In 2012, youth ministry and Facebook have become synonomous. We have talked about how youth workers can use Facebook for ministry and if a Facebook page should replace a ministry website. One of the more interesting conversations that youth workers are having about online use is the ethical issue of encouraging, supporting, or reporting your own teenagers who are on Facebook that are under the age of 13. For some youth workers, it was a frivolous thing to worry about because we had souls to save and Bibles to read. Others were appalled by the idea of allowing it because it was important to follow the rules (and even the law!).
The rules were obviously put there for a reason, bad things can happen on the Internet, there are a ton of creepers and evil, and adolescent teens do not make the best the decisions much of the time. Plus, they had to deal with the COPPA law.
A study culminated by by SodaHead.com found the following statistics:
- 48% of all teens have lied about their age on Facebook when they signed up. 52% of those teens being 13 years or younger…
- Parents are very protective of their children not being on Facebook, but still 55% of 12 year olds, 32% of 11 year olds, and 19% of 10 year olds are on Facebook
- Most teens trust themselves but most adults do not trust teens. Why the difference?
- 1/3 of parents think that teens should wait till they are 18 to be on Facebook. How does that jive with you?
Well all of that controversy may be going out the window soon because Facebook may be in the process of proving children under the age of 13 to sign up for Facebook under parental supervision. If this does happen, they have a HUGE market of the world that is untapped (legally).
So what is driving all of this? Maybe they figure that they are already facing many regulation charges and fees because of all the students currently signed up with false ages because of lax restrictions by Facebook?
Nope.
Maybe they are worried about the competition getting to this population before them and in the long-term losing the race?
Unlikely.
The under-13 features could enable Facebook and its partners to charge parents for games and other entertainment accessed by their children. Over $400 million of Facebook’s 2011 revenue came from Zynga alone from the social network gaming.
In the end, it all comes down to the Benjamins.
What is your opinion of a restricted under 13 year old Facebook user option?
[via Wall Street Journal | Image via cogdogroo]
Ben Miller says
We started a blog for my son a couple of years ago. (He’s 8 years old today.) Along with the WordPress blog, we started a Facebook page for it so that people could subscribe using Facebook. The only thing we use that Facebook page for is automated posts whenever we add a blog article, and my son doesn’t actually use Facebook at all. However, a couple of times, we’ve gotten nasty comments from people complaining about our son having a Facebook account. We’ve had to explain to them the difference between a person having a Facebook account and a website having a Facebook page.
Jeremy Smith says
That is a difference. how did those people respond to your explanation?
Ben Miller says
After I explain how my son uses (or actually doesn’t use) Facebook, usually people understand. But if they are still argumentative, they either can’t understand or refuse to understand. Either way, they are not really worth arguing with. 🙂
Justin says
I’m really hoping this goes through. Since I work in kids’ entertainment this would help alleviate a huge barrier we face in getting kids to share our content across the web.
Jeremy Smith says
Do you see any pitfalls with allowing them, even with extra security measures?
Justin says
Not from our side as we are currently handcuffed to not allow users to share content. Adding the <13 ability opens us up to have those hooks into social media sites. Plus, our content is already run through legal and S&P to ensure it's appropriateness and legality for our demo which is the <13 crowd.
However from FB's side you've got to consider how to handle chat, PIP (personally identifiable information which includes messages, photos, and more), sharing of explicit material and probably a whole bunch of other things I haven't thought of.
Jeremy Smith says
No doubt. It is a tough group to reach. Has your social media strategy been to target parents then?
Justin says
Not really, since we’re a globally recognized brand it’s more of a universal audience. Our demo is kids but there’s definitely a big enough audience outside that demo to justify our social media presence.
George says
I think age limits are stupid, I have seen 17 year olds heck even 40 year olds that don’t understand the risks of what they put out there online and 10 years old that do. Its a matter of education not age… Teach your kids how to use the stuff responsibly and they’ll be less likely to go behind your back and use it irresponsibly..
Jeremy Smith says
While you are correct that stupidity knows no bounds, adult stupidity is typically a choice with a conscious of experience to tell them they are wrong. Under 13 year olds do not have those life lessons or even the physical/mental maturity to know better. Your full reasoning section of your brain does not complete development until 18.
George says
In that way of thinking they should not be able to make any life decision for themselves? How then do they grow and mature to be able to handle “Real Life”.
I have been on chatrooms and social networks since i was at least 13, my mom knew what i was doing and gave me the talk of “If you abuse it you lose it” that simple and because I had that freedom i never abused it; at 13 you know right from wrong
Jeremy Smith says
I disagree with your wild conclusion that <13 should not make life decisions. There are reasons we have laws against under 18 and under 13 in place. To know right from wrong is not the issue. In fact, the issue has nothing to do with the children, but the adults that impact them. The rules are for preventative measures and safety. Even "good" kids as you were can find them in dangerous and unwanted situations.
George says
Perhaps instead of completely disallowing a social network there should be provisions in place to allow parents to monitor usage, make it private by default for users under a certain age to help alleviate a lot of the privacy issues, and again educate them on proper use of these types of sites. If a child or anyone for that matter chooses at that point to ignore the safeguards in place and the education then what more can we do. yes there are law for 18, and yet how many kids do we see smoking/drinking under age knowing all well that it is illegal, the ones that inherently seems to want trouble will always get into trouble no matter the safeguards… in my experience a kid that wants some alcohol will find a way to get it, and a kid that doesn’t wont, be there a law in place or not.
Same goes for Smoking, Drugs, Porn, etc. instead of trying to educate on the dangers of misuse or in some cases use period we create arbitrary laws that do nothing more than provoke the offenders.
From a kids point of view, it was more fun to drink when underage because you might get caught it added a sense of excitement, whereas after turning of age it wasn’t a big deal anymore…
goes back to the old adage that rules are made to be broken, so what would happen if the rules didn’t exist?
Mass Chaos or Educated people making rational decisions?
Jeremy Smith says
I believe that the ideas you presented are going to be in the Facebook feature for <13.
andi says
parents have NO business having a Facebook account of ANY kind for a kid 13 and under!!
Jeremy Smith says
Obviously you are passionate about this, why do you say no?