7 ms·

> Social Network for Children Counterpoint-- this should not be built. Kids already have a social network, it's called the playground at school. Having childre

> Social Network for Children Counterpoint-- this should not be built. Kids already have a social network, it's called the playground at school. Having children engage with their friends outside of school time is a fine goal, but there are plenty of existing after-school activities that encourage this interaction. These activities also don't put the undue stress of having to decipher typed language, nuance, and other online-only pressures that adults can barely deal with, much less children. Get your kids into scouts. Get them into a team sport. Get them into dance. Get them into after-school STEAM activities. Whatever those activities are, that's up to their preferences, but most importantly they are out and engaging with their peers face to face. That "3pm - 6pm" window of time is important for children to play, and having them spend even a portion of that time hitting a like button or whatever other social network validation activities seems extremely disingenuous to me.

paulryanrogers 9y ago
^STEM ? EDIT: ah, now I see (A)rt
bambax 9y ago
Yes. What a horrible idea. I re-read the paragraph to see if by "Social Network" they meant something else, or it was tongue-in-cheek, but no, it seems they meant exactly that: "Facebook for preschoolers, with parental supervision". That should never be built... and yet, somehow, we just know it will.
opportune 9y ago
Couldn't agree more. Social networks are deliberately designed to be addictive and can definitely cause problems with self esteem - doesn't seem like something kids should be engaged in at all. Additionally, if anything we should be exposing children to less advertisement, not more. This almost sounds like some sick "hook em while they're young" scheme
- kordlessagain 9y ago
  > Social networks are deliberately designed to be addictive Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale. Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I think that's fair. It's the same standard we set with alcohol and other intoxicants. I drink alcohol knowing that I can deal with its addictive properties. I don't think kids should be drinking alcohol not only because it could cause developmental problems, but because I don't think they can deal with something that addictive. I think social media is too addictive and otherwise psychologically harmful that we should keep children away.
  - karmajunkie 9y ago
    > Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale This makes it ok somehow? > Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt. I think you're begging the question on the first point. As for the second, not only is there mounting evidence that giving kids smartphones and constant social network tools is having deleterious effects on their mental health, there are a whole slew of things that I'm ok with adults having a choice about that nobody should be ok with kids having access to.
    - Retra 9y ago
      It really wouldn't matter if it were ok or not. It's just that it becomes a matter of selection bias that you'd see them that way.
  - b0rsuk 9y ago
    Because children are extra gullible. Children will happily sing a catchy tune from a non-interactive, non-personalized TV or radio commercial, even repeating marketing slogans they don't understand. You can win a kid's trust by giving him a candy. Have you ever seen a kid that has to be dragged away from a shop display, kicking, screaming and crying ? Commercial social media are refined to the equivalent of advertisement cocaine. They are also a con man's wet dream (I refer you to numerous articles about Facebook frauds). It's even more than that, because it's the only drug which changes shape to more effectively get you. You have to be constantly vigilant and watch for new manipulation methods. Parents watch over children not just because they like them, but because children are not capable of consistently making informed, rational decisions and weighting pros and cons. I think parents themselves are not adult enough to deal with Facebook and avoid being manipulated or cheated. I think the world hasn't caught up with addictiveness of social media yet. Other drugs are already limited, for example by age. Netherlands doesn't limit access to drugs very much, instead it focuses on informational campaigns and rehab centers, with pretty good results. FB gives people something core to human nature - social contact, so addicts will defend it to the death. Age requirement wouldn't fly, so Netherlands-style approach is the only option left. At least until FB successfully lobbies to ban them or sues for defamation. The dangers posed by social media are not inherently new, but fraudsters in meatspace have a harder time being completely anonymous, there are witnesses everywhere, your personal profile is not written on your back, and offenders risk local ostracism. FB is more like a private nightclub than real world with laws, courts and police. FB makes it easy to be a creep remotely and anonymously.
ng-user 9y ago
Not to mention, how would you limit it to children only? Talk about pedo heaven.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Just remove the ability to register fake accounts.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Wow, what a simple solution. Why did nobody ever think of this before?
    - rhizome 9y ago
      I bet a person could make a lot of money with an idea like this!
  - the-dude 9y ago
    You forgot your "/s"
    - rhizome 9y ago
      My mom doesn't hang out here.
- gowld 9y ago
  https://www.wired.com/2017/01/lego-life-social-network-kids/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/lego-life-social-network-kids/ How Lego Built a Social Network for Kids That's Not Creepy
- dkersten 9y ago
  Some online games-for-kids don't allow freeform text, so the game can control what kind of communication is allowed. Others are very heavily moderated. You could also require parents to identify themselves, I guess, similar to how some financial/banking apps do? Not fool proof, but would raise the barrier for predators to enter.
callmeed 9y ago
I mostly agree with you. (I have 4 kids ages 9, 11, 13, and 23) My Counter-Counterpoint is to first consider the following: (a) most kids are using normal social networks like Snapchat and Instagram in jr. high school (age 12+ in the US), (b) children see their parents and older kids using social networks and want to emulate them, (c) a lot of parents are either too busy or too lazy to do what you suggest and that's why so many children are handed a device at way too young an age, (d) helicopter parenting makes c. even worse. So, given that, I say this should be built–if, for no other reason, than to encourage responsible and empathetic use of social media. Maybe it has time limits and is purposely non-addictive. Maybe it encourages IRL interactions at the park and helps parents coordinate that. Maybe it detects cruel comments and teaches them why its not ok. Maybe it guides kids through outdoor games and educational activities. I like what you're suggesting but I'm more of the mindset "this is inevitable so i hope someone takes the moral/responsible route with it" Also, a side note for those that don't have kids and aren't aware, a very large swath of elementary school children in the US already have Google accounts through their school or school district. Edit: some words
- jansho 9y ago
  Why not effective Internet safety education and a bunch of apps that block NSFW, set time limit etc? (An AI bot that hovers in one corner and highlights and teaches not-OK content, maybe ..?) IMO a safe children’s social network is a bit of an oxymoron. You’re never going to make something safe, unless it’s a closed system!
  - callmeed 9y ago
    I'm not sure which side (if any) you're arguing. I don't agree with your oxymoron statement. First, social networks aren't inherently unsafe. Plus, I don't think they are "open" or "closed" in a binary sense. Every system–real or online–with humans is going to have bad actors. You just need varying levels of ID, auth, filtering, etc. I wasn't really involved with Club Penguin because I didn't have kids using it during the heyday, but my understanding is that they grew it to be pretty big without any major safety issues [0]. I think this whole notion of "completely closed and safe" is what gave rise to the helicopter parenting I mentioned above. That's not a good thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety
avip 9y ago
Many ideas in the list sound pointless, to be polite, but that one is downright depressing. The word "social" got abused to basically mean its opposite.
dgudkov 9y ago
What problem would a social network for children solve?
- 659087 9y ago
  The problem of advertisers not yet knowing how to collect every bit of data about a child's life starting at birth.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    A social network for kids is not really a good solution for that, since it relies on kids voluntarily using the social network. Cerebral monitoring devices implanted at birth would be a much more effective solution.
nasirmaziz 9y ago
Social Media sites ironically isolate humans and the needed natural interactions. Bad Idea! This will indoctrinate children at a very early stage. The social medium for children should be schools, playgrounds, community events, and other collective activities etc.
- zanny 9y ago
  So legitimate question. If the social medium of children should be physical, why should adults be virtual? Or more generally why are adults who are supposed to be mature and capable of rational decision abandoning physical interaction for addictive social media?
  - nasirmaziz 9y ago
    Right, this applies to all. Virtual is not working out so well in a social sense. We seem to have lost touch with reality.
  - dkersten 9y ago
    Part of it is that children are highly suggestible. They're also still mentally developing and learning. Therefore, they are at risk of not developing proper social skills and are more likely to get addicted (possibly at the expense of physical activities). But your point is still valid and both of those things are, for sure, problems for adults too. One would hope that adults are, at least, less suggestible (hope, but in reality, it seems lots of adults are pretty gullible and suggestible too, at least in some things).
cirgue 9y ago
Social media is to socialization what candy is to food: It's enjoyable and healthy in moderation, but it is amazingly bad for anyone, especially kids, in large quantities. It also doesn't fulfill any fundamental human need that can't be satisfied in better ways.
Kiro 9y ago
> but most importantly they are out and engaging with their peers face to face Why is it important? I hated all those things as a kid.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
It's ironic: Most of you desperately want to unseat Facebook, and this is a strategy toward that end. What do you think will happen when those children grow into teens? If Facebook seems draconian, this would be an opportunity to build something better from first principles. It's a positive plan, not malicious. I'm not sure Facebook has the ability to pursue this even if they tried. They have too much political inertia for people to trust them with a kids-focused Facebook. That means all someone needs to do is build this, then refuse to sell. Checkmate. It won't be easy, but two decades is a long time. And that's the timeline to slay a giant.
- guelo 9y ago
  > for people to trust them with a kids-focused Facebook. Most non-techie people I ask have no idea that Instagram and WhatsApp are Facebook properties. Even Messenger is being disassociated from the Facebook brand. I don't know if it's a deliberate strattegy to keep the bad reputation contained but I don't see a reason they couldn't attempt that if they were to ever build a kids network.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- callmeed 9y ago
  I don't think it is a strategy towards unseating Facebook. When children become teens, they tend to shun things seen as childish or uncool.
claudiulodro 9y ago
Aren't Club Penguin, Animal Jam, etc. social networks for children? You can't collect real info about children or have real photos of them, so giving them a fun avatar and persona to hang out with other anonymous friends seems like the best way of handling the big problem with social networks for kids without getting into trouble.
659087 9y ago
It's sad but predictable that the same people who are suggesting ideas like a "Social Network for Children", are often the ones who send their own children to "tech-free" private schools to prevent them from being exposed to the products that pay their parents' bills.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
Musical.ly

paulryanrogers 9y ago

^STEM ? EDIT: ah, now I see (A)rt

bambax 9y ago

Yes. What a horrible idea. I re-read the paragraph to see if by "Social Network" they meant something else, or it was tongue-in-cheek, but no, it seems they meant exactly that: "Facebook for preschoolers, with parental supervision". That should never be built... and yet, somehow, we just know it will.

opportune 9y ago

Couldn't agree more. Social networks are deliberately designed to be addictive and can definitely cause problems with self esteem - doesn't seem like something kids should be engaged in at all. Additionally, if anything we should be exposing children to less advertisement, not more. This almost sounds like some sick "hook em while they're young" scheme

kordlessagain 9y ago
> Social networks are deliberately designed to be addictive Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale. Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt.
- opportune 9y ago
  I think that's fair. It's the same standard we set with alcohol and other intoxicants. I drink alcohol knowing that I can deal with its addictive properties. I don't think kids should be drinking alcohol not only because it could cause developmental problems, but because I don't think they can deal with something that addictive. I think social media is too addictive and otherwise psychologically harmful that we should keep children away.
- karmajunkie 9y ago
  > Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale This makes it ok somehow? > Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt. I think you're begging the question on the first point. As for the second, not only is there mounting evidence that giving kids smartphones and constant social network tools is having deleterious effects on their mental health, there are a whole slew of things that I'm ok with adults having a choice about that nobody should be ok with kids having access to.
  - Retra 9y ago
    It really wouldn't matter if it were ok or not. It's just that it becomes a matter of selection bias that you'd see them that way.
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  Because children are extra gullible. Children will happily sing a catchy tune from a non-interactive, non-personalized TV or radio commercial, even repeating marketing slogans they don't understand. You can win a kid's trust by giving him a candy. Have you ever seen a kid that has to be dragged away from a shop display, kicking, screaming and crying ? Commercial social media are refined to the equivalent of advertisement cocaine. They are also a con man's wet dream (I refer you to numerous articles about Facebook frauds). It's even more than that, because it's the only drug which changes shape to more effectively get you. You have to be constantly vigilant and watch for new manipulation methods. Parents watch over children not just because they like them, but because children are not capable of consistently making informed, rational decisions and weighting pros and cons. I think parents themselves are not adult enough to deal with Facebook and avoid being manipulated or cheated. I think the world hasn't caught up with addictiveness of social media yet. Other drugs are already limited, for example by age. Netherlands doesn't limit access to drugs very much, instead it focuses on informational campaigns and rehab centers, with pretty good results. FB gives people something core to human nature - social contact, so addicts will defend it to the death. Age requirement wouldn't fly, so Netherlands-style approach is the only option left. At least until FB successfully lobbies to ban them or sues for defamation. The dangers posed by social media are not inherently new, but fraudsters in meatspace have a harder time being completely anonymous, there are witnesses everywhere, your personal profile is not written on your back, and offenders risk local ostracism. FB is more like a private nightclub than real world with laws, courts and police. FB makes it easy to be a creep remotely and anonymously.

ng-user 9y ago

Not to mention, how would you limit it to children only? Talk about pedo heaven.

rhizome 9y ago
Just remove the ability to register fake accounts.
- opportune 9y ago
  Wow, what a simple solution. Why did nobody ever think of this before?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    I bet a person could make a lot of money with an idea like this!
- the-dude 9y ago
  You forgot your "/s"
  - rhizome 9y ago
    My mom doesn't hang out here.
gowld 9y ago
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/lego-life-social-network-kids/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/lego-life-social-network-kids/ How Lego Built a Social Network for Kids That's Not Creepy
dkersten 9y ago
Some online games-for-kids don't allow freeform text, so the game can control what kind of communication is allowed. Others are very heavily moderated. You could also require parents to identify themselves, I guess, similar to how some financial/banking apps do? Not fool proof, but would raise the barrier for predators to enter.

callmeed 9y ago

I mostly agree with you. (I have 4 kids ages 9, 11, 13, and 23) My Counter-Counterpoint is to first consider the following: (a) most kids are using normal social networks like Snapchat and Instagram in jr. high school (age 12+ in the US), (b) children see their parents and older kids using social networks and want to emulate them, (c) a lot of parents are either too busy or too lazy to do what you suggest and that's why so many children are handed a device at way too young an age, (d) helicopter parenting makes c. even worse. So, given that, I say this should be built–if, for no other reason, than to encourage responsible and empathetic use of social media. Maybe it has time limits and is purposely non-addictive. Maybe it encourages IRL interactions at the park and helps parents coordinate that. Maybe it detects cruel comments and teaches them why its not ok. Maybe it guides kids through outdoor games and educational activities. I like what you're suggesting but I'm more of the mindset "this is inevitable so i hope someone takes the moral/responsible route with it" Also, a side note for those that don't have kids and aren't aware, a very large swath of elementary school children in the US already have Google accounts through their school or school district. Edit: some words

jansho 9y ago
Why not effective Internet safety education and a bunch of apps that block NSFW, set time limit etc? (An AI bot that hovers in one corner and highlights and teaches not-OK content, maybe ..?) IMO a safe children’s social network is a bit of an oxymoron. You’re never going to make something safe, unless it’s a closed system!
- callmeed 9y ago
  I'm not sure which side (if any) you're arguing. I don't agree with your oxymoron statement. First, social networks aren't inherently unsafe. Plus, I don't think they are "open" or "closed" in a binary sense. Every system–real or online–with humans is going to have bad actors. You just need varying levels of ID, auth, filtering, etc. I wasn't really involved with Club Penguin because I didn't have kids using it during the heyday, but my understanding is that they grew it to be pretty big without any major safety issues [0]. I think this whole notion of "completely closed and safe" is what gave rise to the helicopter parenting I mentioned above. That's not a good thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Penguin#Child_safety

avip 9y ago

Many ideas in the list sound pointless, to be polite, but that one is downright depressing. The word "social" got abused to basically mean its opposite.

dgudkov 9y ago

What problem would a social network for children solve?

659087 9y ago
The problem of advertisers not yet knowing how to collect every bit of data about a child's life starting at birth.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  A social network for kids is not really a good solution for that, since it relies on kids voluntarily using the social network. Cerebral monitoring devices implanted at birth would be a much more effective solution.

nasirmaziz 9y ago

Social Media sites ironically isolate humans and the needed natural interactions. Bad Idea! This will indoctrinate children at a very early stage. The social medium for children should be schools, playgrounds, community events, and other collective activities etc.

zanny 9y ago
So legitimate question. If the social medium of children should be physical, why should adults be virtual? Or more generally why are adults who are supposed to be mature and capable of rational decision abandoning physical interaction for addictive social media?
- nasirmaziz 9y ago
  Right, this applies to all. Virtual is not working out so well in a social sense. We seem to have lost touch with reality.
- dkersten 9y ago
  Part of it is that children are highly suggestible. They're also still mentally developing and learning. Therefore, they are at risk of not developing proper social skills and are more likely to get addicted (possibly at the expense of physical activities). But your point is still valid and both of those things are, for sure, problems for adults too. One would hope that adults are, at least, less suggestible (hope, but in reality, it seems lots of adults are pretty gullible and suggestible too, at least in some things).

cirgue 9y ago

Social media is to socialization what candy is to food: It's enjoyable and healthy in moderation, but it is amazingly bad for anyone, especially kids, in large quantities. It also doesn't fulfill any fundamental human need that can't be satisfied in better ways.

Kiro 9y ago

> but most importantly they are out and engaging with their peers face to face Why is it important? I hated all those things as a kid.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

It's ironic: Most of you desperately want to unseat Facebook, and this is a strategy toward that end. What do you think will happen when those children grow into teens? If Facebook seems draconian, this would be an opportunity to build something better from first principles. It's a positive plan, not malicious. I'm not sure Facebook has the ability to pursue this even if they tried. They have too much political inertia for people to trust them with a kids-focused Facebook. That means all someone needs to do is build this, then refuse to sell. Checkmate. It won't be easy, but two decades is a long time. And that's the timeline to slay a giant.

guelo 9y ago
> for people to trust them with a kids-focused Facebook. Most non-techie people I ask have no idea that Instagram and WhatsApp are Facebook properties. Even Messenger is being disassociated from the Facebook brand. I don't know if it's a deliberate strattegy to keep the bad reputation contained but I don't see a reason they couldn't attempt that if they were to ever build a kids network.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
callmeed 9y ago
I don't think it is a strategy towards unseating Facebook. When children become teens, they tend to shun things seen as childish or uncool.

claudiulodro 9y ago

Aren't Club Penguin, Animal Jam, etc. social networks for children? You can't collect real info about children or have real photos of them, so giving them a fun avatar and persona to hang out with other anonymous friends seems like the best way of handling the big problem with social networks for kids without getting into trouble.

659087 9y ago

It's sad but predictable that the same people who are suggesting ideas like a "Social Network for Children", are often the ones who send their own children to "tech-free" private schools to prevent them from being exposed to the products that pay their parents' bills.

vasilipupkin 9y ago

Musical.ly