Slashdot Mirror


Over 7.5 Million Facebook Users Are Under 13

liqs8143 writes "Of the 20 million minors who actively used Facebook in the past year, 7.5 million of them were younger than 13, according to projections from Consumer Reports' latest State of the Net survey. Facebook's terms of service require users to be at least 13 years old. Also among this group of minors using Facebook, more than 5 million were 10 and under. Consumer Reports' survey found that their accounts were largely unsupervised by their parents, exposing them to malware or serious threats such as predators or bullies."

194 comments

  1. What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm 12 years old and what is this?

    1. Re:What is this? by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

      Well I wouldn't agree that they don't know what their doing, but I did one time have some girl who stated she was 12 years old try to add me as a friend. I'm old enough to be her father, so needless to say, it was a bit awkward, not withstanding that I didn't even know how she was. Then she states "But i'm a mature 12 years old!"

      Blocked and reported to FB. 10 minutes later her profile is completely gone and her name is no longer searchable.

      I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kind of law enforcement agency, but if you admit your under 13, i'm going to immediately report you.

    2. Re:What is this? by OakDragon · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Slashdot's design, content, and philosophy ensure that no one younger than 12 will be interested. And 99.999% of people older than 12.

    3. Re:What is this? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      if you admit your under 13, i'm going to immediately report you.

      What, for having better grammar than you?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:What is this? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Blocked and reported to FB. 10 minutes later her profile is completely gone and her name is no longer searchable

      That's unbelievably fast. My daughter signed up (twice) before she turned 13, and each time I reported it it took Facebook over a week to delete the account.

    5. Re:What is this? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The problem such as it is, is that while FB is not supposed to be for kids, it operates at the level that a 10 year old would appreciate. So it's almost irresistible for immature people.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Huh by Frogbert · · Score: 2

    There is no way it is that few.

    1. Re:Huh by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      90% of their users just behave like they're still 12.

    2. Re:Huh by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows ... you can lie about your age on Facebook ... and any survey did not actually verify the age of any users ...because they could have lied to the people doing the survey ...

      My age on Facebook at one time was 99 years ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:Huh by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      And the other 10% are FBI agents.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Huh by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      And the rest are all women who claim to be under 28, telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, and FBI agents.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was younger, website registrations often required entering a birthdate that would make you 18/21 years old. I picked a birthdate back then that was old enough to get me in any of those sites, and even though I'm now 29, I still use that fake birthdate everywhere that asks for one.

    6. Re:Huh by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      p>My age on Facebook at one time was 99 years ...

      Did you used to get ads that said, "Girls in your town are looking for guys in their 90's! Click here!" like they do for other age ranges?

    7. Re:Huh by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      I was already 18 by the time I first got on the internet. I only had to lie about my age to get on a BBS. ;-)

      The age checks are a minor annoyance to those over the required age, and ineffective for those that aren't. I have an account on Steam, and despite the fact that I'm logged in and they have my information already and I have confirmed that I'm over 18 dozens of times, I still get prompts to verify my age to look at mature rated games in Steam's store.

      I just select the age drop down box and choose some random year from 20 to 50 years ago... and grumble. Those that are supposed to be too young probably do the exact same thing.

    8. Re:Huh by Creepy · · Score: 1

      yeah - I usually leave the year and month at 1 and set the year to something random - 1920 or so. I don't believe Steam tracks player age, but they could (you need to be 13 there as well, because they collect personal information).

    9. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the time Stickam rooms will be set so that only users under the age of 17 or something can enter them, though.

  3. Not surprising by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Facebook chooses advertising profit (all those users) over actively enforcing their TOS.

    Facebook should be fined for this predatory practice. This is a nasty exploitation of children.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook doesn't put a gun to their head and require them to open accounts.

      I detest Facebook and every dullard who uses that shitty site, but this is hardly FB's fault.

    2. Re:Not surprising by hhedeshian · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know? They've had a opt-out for years now, although there is no link to it, you just kind of have to know how to do it
      http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=i_am_13_and_want_to_be_opted_out_of_exploitation/yes/yes_i_really_want_to/yes_im_sure/yes_i_agree_to_tos/

    3. Re:Not surprising by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because children are culpable for their actions and know from a very early age about all of the dangers of using the internet, giving away personal information, and can accurately assess the risks involved with using social networking services. They also know, from birth, that roads are dangerous places, they shouldn't pick up used needles, and daddy's shotgun doesn't fire blanks.

      children are stupid. The ones under 13 are very, very stupid. I know this because I work in education and have done for almost a decade. If they are unsupervised, they will press every button and click every link which has anything remotely to do with getting what they want, and no EULA will stop them.

      This sits squarely on the parents. Not Facebook, not the children, but mom and dad who are fed up of bringing up their child and just want them to hit 18 ASAP. I'm not saying they should shoulder-surf 24/7 and only let them play Happy Fun Playground with Ponies and Sprinkles games, but actually taking the time to become involved in their internet use, or encouraging them in talking about the cool things they've learned or found, would be a start.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Not surprising by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      it is not facebooks' responsibility to keep it 'safe' for children in the same way it is not the state's responsibility to keep interstate roads safe for kids.. it's the job of the parents to keep kids away from the interstate unless properly restrained in a vehicle..even then there are no guarantees..

    5. Re:Not surprising by xaxa · · Score: 1

      children are stupid. The ones under 13 are very, very stupid. I know this because I work in education and have done for almost a decade.

      Nice generalisation there.

      Facebook, and many other social network sites, ignore children. Wouldn't it be far better to officially allow access to the site for people of any age, but set a much more restrictive default set of privacy settings for those under 13? I think they already do this for anyone age 13-17.

    6. Re:Not surprising by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Facebook, and many other social network sites, ignore children.

      Because if they explicitly cater to them, they'd have to create kid safe content, supervise all interactions, certify everyone's age, and at the same time not be able to exploit them in the same way as users assumed to be adults. Much easier just to let the kids lie and then treat them as adults.

    7. Re:Not surprising by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Nice generalisation there.

      Generalisations, like rumours, often have some small truth to them. I could count on my two hands (and name) the kids who I know had Facebook accounts and knew the risks, yet I know from checking the proxy logs how many tried to access Facebook from the school. It was easily in the top 5 sites students attempted to visit.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Not surprising by frozentier · · Score: 1

      Facebook should be fined for this predatory practice. This is a nasty exploitation of children.

      It's not facebook's fault, it's the parents'.

    9. Re:Not surprising by Arch_Android · · Score: 1

      Just adding in, that while yes, most children are stupid, their are many out there that are much more mature than most adults.

    10. Re:Not surprising by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they should shoulder-surf 24/7 and only let them play Happy Fun Playground with Ponies and Sprinkles games

      Those are one of the worst kinds of parents.

    11. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I wish this logic and reasoning was echoed in the SCAG meetings to give Australia an 18+ rating.

    12. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone who uses Facebook is a dullard. If you're under 30, depending on your circle of friends, it can be nearly impossible to get a girlfriend or get invited to parties if you're not on Facebook.

      Of course, neither of those are problems for most slashdot users...

    13. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but people (even parents of children) love to blame everyone else for their own problems. We are in an age where taking blame for things almost never happens. Parents blame the schools for their children failing, they blame the music industry for their children getting a hold of explicit material (a cd with every other word as the "F" word or whatever), Parents blame movies for having sex and violence, Parents blame the streets for their children's ability to obtain drugs.

      thing is, Everything starts in the home. If the parents don't take charge and monitor what happens to their children, they are equally if not more at fault than these sources of media. Facebook is just another tool to connect to others. I enjoyed the day when it was just college students. You had to prove you went to a college to get an account.

      I have sense graduated, and would have wanted to keep the account, so I am glad they opened it up, but not this far. IF FB actually made it "More Locked Down", how would they do so? Provide them with a scanned copy of your Birth Certificate? Go back to College Email Requirements?

    14. Re:Not surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      mom and dad who are fed up of bringing up their child and just want them to hit 18 ASAP.

      I'd say that covers approximately 99% of parents I know, the other 1% being baby fetishist contol freaks.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Not surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you're under 30, depending on your circle of friends, it can be nearly impossible to get a girlfriend or get invited to parties if you're not on Facebook.

      I can now feel good about being old. That sounds like some sort of 1950s US teen B-move/Brave New World nightmare.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:Not surprising by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Ask me how I know you are under 25, or dating someone under 25...

    17. Re:Not surprising by story645 · · Score: 1

      The 13 limit has to do with COPPA, so even if Facebook wanted to allow under 13s it can't legally without the guardian's permission.

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    18. Re:Not surprising by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Some truth or not, I don't think you should be saying it in a way that sounds like a universal truth. Doing that, I could claim that every single human is an imbecile. It really depends on the individual, and you likely have to assess the individual for you to know if your generalization is true.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:Not surprising by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The 13 limit has to do with COPPA, so even if Facebook wanted to allow under 13s it can't legally without the guardian's permission.

      Other websites manage, it's up to Facebook to do the right thing.

    20. Re:Not surprising by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, because there's so little difference between someone in their early 20s and someone who hasn't even reached puberty yet...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    21. Re:Not surprising by cavebison · · Score: 1

      I work in IT and I'd recommend not letting any child under say 13 use the internet *at all*, nevermind FB. The internet is basically an adult zone, not a child's toy.

      Yes, it's educational, and I'm all for exposing kids to technology and big ideas and playgrounds where they might god forbid actually get a grazed knee.

      The web is vast and cool, but the sites kids would gravitate towards would be full of assholes, idiots, predators and .. well, other stupid kids. Kids do need to be protected from each other, probably more than anything else.

      I believe there's value in letting a child grow up being able to generally TRUST their environment, and interactions with others. The internet is essentially a no-trust zone. So unless a parent IS going to shoulder-surf, you'd be better off giving them the cable remote than free reign on the web.

      The child has to be old enough to be able to discern, for themselves, between positive sites and social connections, and negative ones. Even a lot of adults have trouble with that.

      So in my minds, the risks are to great at the moment. Not until they work out some way of being able to offer children's content as securely as a locked TV remote, where if they don't know the PIN, there's no way in hell they can get onto the pron channel, or all the brain-numbing crap out there that adults can generally view with a sense of perspective.

    22. Re:Not surprising by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's Facebook's fault. They know about it yet they do nothing to stop it.

      They are actively refusing to enforce their own ToS. By doing so, they rake in more advertising money.

      The children are simply being exploited for advertising money.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Not surprising by Khyber · · Score: 1

      DMV-verifiable license/ID numbers.

      It's TRIVIAL to implement. It gets used on a site I frequent quite often. ZERO children.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    24. Re:Not surprising by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Like hell. I'm not giving my DL number to Facebook.

    25. Re:Not surprising by Khyber · · Score: 1

      In several states you have to give it up to even get into a bar.

      What makes you think this won't become the norm in the future?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  4. 1/3 by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    So a full third of Facebook's viewers are 13 or under. That is actually kind of a shocking statistic. I am sure glad I am not one of those new investors they recently took on. This is going to by a buy high sell low event for most of them is my guess. Facebook is following the pattern of MySpace and is about out of steam is my guess.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:1/3 by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      1/30. The numbers are all for minors. There are, what , 200m+ users of fb?

    2. Re:1/3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a third of minors. It's a much smaller percentage of total traffic and ads for the under 18 crowd aren't that valuable as they have no disposable income of worth.

    3. Re:1/3 by crank-a-doodle · · Score: 1

      1/30. The numbers are all for minors. There are, what , 200m+ users of fb?

      it is 20 m not 200m!

    4. Re:1/3 by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Oh never mind I misread the first time the 20million number is just minors, not the total population. Still this could be a legal mess.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:1/3 by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So a full third of Facebook's viewers are 13 or under. "

      Tell them Granny is there too, so there's no way this is cool.

    6. Re:1/3 by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The toy industry disagrees.

    7. Re:1/3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
      500m users

    8. Re:1/3 by Pikkebaas · · Score: 1

      There sure is a lot of guessing going on there... very insightful.

    9. Re:1/3 by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Useless, as Granny (and Mommy, and Auntie, and all the other women of FB) will still share all kinds of photos and details about the young children in their lives anyway.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    10. Re:1/3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god I hope facebook is dying, but I doubt it highly.

  5. TOS are stupid by louic · · Score: 1

    That just indicates the terms of service need to be changed. There is nothing wrong with young children using a website. Does 4chan have terms of service?

    1. Re:TOS are stupid by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Actually 4chan, of all things, does have clearly defined rules about that. This is why the expression "underage b&" exists.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:TOS are stupid by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Here in the Unitied States anyway we have laws that limit the personal information you can collect on children under 13 online. Facebook is all about collecting personal information, so this could be a big problem. I am not sure everyone understands what the law says on this issue either, for a while weather.com was asking if you were under 13 before they let you enter your zip code, which they obviously used to determine what forecast to show (and possibly target ads). They were not even asking for a first name along side that code.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:TOS are stupid by tudsworth · · Score: 1

      Kinda. The rules state nobody under 18 can browse 4chan, not that this is much of a deterrent for any actual underage users - the sensible ones just don't outright state their age.

      Kind of like what they did on Myspace a few years back; and what kids do on facebook now. Then again, this is to be expected - most age-verification attempts online are quite pathetic in the grand scheme of things and can be subverted by any idiot.

    4. Re:TOS are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most age-verification attempts online are quite pathetic in the grand scheme of things and can be subverted by any idiot.

      Most age-verification attempts online are there to prove that website owner does something to keep the kiddies out.
      FTFY

    5. Re:TOS are stupid by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It's not meant to be difficult to subvert. It's Cover Your Ass technology. They asked, they were lied to, they're not culpable.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:TOS are stupid by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Facebook doesn't actually want to stop under-13s using their site. They just don't want to be held liable if they do. If a user lies to get access to the site, that puts the liability back on them, rather than on facebook.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:TOS are stupid by tudsworth · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I should probably have pointed that out in my comment. Still amuses me greatly that it's newsworthy when people *gasp* lie on the internet.

    8. Re:TOS are stupid by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      It's just a shame that in the US, like here in the UK, they don't have laws banning irresponsible people from having kids - this all comes down to lack of parental supervision, nothing more.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    9. Re:TOS are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bulletproof. No way around that.

    10. Re:TOS are stupid by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      No thats not a shame at all. Here in the US we still have most of our freedoms. On the island where Great Britain used to be, you have a nanny state.

    11. Re:TOS are stupid by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with young children using a website. Does 4chan have terms of service?

      I hope you're joking.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:TOS are stupid by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      No-one forces anyone to use a nanny that's provided for them.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  6. Bullies? by MBraynard · · Score: 0

    OHHH NOOOEEESSS

    1. Re:Bullies? by White+Flame · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Serious threats"! :rolleyes:

      This is just plain part of the discovery of what works & what doesn't work socially that people have to go through in order to grow up. And I say "people", not "children", as many adult-aged people still haven't shown any signs of social maturity. :-P

    2. Re:Bullies? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "Serious threats"! :rolleyes:

      This is just plain part of the discovery of what works & what doesn't work socially that people have to go through in order to grow up. And I say "people", not "children", as many adult-aged people still haven't shown any signs of social maturity. :-P

      Yup, there's nothing that can go wrong with children have unlimited access to the internet. After all, they're only using it to download Linux ISOs right?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Bullies? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Cat's out of the bag. Pandora's box has been opened.

      You think you can limit your child's access to the internet? They'll get around anything you set up, anything your school sets up, or just go over to their friend's house where they've already gotten around it or weren't restricted in the first place.

      Kids are vehement explorers, and if there's a place to explore they will do so. The only way to prevent them from doing so is to get their interests legitimately focused on exploring something else. (or drug/brainwash them)

  7. more hysterics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The human desire for communication is not a pathology or an automatic problem. Why is this

    1. Re:more hysterics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because it's new and kids do it. Ask Aristotle he had something to say on how the youth was less boisterous in his day as well (can't find the quote)

  8. I read "Slashdot users"... by lundstrj · · Score: 1

    ..and thought "Huh, well, that explains it I guess".

  9. Cyber-bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'That bully, Burt poked me! waaaa....'

  10. Yea, so? by AnonymmousCoward · · Score: 1

    What's your point? It's the internet...anything goes

  11. Under 13? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they were _all_ under 13, at least mentally.

  12. yer, right by pbjones · · Score: 1

    how many are actually under 13? I mean really.... Who puts in their correct age?

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  13. What's the problem? by richy+freeway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem here isn't Facebook, it's bad parenting. We let our 8 and 9 year old use Facebook. The computer is in the living room where we can see what they're doing, we vet all their friends and generally keep an eye on things. They're not stupid, if they don't know someone who requests their friendship, they block them straight away without us having to intervene. They thoroughly enjoy playing a lot of the games on there and why shouldn't they?

    Facebook isn't inherently evil and something that we should keep kids away from. They've got just as much chance getting nonced up on one of the kiddy branded sites like Mushi Monsters or Panfu. Funnily enough, they haven't been.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Bad parenting.

      13 is there as a legal requirement to cover what they want to do with gathered/stored/sold data.

      Use your brain. Just because it's physically possible for a child to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre (they mainly have eyes), doesn't mean it's right for a number of reasons. This is the same.

      captcha: irritate - hahahaah

    2. Re:What's the problem? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The problem here isn't Facebook, it's bad parenting. We let our 8 and 9 year old use Facebook

      It's good to get them breaking rules at a young age, well done, I bet they're really popular at school when they tell their fascist teachers to fuck off and stop oppressing them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:What's the problem? by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      I dunno how it works for your family, but we don't let websites make the rules in our house.

    4. Re:What's the problem? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      +1 Welcome to the real world

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    5. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is a problem. It doesn't have anything to do with being a child. It has to do with privacy and the lack of respect in regards to it the company has had. Unsurprisingly it wouldn't be such a problem in an open environment.

    6. Re:What's the problem? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Facebook isn't inherently evil and something that we should keep kids away from. They've got just as much chance getting nonced up on one of the kiddy branded sites like Mushi Monsters or Panfu. Funnily enough, they haven't been.

      Facebook is no bigger an issue for a properly parented 8 year old than it is for an adult, sure... the problem is, it's a big privacy issue for everyone, and most people aren't aware of this.

      Think of it this way... you start on Facebook at the age of 8... that means your online profiling starts at age 8. Anything your kid's Facebook friends say about them is recorded in perpetuity, including where they go, what they like, who they hang out with, what games they like to play, who their parents are, where they live, etc.

      THIS is where the issue is; it doesn't really have to do with predatory "friends" at all -- it has to do with forward-looking privacy.

      Think of Facebook as being the equivalent of a personal diary, but stored in a public locker somewhere with a big "Personal diary of so-and-so inside" sign posted on it... also listing an abstract of all the other people mentioned inside it. Sure, only certain people are currently authorized to open the locker. But the information is out there, and largely unsupervised, no matter how well supervised your children are.

    7. Re:What's the problem? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      So you're putting yourself out there as a bad parent?

      FB at it's very best is an utter waste of time. And I guess you are getting the little urchins well on their way to a life of ignoring the rules if they feel like it.

      Then again, you and your attitude is sort of my general impression of FB users.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:What's the problem? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Sigh, way to amp it up there, richy.

      Do you not allow the legal system to make the rules in your house either?

      Do you not care if your blatant disregard for rules gets other people in trouble?

      I'm not so sure that you are mature enough to direct children's internet activities.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:What's the problem? by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      You got me, I'm a bad parent for letting my kids play computer games. They're both scum of the earth children who already have criminal records and exclusions from multiple schools.

      Or do we responsibly allow our kids to play a sensible amount of games with their friends and family on facebook.

      Ignoring rules. The rules are only in place to cover their asses. I don't really see what your point is.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Whoa, richy! My kid played video games from when he was 3 years old. This isn't about that.

      It isn't an either-or matter. People can play games without being on FB or social media sites.

      And since they have a minimum age requirement, it should be respected.

      Say you shoulder surf every moment. Okay, are all parents going to do that? The answer is obviously no. So now you have kids and partially mature post-pubescents on a social website, interacting with adults in a way that can be trouble for those adults. And that's the issue AFAIAC. I think Facebook is a collosal waste of time, but if the make money off it, good for them. But they are at great risk. Underage peeps are just trouble waiting to happen when mixing with adults in such an unsupervised setting. Some adults are evil. Some kids are precocious. Some kids somehow end up with their parent's credit cards.

      So while you might think it's all just good, because you don't see any problem, it is still a problem for other people. It's like adult communities. Many adults frankly don't want to be around kids after they've raised their own. And I understand that. Many children are well behaved and wonderful to be around. Too many though are undisciplined little brats with parents who think that every evil act they do is just the cutest thing. We had friends who we stopped inviting over because their kid would wreck the house. One visit, he picked up and dumped the cat's water dish, food dish, unplugged the TV, broke some pottery, and their reaction was "now now, you shouldn't do that."

      And no, I'm not accusing you of doing that - just illustrating that some kids are undisciplined and have parent's that won't correct their lack of discipline, and that is a big part of the reason why places like FB have the rules they have.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  14. Online bullies != playground bullies by leereyno · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Malware is a problem, as are sexual predators. Bullies on the other hand, can be found on any playground. Online bullies have words as their weapons, whereas the offline version use their fists. To pretend that the online variety are a special threat is ridiculous. If junior can't handle someone saying mean things about him online then he'll always be a momma's boy.

    That being said, I think it is a good thing that younger people are choosing to immerse themselves in Facebook and other forms of social media.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've never seen online bullies who go into extraordinary lengths to crack (maybe brute force) someone's passwords in order take over their accounts or to steal their identities to harm their reputations, or spam their web spaces with insults so that it scares away all of the victims' visitors and associates.

    2. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure malware is a unique problem for this age group. If anything, a typical kid probably is more savvy than a typical parent of that kid, so greater parental supervision isn't necessaril.

    3. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by Grismar · · Score: 2

      Your comment is so out of touch with reality that it has me wondering if I'm feeding a troll here. Clearly you've never seen online bullying in progress at its worst. And as far as bullies on the playground go: if you think the main problem of getting bullied is the risk of physical harm, you're clearly in the dark about what bullying really is about.

      The Wikipedia lemma has it right where it says "Bullying is abusive treatment [...] involving an imbalance in power. [...] The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power." Social power, social media, get where the bullying might come in?

    4. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      That being said, I think it is a good thing that younger people are choosing to immerse themselves in Facebook and other forms of social media.

      I don't think so. They're not old enough to use it with even a shred of responsibility. As the article notes, most of those kids are even unsupervised.

    5. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by phulegart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with the fact that they are not equal... but not for the reasons you say they are not equal. For every playground bully, there are maybe 100 online bullies. If you have EVER spent time on a online forum, you would know this. Oh, I know that slashdot is SIMILAR to a forum in how it is set up, but there are far fewer bullies and trolls here than compared to a place like Yahoo Answers, or any gaming forum. Yes, I'm sure you could respond with some clever remark about how I must not be aware of the bullies and trolls here... but that would just be ignorant on your part.

      You say "if junior can't handle someone saying mean things about him online then he'll always be a momma's boy." so... you imply that people shouldn't allow words to hurt them, and in the same sentence you choose to use an offensive phrase to insult and offend people. That's no different than saying if a bully isn't stood up to, then the kid he is bullying deserved the beat-down. I mean, if the kid can't defend himself, he should learn how to fight... right? You do realize that it is far easier to physically lash out at an issue, then mentally process it properly... right? Not to pick on people with disabilities, or really small children, but we can use their experiences as an example. Looking at very small children... before they learn to speak properly, they learn to hit. Something scares them, angers them... they don't process it, they lash out. Look at retarded individuals or autistic individuals. Violence is often a reaction that must be dealt because that is a FAR easier way to deal with what they are feeling. So, it is harder for Junior to deal with someone saying mean things than it is for Junior to deal with someone hitting him. Junior would much rather have a black eye than have the stigma of being a "momma's boy" follow him throughout his school career. Again, if you don't realize that, you are lacking the knowledge of how things are... and by definition that is ignorant.

      You aren't upset when I point out how ignorant you are about these things, are you? It doesn't bother you... does it?

      Now, add to that the fact that there is a separation of the individual from the incident, that occurs when there is a case of cyber-bullying... and it is FAR easier for an every day common Joe who would NEVER be a bully in real life to become a bully online. In fact, there are quite a number of people who would actually be VICTIMS of real life bullying that take up cyber-bullying as a way to overcompensate. When people can't see your face, and you can't see theirs... it makes it FAR easier to say things that would sting and stick with someone. When you can post something for the WORLD to read, and then pass that around to all of someone's friends.. that has a lasting impact. Are you that ignorant of how actions on the internet are costing some people their jobs? Do you really think that what happens here on the internet (and gets cached by Google) doesn't have an impact?

      "To pretend that the online variety are a special threat is ridiculous." WAKE UP! How many kids have committed suicide because of a playground bully? Now, how many kids have committed suicide because of an ONLINE bully? When you were in Jr. High school... if someone started passing around photographs of you having homosexual relations... or relations with a person 50 years your Sr... how would that have made you feel? What if there was NOTHING you could do from EVERYONE at the school seeing those photos? It doesn't matter if those photos were faked. Ok. Don't like photos? What if all of a sudden a notebook appeared, and it looked just like yours, and inside there were all these horrible things written about your friends, and your teachers... and that notebook got passed around and shown to everyone? What if it LOOKED like it was from you... I mean, it LOOKED like it was your handwriting, even to you? This is no different than a cyber bully setting up a fake facebook page (as has already been done) and making it look like

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    6. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by Rennt · · Score: 2

      Yes, bullies are easy to dismiss aren't they? Certainly children have never been driven to self-harm because of systematic emotional abuse. Well, except for a few momma's boys and girls of course, but who cares about them?

    7. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

      > You think it is a good thing that younger people are teaching themselves not to obey the rules, and come to the conclusion that it is OK to break the rules because you won't get caught?

      If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules. If you obey rules because they are 'the rules' (and not because, for example, they make sense to you), that's your problem.

      > You don't think they are learning that lesson by ignoring the age restrictions?

      Such as this one.

      > You think it is a good idea that kids are spending more and more time on Facebook at school, rather than doing their work?

      Who's talking about school? The ability of kids at school to use any kind of distracting devices, including web browsers, should be controlled of course, but that's got nothing to do with Facebook.

      To be clear, I think that Facebook is a steaming pile of shit, but your arguments just don't stack up. And frankly, your whole post is one long 'that's just how things are, and if you disagree, you're ignorant' - well and the same to you, buddy.

    8. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think it is a good thing that younger people are choosing to immerse themselves in Facebook and other forms of social media.

      Yeah, it's not like there's anything else for them to do that might require them to use their imagination or intellect instead.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure malware is a unique problem for this age group. If anything, a typical kid probably is more savvy than a typical parent of that kid, so greater parental supervision isn't necessaril.

      Bullshit, all the malware problems I have ever had have come from giving children access to the internet. It is a myth that kids are somehow magically more tech savvy than their parents just because, er, they're young and they have computers at school unlike when I was young.

      Kids really, really really don't give a shit about breaking stuff (their own or other people's). Everyone seem to forget this as they grow up, until they get their own kids and the cycle starts again.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules. If you obey rules because they are 'the rules' (and not because, for example, they make sense to you), that's your problem.

      Doing or not doing something solely on the basis of whether you'll get caught simply makes you a sociopath

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      He didn't say "solely on the basis of whether [he'd] get caught", he said "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules".

      IOW he has at least two criteria for ignoring rules: (1) he's reasonably sure of not getting caught and (2) they are stupid rules.

      Debate all you want on whether this rule or that rule is stupid or not, but breaking rules that one considers "stupid" is sometimes a moral obligation. See: Rosa Parks.

    12. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of FUD for one post.

      The fact is there is no reason anyone should be bother by people's words or gossip. A good parent will train their children to not be affected emotionally by teasing or gossip directed towards them. Teaching kids that words do hurt and they need to be excessively sensitive creates the situation where they can be emotionally bullied in the first place.

      As far as the internet goes, to a child there isn't really any difference between the world and the school. The world knowing is equivalent to everyone at school knowing. There isn't any more potential to affect them than there always has been.

    13. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Rosa Parks defied the rules that were keeping persons of her color from using PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

      Facebook is not public transportation. Not literally, and not for the sake of the comparison you are making.

      If you are reasonably sure you won't get caught, and you ignore the rules... then you are NOT attempting to change the rules for the better and you have no interest in improving the situation for anyone other than yourself. You are simply attempting to circumvent the rules and get away with something you know you are not supposed to do. If you are going to use Rosa Parks as an example, you ARE sure you WILL get caught, you do not CARE if you get caught, and you ignore the rules anyway.

      If these kids all agree that Facebook should be open to children younger than 13, then they should be attempting to change the rule... not lie about their age and circumvent the rule. Where does it stop though? 11? What about all the 10 year old kids that want to get online, and think that it is stupid to have the 11 year old age restriction? More importantly, most kids under 12 think a TON of things are stupid that really aren't. There are a great number of them who may think that a drinking age is stupid... does that mean they should be allowed to drink alcohol... just because they think it is stupid? Am I comparing using Facebook to drinking alcohol? No. I'm comparing one rule that young kids may think is stupid to another rule that young kids may think is stupid.... and pointing out how the argument that a 12 year old doesn't have the experience and capabilities of properly deciding what really *IS* stupid. 12 year old kids haven't developed enough to properly make decisions based on moral obligations. Ok, some may... but not 7.5 million.

      So again, using the Rosa Parks card here is irresponsible. Sure... she was tired, and she wanted somewhere to sit. She wasn't a 12 year old. Heck, she'd probably agree that 12 year old kids shouldn't be on Facebook. I doubt seriously she was opposed to ALL rules, and I don't think she would advocate anarchy.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    14. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to claim that Rosa Parks would not have broken that rule if she'd known she could get away with it?

    15. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about school? You think these kids 7.5 million kids are only on Facebook at home? They are on Facebook on their phones. They are on Yahoo Answers looking for Proxy Servers so they can get on Facebook at school. So, assuming that they are NOT on Facebook at school really is just burying your head in the sand.

      My post was a series of points about how words DO have impact... and you are proving that by getting upset. My post was written to have an effect... and it did.

      Before someone can decide that the rules are stupid, they need to follow them and find out for themselves. Then, if they still feel the rules are stupid, then they should go about changing them. Attempting to circumvent the rules without getting caught is not about standing up for what you believe in. Facebook is not some government organization that is the ONLY way to communicate with the outside world. It is a website. You have a choice. Follow the rules, or don't use the site. What about the people who feel it's stupid to not be allowed to hack other facebook pages... should they be allowed to do it because they think the rule is stupid? Should they be allowed to do it because they can do it while thinking they won't get caught? I'm not saying they are going to hack into someone's computer and steal bank account information... then again.... what if I thought the law was stupid that I'm not supposed to hack into your home computer and steal your bank account information? What if I wanted to make charitable donations to organizations that would feed the homeless, using your money? Because I think it's stupid that I'm not allowed to do that, I should still be allowed to do it because I think I can get away with it?

      Sure, you might see a huge difference between using Facebook when someone is underage, and hacking into computers... but the principle is the same. You say that if someone thinks they won't get caught, it's OK to ignore the rules. Who decides WHAT rules that principle applies to? Wouldn't that ALSO be a rule... a rule that says what rules can be ignored and what rules can't?

      My post is one long "Yes, open your eyes and see how things are. If you haven't seen yet, you should. You don't know yet, but you can if you let yourself.... and ignorance is simply not knowing." There is nothing negative about ignorance... except the misconception that it is an insult.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    16. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by phulegart · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that she took that seat because she was tired of giving in, and she wanted the attention. IE, she intended to get caught. I'm saying that using Rosa Parks to reinforce the argument "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules" is incorrect, because she WAS looking to get caught, so she could speak out.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    17. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      No, you're saying one of two things:

      It's perfectly OK to ignore stupid rules.
      It's only OK to ignore stupid rules if you're intentionally trying to get caught.

      Which is it?

    18. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Wow. Did this get twisted around.

      *I* originally said "You think it is a good thing that younger people are teaching themselves not to obey the rules, and come to the conclusion that it is OK to break the rules because you won't get caught?"
      ZmeiGorynych said "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules."
      You said "Debate all you want on whether this rule or that rule is stupid or not, but breaking rules that one considers "stupid" is sometimes a moral obligation. See: Rosa Parks."

      To which I replied that using Rosa Parks for an analogy was incorrect... as she was protesting, and she INTENDED to get caught. A protest doesn't do much good if no one notices. Thus, the Rosa parks card was played incorrectly.

      *I* do not encourage people to ignore stupid rules. *I* do not believe it is perfectly OK to ignore stupid Rules. *I* made that abundantly clear by arguing that kids under 13 shouldn't be using Facebook... but *I* came into this discussion to straighten someone out who thought that using words to invoke feelings was no big deal, as that person posted about how Cyber Bullies were no big deal compared to Real playground bullies.

      As to whether or not it is OK to ignore stupid rules if you are intentionally trying to get caught... if you are attempting to protest something, and you believe that what you are protesting against is wrong, and you must break rules to do so, then yes... it would be OK to break those rules if you were TRYING to get caught, get noticed, and have your protest recognized. Facebook Users under the age of 13 are NOT trying to get caught, and they are NOT signing up for their accounts to protest the rule they believe is stupid. They are learning that rules in general don't mean anything if their immediate whims conflict with those rules, since they can break rules and suffer no consequences.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    19. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      To which I replied that using Rosa Parks for an analogy was incorrect... as she was protesting, and she INTENDED to get caught. A protest doesn't do much good if no one notices.

      As to whether or not it is OK to ignore stupid rules if you are intentionally trying to get caught... if you are attempting to protest something, and you believe that what you are protesting against is wrong, and you must break rules to do so, then yes... it would be OK to break those rules if you were TRYING to get caught, get noticed, and have your protest recognized.

      So you are saying that she wouldn't have disobeyed the rule if she could have gotten away with it.

      Maybe you want to be a canary, but sometimes that ends badly for the canary. If there is widespread disobedience to a stupid rule, it doesn't matter if they can't catch anyone; your protest was more effective than if a few people had made targets of themselves. Making yourself a target only works if the majority will feel sympathetic to your cause and if that majority is actually able to do anything about changing the stupid rules or preventing you from being punished.

    20. Re:Online bullies != playground bullies by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Oh wow, you must not fix mugged up computers. My biggest chore is fixing up what the young'uns mess up.

      Typical is a case where I went over to a place where the guy's 14 y.o. daughter's laptop wasn't working. It was bitched up with almost 200 instances of lop. They were all calling home at the same time, and it brought the thing to a halt. she was heavily into the cute little animated emoticons and wallpaper. I went through the history and picked out the sites she should avoid, and gave the list to them. Then I asked if she'd used any other computers in the house. Turns out after hosing the laptop, she went to her father's desktop and was well on the way to messing that one up too. After cleaning it up, I had him install a password (duh).

      But in true teenager fashion, she ignored all the admonitions and in a couple weeks the thing was hosed again. I tried a hostfile with not much success, it was her goal to work around all the restrictions the evil adults were putting on her computer use. After that time, I told them there wasn't much to be done. I guess she got some geek friend at school to work on it after that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  15. What disgusts me even more by dust11 · · Score: 0

    One of the stupider things I've seen in the past, was when an old girlfriend's parents actually created a facebook account for her 6 year old sister, then let her run free with it, complete with fully tagged photo albums, check-in locations, status updates and favourite pages (much of this information was provided indirectly by the parents through tagging).

    I find it hugely concerning when a pair of adults (both of whom are middle-aged) decide to completely ignore the terms of service so they can list their both of their daughters on their profiles. This is probably the case with many young children who don't have the technical knowledge to sign up for an email account, then use the email account to open a facebook account.

    Sure, it doesn't seem like facebook have gone to exceptional lengths to enforce their own ToS, but you can't say they're completely at fault.

    1. Re:What disgusts me even more by HJED · · Score: 1

      And why is this stupid (apart from ignoring the TOS which most people are not even aware of)?
      Isn't it better for kids to learn how to use Facebook under parental supervision, then out of it? Same arguments as with parents allowing there kids to drink at home in small quantities, apart from Facebook use has far less negative consequences then alcohol. In the Western world kids probably have an equal chance of using Facebook and drinking alcohol when they grow up, anyway.
      Also it seems that the parents in your example are using Facebook, how it is designed to be used: to share photos, etc and keep in touch with family and friends. Personally I'm surprised Facebook hasn't created a child account with parental controls yet.

      --
      null
    2. Re:What disgusts me even more by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Isn't it better for kids to learn how to use Facebook under parental supervision, then out of it?

      No, for the same reason that society doesn't encourage parents to take illegal drugs and watch porn in front of (or with) their children.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:What disgusts me even more by HJED · · Score: 1

      Those examples are very different. Most likely kids will never take illegal drugs and porn is taboo in our society. However it is very likely that kids will one day use Facebook or something similar.

      --
      null
  16. Do NOT friend 13-year olds on facebook, by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    ... no matter how much they pester you for it. Because a 13-year old typically doesn't know that visitor information is not exposed in the facebook API. (Neither does the typical adult, unfortunately) So, when an app promises to give it to her, she may believe it when she is told [random dude chosen by the app] visits her profile ten times every day. That is bad for an adult, whose friends suddenly thinks he's an obsessive, creepy stalker - but if the app-clicker is underage, those people may think you're a pedophile as well.

    It happened to a journalist whose blog I read, I've experienced similar things myself (though not quite that bad).

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    1. Re:Do NOT friend 13-year olds on facebook, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. Really, just wanted. I friended several of my daughter's 13 year old friends when I was a facebook newbie and figure I might have some explaining to do at some point.

    2. Re:Do NOT friend 13-year olds on facebook, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have twice read what you've written and still can't understand what you're trying to say.

    3. Re:Do NOT friend 13-year olds on facebook, by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      What AC is trying to say is actually pretty simple.

      You know all those apps that claim to show you the "top 10" stalkers/admirers/whatever? Well, they can't actually determine who's visiting your profile... actually they just pull names and numbers out of a hat.

      But most people are too dumb/ignorant to realize this, so they'll think it's actually true when it says you're the "#1 stalker" on some 13-year-old girl's profile. Enjoy explaining yourself to someone who's too dumb to understand the concept of random selection.

  17. lies, damn lies and statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FB says there are 500M active users per day and CR says that there are 7.5M under 13yos on FB so this makes 1.5% of total users are breaking the TOS and probably making FB breaking the law many times every second. figures are very rubbery

  18. So... by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Funny

    the internet: where the men are men, the women are men, and Over 7.5 Million Facebook Users Are FBI agents.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I came here for this reference.

      Will not leave disappointed.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the invite from my friends cat was actually a cat right?

    3. Re:So... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Current FaceBook demographics:
      • 7.5 million under-13s
      • 50 million DoD-controlled bots
      • 100 million marketroids
      • 50 million sockpuppet accounts for people with no real friends to pretend that they're popular
      • 250 million abandoned accounts
      • 40 million people wondering why AOL / Geocities / MySpace looks so different these days
      • 2.5 million - everyone else
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:So... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      But the invite from my friends cat was actually a cat right?

      What do you call a kitten in a dishwasher?
      Hot wet young pussy.

      Thanks, and don't forget to tip your waitress. I'm here all week.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  19. How do they know? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Consumer Reports has such a sophisticated method to accurately determine the age millions of of Facebook users, why don't they share their method with Facebook so they can improve their policy enforcement?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:How do they know? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      A simple survey, followed by extrapolation.

    2. Re:How do they know? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > why don't they share their method with Facebook

      I would guess that Facebook do not really care about the real age of their users: the limit is more for legislators/concerned parents/PR.

    3. Re:How do they know? by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      Look at who they list as parents' age and subtract the average age of pregnancy based on their location.

      It's not perfect, because a lot of girls (over 13 into their 20s) list their friends as parents for whatever reason, (seen kids of friends do that as well as changing last names, etc) but for the ones that do that, you also get a fair portion of ones who don't list parents.... so drop all of both and you can still say "over x amount" since that would include any results you dropped since you are saying higher than this number.

    4. Re:How do they know? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Yes, in particular due to COPPA.

  20. Think of the children - Lets ban Faceboook now! by Liambp · · Score: 2

    I know I may have sneered at "Think of the Children Arguments" in the past but I loathe Facebook and all it stands for so I am ready to compromise my principles in order to help ferment an unstoppable outpouring of public outrage against it.

  21. Approved by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Glen Quagmire approves this post! Giggity giggity goo! Heh heh, alright!

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  22. Yet another idiotic /. article. by theNAM666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Consumer Reports' survey found that their accounts were largely unsupervised by their parents, exposing them to malware or serious threats such as predators or bullies."

    Oh my nursing Athena. Is this what Slashdot has some to? Really? This is the quality of stories we get? "Exposing them to" -- gasp-- "malware or" -- gasp -- "serious threats such as predators" -- gasp-- "or bullies."

    Give me a break. Where did the submitter grow up, in a test tube? With eighteen parents and doctors watching every move?

    Someone please post the submitters' physical address. Please. I'd like to deliver a Darwin award invitation. Before s/he manages to escape parental supervision, stub a toe, and die from an infection of the hangnail.

    1. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by Nukedoom · · Score: 1

      While the article did exaggerate a bit, I think they make some valid points. In particular, it doesn't seem like the best idea in the world to let children post, talk and say things in a place where there's going to be an archive of it. Children aren't the most responsible people. Hell, some people have grown up and still don't belong on the internet.

    2. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      While the article did exaggerate a bit, I think they make some valid points. In particular, it doesn't seem like the best idea in the world to let parentally unsupervised children post, talk and say things in a place where there's going to be an archive of it. Children aren't the most responsible people. Hell, some people have grown up and still don't belong on the internet.

      There, corrected that for you.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting a typical 13 year old has enough of a grasp of their faculties to avoid these dangers?

      Sure, a significant percentage of /. may have been that lucid at 13, but I said the typical 13 year old.

    4. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by ildon · · Score: 1

      You're the idiot here. This article is not necessarily posted to show support of the content, but primarily to inform you of its existence and allow a place to discuss it. Even if that discussion is mostly mockery and derision.

      Do you also think that when CNN tells you about a suicide bombing that they're tacitly giving support to the suicide bomber's agenda?

    5. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a nigger

    6. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Seems you haven't been on Slashdot for very long either. These sorts of baiting and trolling summaries are picked by the editors for a reason: to spur discussion (and troll for hits). You took the bait. Congratulations.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    7. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Please compare UIDs.

    8. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      The submitter is responsible for their language and what they implicitly endorse as fact by choice of language. It is one thing for CNN to report on a bombing, it is quite another to frame that report in a way that repeats the bomber's claims and uncritically spreads parts of their ideology as if it were fact. The submitter here does that and the /. moderators accept it by posting.

    9. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      You're a three-breasted whore.

    10. Re:Yet another idiotic /. article. by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Parentially unsupervised? That's a new one on me. Does that mean that they are unsupervised in a parental way? What will they think of next! :)

  23. Kids by netflusher · · Score: 1

    Read this in the paper today. Kids think having a fb account is like having some thing out of the ordinary. They should get proper counselling from their parents about it. Who knows, this kids may even end up with teen age pregancy just coz of this ignorance from their parents.

    1. Re:Kids by HJED · · Score: 1

      No, kids actually think of it as something that is ordinary and they want it because their parents, siblings and/or friends have it (the later being a general human characteristic not specific to children). I fail to see how having Facebook may cause teenage pregnancy, other then providing an extra channel for communication like, [gasp/] talking, or using a phone. Facebook causes teenage pregnancy in the same way that talking causes teenage pregnancy.

      I sincerly hope that you are never a parent, stupid parents causes teenage pregnancy NOT (insert communication method here)

      --
      null
    2. Re:Kids by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how having Facebook may cause teenage pregnancy

      Then you need to brush up on your stalking skills.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Kids by netflusher · · Score: 1

      talking? in countries where people are not as good as most other countries, it may harm kids. The country where I live in, it's very easy to make a fake profile and add some girl and impress her to some extent. And then after a few days of talking maybe bang her and then leaver her. Its THAT easy. I was talking in a more targeted way than a general way. I haven't seen every other country's situation, but here, it can have bad effects.

  24. Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Facebook chooses advertising profit (all those users) over actively enforcing their TOS.

    Facebook should be fined for this predatory practice. This is a nasty exploitation of children.

    Just as a matter of interest how do you think they could enforce it? How would you know that someone claiming to be 22 year old Mike Smith form Luton or 20 year-old Nalini Kapur from Mumbai are really the age they claim to be?

    1. Re:Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by frozentier · · Score: 1

      How would you know that someone claiming to be 22 year old Mike Smith form Luton or 20 year-old Nalini Kapur from Mumbai are really the age they claim to be?

      Not all but some of them are obvious. I know one that specifically says in the "about me" section that she is an 8 year old girl going to such-and-such elementary school. All of her pictures show an 8 year old running and playing and laughing. Yet there's no way to report it.

    2. Re:Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I've been able to report accounts for violating TOS before... did they remove that link? (It used to be on the left side, near the bottom...)

    3. Re:Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a users page left hand side under friends click:
      Report/Block This Person

      Then select:
      This profile is pretending to be someone or is fake

      In the dropdown:
      Does not represent a real person.

      Since there is no real person that age, this is all accurate reporting.

    4. Re:Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      That one doesn't let you report age, the age one is buried in the FAQ section. Very difficult to find.

      http://www.facebook.com/help/?search=report

    5. Re:Just as a matter of interest how do you think.. by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      I would just file as "Pretending to be someone else/fake account" - specifically pretending to be someone very much like them, but who is over 13 years of age, because they agreed to the TOS (so even if they are currently representing their birth age accurately, they are still pretending to be 13 by using the site.

  25. Malware? by symes · · Score: 1

    I would imagine most 13 year olds are more up to speed with the dangers of malware, etc., than most people over 40. As for other risks - certainly predators might be drawn to such places, but I would imagine that most 13 year olds would give these relatively ancient guys serious abuse - it's the 13 year old depressive loners who are looking for attention who are most vulnerable and those vulnerabilities will be rooted in their life away from Facebook, not due to Facebook. Moreover, abusers are almost always known to kids, a family member, etc.. What would be nice, however, is if Facebook did a little more for kids who are looking for help. There are unique opportunities for kids to find help when they might never have bothered.

    1. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree that most 13 year olds are more tech savvy than your average 40 year old, but that doesn't mean that they know anything about the dangers of viruses and malware. The average 13 year old now, who's grown up with technology all of his life, doesn't know how a computer works. "It just works." They know how to download music, install software, get to their favorites web sites, run programs, etc. But I have a co-worker who has had to re-install Windows on his kids' PC several times because of viruses and malware. These are kids who own and use computers, iPhones, Xboxes, MP3 players, etc. every single day. My 15 year old who is on his computer every single day, will (thankfully) call me if his computer does anything out of the ordinary. Tech Savvy != Safe from viruses and malware

  26. Seo Solutions by anab01 · · Score: 1

    SEO is the technology of being search engine smart and the winners recognize how to efficiently market websites. SEO Services is an art that helps obscure websites lost in the search engine maze to achieve top rankings on search engines and bring profitable business. Discover how our seo services at sapience info-solutions can help you make all the right connections. ========

  27. Happyness in slavery by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    Get em while there young.

  28. US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And how many of those minors where in countries with vastly different cultures than the US, where using the full potential of the internet at age 10 is not seen as dangerous, and where the kids have been tought to handle it?

  29. And? by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 1

    This is a surprise?

  30. Over 7.5 Million Facebook Users Are Under 13 61 by Trogre · · Score: 1

    "Over 7.5 Million Facebook Users Are Under 13 61"

    Got to love Slashdot's broken layout, showing me the number of comments right there in the headline. Still, this one made me giggle:

    "AMD To Support Coreboot On All Upcoming Processors 133"

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Over 7.5 Million Facebook Users Are Under 13 61 by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "500 million Facebook Users Are Not 13 37" would be good.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  31. facebook is for children and childlike adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always said facebook is for children and childlike adults. what a fucking waste of time.

  32. Animals? by bob_jordan · · Score: 2

    Hello,

    Well I am friends with a rabbit and a dog on facebook. I know dog-years are 7 human years so the dog is ok, but does anyone know the rabbit-human age conversion factor?

    Thanks in advance,

    Bob.

    1. Re:Animals? by rwv · · Score: 1

      I only hope and pray that your rabbit friend hasn't been exposed to Malware or bullying. And assuming that she's active on Farmville, I hope her carrot crop is during well this spring.

      Seriously though... there's no reason for minors or animals to have social networking accounts. Unequivocally no reason. Not one. Same thing goes for e-mail accounts, though I will at least allow for the possibility that 4th graders may be old enough to submit essays through e-mail to save paper. Saving paper fits into the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra that we ought to be teaching them.

      That being said, the caretakers of minors or animals who have social networking profiles should be punished for their lack of judgment.

    2. Re:Animals? by Fallus+Shempus · · Score: 1

      Well I found this for you, and it's on the interwebs so it must be reliable:

      http://www.threelittleladiesrabbitry.com/rabbityears.php

      So as long as Mr Bunnikins is 5 months or more you're OK, no one is going to be worried...

  33. Meh by Peter+Mork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other news, millions of children are sent by their parents to school everyday where they are exposed to new ideas and serious threats such as potential predators or bullies.

    1. Re:Meh by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      School is supervised, and not the entire world. Big difference.

    2. Re:Meh by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      But, the supervisors have, in the past, been the predators (sexual abuse is more likely from a trusted adult than a random stranger). And, the schoolyard is a known fen for bullies. The entire world isn't some extraordinarily dangerous place.

    3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, millions of children are sent by their parents to school everyday where they are exposed to new ideas and serious threats such as potential predators or bullies.

      you forgot religious brainwashing

    4. Re:Meh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In other news, millions of children are sent by their parents to school everyday where they are exposed to new ideas and serious threats such as potential predators or bullies.

      Yes, parents just turf their kids out in the morning, have no idea where they are, who they're talking to, or anything. You must have a fucking weird education system where you live.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Meh by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      And parents have also been predators. Your point?

      You underestimate the Internet, and how it easily allows bad people from all over the world to do something. There's no web police, after all. That's why we have tons of spam to deal with, and botnets.

      Remember: normal person + anonimity + audience = total fuckwad (source: Penny Arcade).

  34. Not Condoning this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how much greater are the risks than a walk down a metropolitan street? I'm getting a bit desensitized to yet another OMGZ TEH KIDZ screed. Evidence > parental paranoia, please.

    Full disclosure: I'm a parent, and my 12 yr old begged for a FB account. I check where she goes online, etc. Shame on those that use the internet for the next electronic babysitter.

    1. Re:Not Condoning this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sets a very bad precedent.

      You're telling your child; "It's ok to break rules posted on other people's property, if I say it's ok".

      And; "It's ok to do what all your friends are doing, even if it's prohibited".

      And the big (and very common) mistake; "It's ok, because you are mature for your age".

      All of those bad parenting lessons will come back later, to bite you in the ass.

    2. Re:Not Condoning this, but... by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, "It's okay to break dumb rules if you can get away with it."

      Or, "It's okay to lie about your age on the internet."

      Both of which are good lessons that need to be taught.

  35. In other words by deconvolution · · Score: 2

    Over 7.5M FBI's accounts on Facebook ... and they are men.

    1. Re:In other words by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Recall the US Air Force wanted troll Persona management software?
      Licenses for 50 users with 10 personas each? Lets try the math...with 10% of 7.5 million.
      Say 50 templates, really simple personas per agent? ~50 US states. Thats down to a few 100's of agents per state to ensure technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent personas.
      Update each one for a few mins per week, database each friend request via automated image recognition and ip/isp details...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  36. So ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, millions of children are sent by their parents to school everyday where they are exposed to new ideas and serious threats such as potential predators or bullies.

    So ?
    Should they be exposed to even more dangers ?
    Just because i smoke tobacco (a serious threat that maybe kills me one day), should i explore the idea of skydiving without a parachute ?
    There are new ideas , but also serious threats on the internet for kids .

  37. Dammit, you're supposed to fear it. by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

    FTFA: "âoeWhatâ(TM)s even more troubling was the finding from our survey that indicated that a majority of parents of kids 10 and under seemed largely unconcerned by their childrenâ(TM)s use of the site.â

    But, we're telling them to be scared. Why aren't they scared? These parents must be the same insane lunatics that use craigslist when you know you will be killed if you do. These kids could be bullied, you know. Unlike real life, there's no way to avoid the person or never hear what they say on facebook. They also could have their identity stolen which will just trash their credit score, and if you've got heavy credit card debt at 13, you'll be paying it off the rest of your life.

    You should do as the article suggests and have facebook delete the account using the "report an underage child" form. Because a child needs to feel secure that they can tell you anything and know that you'll report them to the relevant authorities immediately. This proves to them how much that they can trust you.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  38. And 23.5 million other users... by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    And 23.5 million other users appear to be cats!

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  39. Re:THERES PROBABLY NO WAY TO STOP THIS by obergfellja · · Score: 1

    Cut down to only allow email@schoolname.edu accounts like the good ole days.

  40. Allow be to be the first to say... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Pedobear approves!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  41. Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of them list their current occupation as FBI Investigator....

  42. Facebook Smacebook by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    Ok, someone please tell me that this whole Facebook thing is a fad. Please. I'm beggin here. So, by it's own name facebook is all about your own face. That makes it totally Narcissistic. Twitter is all about tweeting your bits of info to as many people as possible, Root word here being twit? So, put them together and your a narcissistic twit if you use these services? Not really trolling here, trying to get a feel for what others here think about Facebook and Twitter.

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
    1. Re:Facebook Smacebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmm, no, its name was supposed to refer to the pages upon pages of face photos in any school yearbook, back in the days when to get a facebook account you had to have a .edu e-mail address. It's basically a classmates.com that caught on... mainly because unlike classmates.com, facebook wasn't a thinly veiled scam to get you to pay for a service that was basically worthless.

    2. Re:Facebook Smacebook by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, I had no idea about the EDU history. Explains the name. :) So what about Twitter? Anyone? I still think your a twit if you tweet. ;)

      --
      This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
  43. FB exposes its users to an even greater threat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Facebook itself.

  44. Ruh-roh by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I hope the feds don't come down on you for illegal access to a computer for violating Facebook's terms of service.

    You should be fine as long as you don't live in one of the states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Ruh-roh by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      We live in the UK.

  45. One major exception by davidwr · · Score: 2

    If you have an obviously legitimate reason to "friend" the kid and it's obvious to anyone reading the kid's page OR your page that there is a legitimate connection, then I don't see the problem.

    Obvious reasons:
    * You are a relative.
    * Your kid is also a friend of the kid AND nobody will wonder why your kid and this kid are friends.
    * You are using an "official" account like you are a schoolteacher using a special, non-personal account for official school business and you've friended all of your students.

    Personally, I recommend middle- and high-schools not use "public" social-networking sites for official direct interaction with students. Either set up a "private" site or use some other means of communications, or limit Facebook/etc. communications to parents' accounts rather than students' accounts.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  46. Dupe by wye43 · · Score: 1

    Previous slashdot article: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/23/1237215/Facebook-Bans-20000-Kids-a-Day

    It was 3.6 million in March, now its 7.5. Riiight.

  47. i wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumer Reports' survey found that their accounts were largely unsupervised by their parents, exposing them to malware or serious threats such as predators or bullies."

    How do they (Consumer Reports) know who's unsupervised? And how does parental supervision help from malware(etc) exposure? Most kids know more about computers than their parents these days. Additionally, there are plenty of predators and bullies right in the schools they go to and neighborhoods they live in..

    Punch a bully in the face, they'll never bully you again... No parental supervision required.

  48. 4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i personally am always wondering what the numbers on 4chan are, maybe i should do a survey, i am sure they will all answer correctly.

  49. Gonna be more than 7.5 Million Facebook Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, this report should have been published 3 years ago as there were flock of underage users registered with FB. Second, 7.5 million users is an understatement.

  50. Breach of TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook's terms of service say "no one under 13" (paraphrased). That's why this is news. Has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" parenting. Facebook would have to adhere to a whole slew of laws regarding children.