Children don't belong on Facebook under the age of thirteen. They view the world too innocently. Kids aren't dumb, but they aren't adults either and don't know all the dangers out there that could hurt, maim, or kill them. Making their profiles private would not protect their information from hackers. It isn't worth the headace. Kids should be learning social skills and developing friendships with other children. I rarely use Facebook myself plus had my identity stolen off my profile one time.
AndrewEgel
May 26, 2011 at 11:24am
"My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age." -Mark Z.
What possible redeeming education can you get from Facebook? If anything it hinders education, because children will be pre-occupied with facebook at school (It's NOT that hard to implement a block to facebook's web page on routers - hell I can do it on my linksys router). I really don't see facebook as an education, maybe an education into the world of drama and mediocrity.
Neufeldt2002
May 26, 2011 at 10:23am
In my childrens school there are many underage users of facebook. This leads to fighting online and in school. When the teachers hear that I won't allow my children on facebook until they are 14 I get alot of praise. If I had my way, they would not be on facebook at all, however, I believe that at 14 they will be a little wiser in what they share.
maleficarus™
May 26, 2011 at 9:53am
Absolutly not! That is all we need a fresh pool of young kids for pediphiles to stalk and become there friends...
Facebook should be be 16+ never mind 13+...
spoonard
May 26, 2011 at 9:21am
Since Facebook is really just a treasure trove of personal information for data miners i'd say the proper question would be "Should we allow Facebook to use children?"
archimedez
May 26, 2011 at 7:44am
First, I live in Columbine Colorado; my children attended Columbine High School - and I have ALWAYS monitored their internet activities without their knowledge or consent - right up to their 18th birthday.
COPPA regulations exist because RESPONSIBLE PARENTS DEMANDED THESE REGULATIONS to help them protect thier children: from predators, from ill-meaning and/or misguided ex-BFFs; even from the children themselves.
Lastly, Zuckerberg and his associates are targeting youger children to gain access to that revenue stream. Because the typical 10-12 year-old relies entirely on their parents' income for support; they are actually targeting MY WALLET; and assuming that I cannot say "No" to the alligator tears of my pre-teen daughter when she insists on buying whatever they are selling: they are wrong, profoundly wrong.
Zuckerberg's success or failure in this venture is completely IRRELEVANT in light of my Parental Rights
codepath
May 26, 2011 at 7:43am
First off, parents should parent. I am aware of my kids' activities and I am also comfortable with the decision making skills I have fostered in them.
That said, I also know a crap-ton of parents that haven't got the first clue about what allowing a child to use Facebook really means as far as the risks involved. They just don't get it. I hear them say "Oh it's fine. They just love to talk to their little friends on the Facebooks."
So I ask about the security settings they used and they respond with "huh, wha?" That's when I pull out my laptop and show them that in 10 minutes, I can find out the names of every family member, who is likely to not be home at a given time, their friends names, schools, activities, etc (we do a PTA online safety lesson). That's usually when they freak right out.
So laws like this are not meant to parent by proxy. They are meant to protect the children from situations that are changing so rapidly that the average parents can keep up with the dangers associated.
AnglicDemon00
May 26, 2011 at 7:55am
You are correct on that statment and I do agree , but you also must remember that applies to us as well a. The major issue here as you pointed out though is the lack of knowldege of security measures that adults should be taking. Cause as the auther pointed out there are a ton of pre-teens on facebook already, and nothing anyone does will stop that from happening. That includes making a site for 18+, since all they would do is fake their age, proof of this concept is that there are pre-teens who are already visiting porn sites (I have caught my own brother doing so and he is only 12, as well as gotten a few others in trouble when I pointed questionable sites to parents from cleaning machines.)
So the best thing to do is to teach parents how use better security features, like the facebook security features that they have, as well as the computers own security features depending on the OS.
lunchbox73
May 26, 2011 at 7:14am
Although I'm not crazy about making laws to protect people from themselves while parents should be doing it I also think FB should be 18+. Kids saying stupid crap on FB has caused lots of problems over the years.
Marthian
May 26, 2011 at 8:57am
there are social sites for 18+, I am absolutely ok with 13+ years of age or older.
Caboose
May 26, 2011 at 9:26am
If only most parents would actually parent their kids instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.
Brad L
May 26, 2011 at 6:45am
Like the author said, children are already on facebook. What Zuckerberg wants is the ability to market directly to them. I don't trust Zuckerberg and would vote against his recent initiative.
Kaze
May 26, 2011 at 6:34am
Of coooouuuurse children shoulkd be kept off facebook. Facebook is way too powerful and addicting for children to handle, and will have devastating effects on how they act socially and their performance on school, should their access be both official and ubiquitous. The reason Zuckerberg wants kids is that a) the younger you condition them to facebook they will simply be addicted to it for life and b) expansion of the ads. Moar money!
If I had my way, facebook would have been an 18+ thing a long time ago.
stige
May 26, 2011 at 11:53am
addictive behaviour in kids starts with the parents fostering it, either through neglect or idiocy.
i kindly suggest parents who feel their kid has an addictive / compulsive problem try telling them "No" and sticking to it. otherwise the parent is enabling them.
legislation and rules will never make up for or be able to replace a parent actually interacting with their child, setting boundaries and teaching them how to make choices.
