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."
There is no way it is that few.
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.
"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
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.
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/
... 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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?
Over 7.5M FBI's accounts on Facebook ... and they are men.
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
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?
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
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.
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.