Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google+ Officially Open To Teens

Posted by timothy on from the rebellion-doesn't-spring-to-mind dept.

hypnosec writes "Google+ made a landmark move and opened itself to users who are over the age of 13. Google+ did not initially target the younger crowd and kept itself available only for users above the age of 18. While opening up to youngsters over the age of 13 the social network also added improved safety features to keep the younger crowd protected. Now it features more rigid default settings for privacy, but they can be overridden nonetheless. The vice president of product management at Google+, Bradley Horowitz, in a Google+ post stated, 'With Google+, we want to help teens build meaningful connections online. We also want to provide features that foster safety alongside self-expression. Today we're doing both, for everyone who's old enough for a Google Account.'"

17 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. And nothing changes... by watermark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.

    1. Re:And nothing changes... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.

      Yep. Sure fire way for your club for young people to go out of business is call it "Teen Club" they won't just avoid it, but flee.

      Call it something innocuous and they'll show up. Don't even mention it's for teens though.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:And nothing changes... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Funny

      At first I thought, "yeah, so?" and then I realized that people born in 1990 are no longer 13, they're 22 now.

      God, I feel old.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:And nothing changes... by Legion303 · · Score: 2

      "As a matter of fact, we're only opening the site to younger users under extreme protest. We don't feel they can handle the amount of cool involved with G+." --Google Marketing

  2. Oh great! by motang · · Score: 2

    There goes the neighbourhood!

  3. core demographic by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  4. It was a good run. by Lewrker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only appeal of G+ was not having all the bs teenage drama there, and people seemed a little bit less mentally challenged.
    Good night sweet prince.

  5. Coolio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's really cool, because I'm also a 13 year old teen (male) and am looking for cool online friendships with nice chicks. My hobbies are: /., programming microcontrollers with Ada, helicopter simulations, and long-term role-playing games (BDSM/TPE) over Google Video chat.

    1. Re:Coolio by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why did you list programming in Ada separately from BDSM?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. realname policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the first thing, parents tell their children: do not give anyone your full name on the internet.

  7. Should have done this a long time ago by cullen_johnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was always kind of surprised that they hadn't done this already. The only way for a general-purpose social network like G+ to compete with facebook is to win the younger generation of social networkers. They can't expect everyone to leave facebook and their 1000+ friends just for a cleaner interface and about 50 friends.

    1. Re:Should have done this a long time ago by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It worries me. More specifically, I worry that your child will grow up without the social interaction required to empathize with others, so they'll treat every slight criticism as a major offense. Perhaps worse, without understanding other people's thought processes, I worry they'll be unable to recognize the complex interactions of society, and will end up with extreme opinions on important issues, and thinking everyone opposing them is crazy.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Should have done this a long time ago by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Facebook, Google+, and Neopets, and whatever other social time sinks are popular now, are only a part of the picture. Today they serve the same functions as Boy Scouts, football teams, and 4-H did in the 70's. They provide social interaction and reaffirm that the child is a part of society. It's the activity in society that contributes the experience that becomes the responsibility and moral completeness children lack. As children participate in society with their peers, they are increasingly shown that other people have feelings and thoughts of their own. They see that life moves on regardless of their own desires, and they see that the world does not, in fact, revolve entirely around their demands as it seemed to when they were infants.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. Do they have to use their real names? by Sark666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would think being able to use a nickname would add a level of privacy.

    1. Re:Do they have to use their real names? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      I would think requiring that they use their real name would add a level of restraint.

      Sorry, couldn't help myself - I'm joking, of course. Nothing will lead to any sort of level of restraint in the 13-17yo crowd. :-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Do they have to use their real names? by Karlb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remind me, what part of joining a social networking site is about privacy?

      --
      When all else fails, you've won.
  9. Re:Grown-ups? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    Technically, yes. :)

    Lots of people in the same age group are married and have children, so you could say they're grown up even if they're not mature yet.