3 ms·

"Kids almost universally use Instagram and Facebook makes money from that" Purely anecdotal but speaking as a dad myself I don't know any kids using Facebook o

by jmfldn 6y ago

"Kids almost universally use Instagram and Facebook makes money from that" Purely anecdotal but speaking as a dad myself I don't know any kids using Facebook or Instagram. By kids I'm meaning pre-teens here so maybe our definitions differ. Children should be kept off all these sorts of platforms imho. It's entirely within a parent's control. I therefore don't like FB trying to lure more people into their world with a product like this. Sure they can make it safer for children but I think this misses the core point. This is not suitable for them however its designed.

emteycz 6y ago
I mean children 10 to 15 years old. Also purely anecdotally, nearly all kids from my sister's class had Instagram accounts since age 12. My sister (now 16) hides the app from our parents and has always done so; they wouldn't forbid it but she doesn't want them to see her profile or check her messages. It's just like what you would expect of a 13-18 years old girl - not bad/wrong, not a child anymore, exploring. Access to this kind of profile shouldn't be public by default, friend requests should be limited, and the chat service should be monitored. I'd rather have Facebook recognize this issue, there will always be vast numbers of underage users on Instagram and simply setting age limit is simply ignorance of the real world complexities of teenage behavior while chasing perfection. How do you hold Facebook accountable to protect children from predators if children are said to be banned? The perfect world of kids not using Instagram won't happen, not even a significant reduction is going to happen, regardless of fines or prison time for Facebook executives - the kids really want to have social network profiles, the only working option would be to liquidate the company - and the kids would simply move to TikTok.
- jmfldn 6y ago
  Hmm yes I see your point. Improving safety for kids makes sense as long as they do it without fanfare as a way to get even more youngsters on there. In other words, do it to improve safety not as a marketing exercise. I just don't trust that it's really a safety thing with them, I see it as a trojan horse potentially given what bad actors they seem to be.

by jmfldn 6y ago

emteycz 6y ago

I mean children 10 to 15 years old. Also purely anecdotally, nearly all kids from my sister's class had Instagram accounts since age 12. My sister (now 16) hides the app from our parents and has always done so; they wouldn't forbid it but she doesn't want them to see her profile or check her messages. It's just like what you would expect of a 13-18 years old girl - not bad/wrong, not a child anymore, exploring. Access to this kind of profile shouldn't be public by default, friend requests should be limited, and the chat service should be monitored. I'd rather have Facebook recognize this issue, there will always be vast numbers of underage users on Instagram and simply setting age limit is simply ignorance of the real world complexities of teenage behavior while chasing perfection. How do you hold Facebook accountable to protect children from predators if children are said to be banned? The perfect world of kids not using Instagram won't happen, not even a significant reduction is going to happen, regardless of fines or prison time for Facebook executives - the kids really want to have social network profiles, the only working option would be to liquidate the company - and the kids would simply move to TikTok.

jmfldn 6y ago
Hmm yes I see your point. Improving safety for kids makes sense as long as they do it without fanfare as a way to get even more youngsters on there. In other words, do it to improve safety not as a marketing exercise. I just don't trust that it's really a safety thing with them, I see it as a trojan horse potentially given what bad actors they seem to be.