4 ms·

Under-18 users request to open up Google+ for them

41 points by samrat 15y ago

Mithrandir 15y ago
Of course, age limits are moot if they've lied about their birthday.
- tonfa 15y ago
  But it's not Google fault if they lied, right? (In case they are for example exposed to 18+ content on Google+)
chunky1994 15y ago
It's quite frustrating when you're 17 and can't use it, this is going to make a lot of kids unhappy.
- Breefield 15y ago
  This summarizes everything I feel about the drinking age. Pure frustration and arbitrary dates/ages.
  - Jach 15y ago
    To go off topic some more, but the drinking age isn't as arbitrary as, say, the 'adult age' of 18. I'm pretty sure there's some research that your brain hasn't finished developing until around 21, and possible studies on top of that which suggest early drinking may hurt your brain.
    - sheffield 15y ago
      Then the 'adult age' should be 21 too, because at 18 you're not a grownup yet. And it seems that European children grow faster because they can drink at 18 or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age). Or maybe brain research only exists in the US.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      The research is that if you don't have 21 as a drinking age your state doesn't get as much federal funding for highways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A... "Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower."
      - Jach 15y ago
        Thanks for the historical correction. It looks like it was set at 21 for states before Prohibition as well. I'll admit then that research on teenagers is more rationalization for keeping the limit where it is, and you can similarly find other rationalizations for keeping/changing other seemingly arbitrary age limits like 18 for adulthood, 16 for driving (and counter-reasons, etc.) Also I may be putting too much stock in the available evidence, e.g. here's a writeup from 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04teen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04teen.html
    - ugh 15y ago
      That would be kinda odd, considering the drinking age varies from country to country and it isn’t 21 in most of them. In Germany, for example, you can drink (in public) and buy beer and wine when you turn 16, all other alcohol when you turn 18. Wikipedia has this informative table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age I would summarize it as follows: 18 wins. I suspect not for any scientific reasons. So what’s the history of the 21? 21 was the age of majority when prohibition ended. Most states set their legal drinking age accordingly and that’s that. Today all states have 21 as the legal drinking age since they would lose federal funding if the didn’t. By the way, today the age of majority is 18 in all but three states. All those drinking age limits are arbitrary. I’m actually fine with that, as long as grownups can buy alcohol. Alcohol may still be harmful for 18-year-olds (well, even more harmful than alcohol is anyway) but I don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell grownups what to do when it comes to things like alcohol or smoking or various (not sure whether I want to write all) other drugs. (It’s even possible to have a sensible argument about whether younger kids should be allowed to buy alcohol. When you drink too much beer when you are 16 in Germany you can’t kill anyone driving since you can only get your driver’s license with 18. Maybe those two years give those kids the time to get it out of their system and to learn about the effects alcohol has on them. On the other hand American’s can already have up to five years of driving experience when they are first legally allowed to drink, but I don’t think experience helps you when you are drunk driving. You just shouldn’t do it. That would be an interesting social science study – are young Americans or Germans more likely to drunk drive?)
      - Jach 15y ago
        Yes, I didn't mean to turn this into a debate on the merits of alcohol consumption or the role of the government in regulating it. I was using ex post facto research (that's probably not very strong anyway) as a rationalization for the current drinking age to suggest it's not just an "arbitrary number", but as I said in cousin comment there are similar justifications for other seemingly arbitrary numbers.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    When you word it like that of course it's stupid, but what law would you suggest that doesn't use arbitrary ages? Obviously they don't fit everyone exactly, I know I was drinking before I was 18 and think that was fine, I've also known people who really hadn't matured by the time they were legally adults. Do you agree that a 40 year old shouldn't be able to have sex with a 6 year old? Do you agree that a ten year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop and buy a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka? Assuming yes, the only two options are an arbitrary age that won't be perfect for everyone, but will at least protect as many people as possible, or no law, and if shit happens to kids then oh well. After that you can of course debate where the arbitrary ages are, for example I think it's ridiculous that 21 is the drinking age in America.
    - donall 15y ago
      Do you agree that a ten year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop and buy a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka? When I was 10, I regularly bought beer and cigarettes in the shop near our house. I also bought bread, eggs, milk, etc. I was buying these things for my parents. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except for the fact that I occasionally bought sweets for myself with the change. Unsurprisingly, as a 10 year old, I was more interested in strawberry chewing gum and red licorice than beer and cigarettes (which I had tried and found to be revolting). When I was 10, my older brother turned 16. My father started including him when he ordered wine with dinner and he had the occasional beer with his friends. I have never seen any evidence of my brother abusing alcohol. On the other hand, I saw plenty of alcohol abuse when we moved to Ireland. The strictness of the law here leads to the same problems associated with any other illegal drug abuse. Users (in this case, minors) consume it in secret and often in uncontrolled and dangerous ways. I'd much prefer to have a 16 year old kid being kicked out of a bar for being too drunk than drinking a litre of whiskey in a field, passing out and dying of exposure. </2¢>
      - corin_ 15y ago
        I'm with you on lowering the drinking age in the US from 21 (though 18 seems pretty much OK in my view), and I also support legalisation of recreational drugs. Your story of being 10 is pretty irrelevant, though, you're just one person. If everybody behaved a particular way in all aspects of life, we'd have no need for any laws at all. The fact that you were useful buying them and not smoking them doesn't mean other children won't do the opposite. These sort of laws have to protect the vulnerable, not build on the basis that all children are grown up enough to look after themselves. As to drinking in bars, I'm not so sure. In my experience, I have, my friends have and random people I see any time I go out have been able to get very drunk without being thrown out. The only time I've seen people thrown out "for being too drunk" is actually when their being drunk has made them rude and/or violent, often towards bouncers. No-one I personally know has ever got so drunk that something bad happened, but I've seen no evidence that it's harder for that to be the case in a licensed bar than a field. Regardless, even if kids could drink legally, what's stopping them from, after being kicked out for being too drunk, heading to a field with a bottle of vodka?
- brackin 15y ago
  For some reason me and my friends are in and i'm 17. I don't remember entering my age into Google, I never lied just never entered it. Not sure what their data source it. Once hunch was Google accounts which use YouTube as they have an age limit.
  - avolcano 15y ago
    Same here. I just did some poking around for places to put a day of birth into Google or see what my current one is and couldn't find one (not in Google+ or on the Google Accounts page). I have a feeling your YouTube theory is right though; there's a good chance I set mine to be a year older so I could watch the age-restricted videos.
  - shii 15y ago
    Same, and I think you're right about them using the Youtube age.
bdhe 15y ago
Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is no way to change your birthday (without involving a credit card #). Heaven forbid you accidentally entered your birthday wrongly the first time, you're locked out with little recourse!
dekz 15y ago
Although my heart goes out for William (http://d.pr/41VG http://d.pr/41VG), I am quite happy google hasn't offered rich text features in plus.
- corin_ 15y ago
  There are some formatting options available - https://plus.google.com/106788603501468469828/posts/849WcarVCQA https://plus.google.com/106788603501468469828/posts/849WcarV...
ttttqqqq 15y ago
I love Google marketing, it's like a Soviet propaganda assault. "The masses are clamoring for Google's new product. The next generation has spoken."
jackolas 15y ago
I don't understand why they're applying US-centric age restrictions world-wide. There are other countries out there.
- corin_ 15y ago
  The over 18 limit is nothing to do with US law, it's Google making a moral decision (or more accurately, a PR decision that, if they are to have any privacy issues occur, they want to be able ot say "at least no minors were affected"). As to the 13 and over, it's very common for companies to make that a global policy, partly because US isn't the only country to have that law (off the top of my head I can't recall which others do), partly because it's a fairly common sense decision from an adult's point of view, meaning that few would argue against it, many would argue for it on grounds of morality rather than law. And the only people who'll ever complain are a few years away from being able to vote politically or with their wallet, by which time they will be allowed to do whatever they want, and will have stopped caring. So it's pretty win/win.
  - JulianMorrison 15y ago
    Ugh. I certainly consider it immoral to lock children away from the ability to talk to one another online.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      Technically they aren't being prevented from doing it, they just have to have a guardian's permission. Much the same as a 7 year old could join a local football/baseball/whatever team, but would need parental consent to do so.
FreshCode 15y ago
This is hilarious! Looks just like my little sister's Facebook feed.
ignifero 15y ago
Actually, since google strives to make a difference here, they should cater to kids as well. Teens love social networking and, if anything, google can use its knowledge of the web to provide a safer, child and teen-safe environment even more than facebook did. It's actually going to be impossible to keep teens away if G+ ever becomes trendy.
acak 15y ago
While the intention is noble, the illusion of scarcity and exclusivity around G+ that this creates among teens should actually benefit G+ when its finally open to them. Kids to want to be acknowledged as grown-ups. It frustrates them a lot when someone says they can't have or do something because they're too young. This should increase the desirability factor of G+. So G+, by using a roll-out strategy that is demographically reversed to Facebook's path (".edu" limitation et al), may still see the same crazed adoption in the teen segment.
Skywing 15y ago
How about opening Google+ up to Google Apps accounts, too? Google Apps accounts cannot create Google Profile accounts, which are required for G+.
orenmazor 15y ago
Facebook had all kinds of restrictions when it came out. my gf was not in university at the time and was very jealous, apparently, of those of us in facebook (on a highly related note, at that time facebook was just full of nerds and bros)

41 points by samrat 15y ago

Mithrandir 15y ago

Of course, age limits are moot if they've lied about their birthday.

tonfa 15y ago
But it's not Google fault if they lied, right? (In case they are for example exposed to 18+ content on Google+)

chunky1994 15y ago

It's quite frustrating when you're 17 and can't use it, this is going to make a lot of kids unhappy.

Breefield 15y ago
This summarizes everything I feel about the drinking age. Pure frustration and arbitrary dates/ages.
- Jach 15y ago
  To go off topic some more, but the drinking age isn't as arbitrary as, say, the 'adult age' of 18. I'm pretty sure there's some research that your brain hasn't finished developing until around 21, and possible studies on top of that which suggest early drinking may hurt your brain.
  - sheffield 15y ago
    Then the 'adult age' should be 21 too, because at 18 you're not a grownup yet. And it seems that European children grow faster because they can drink at 18 or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age). Or maybe brain research only exists in the US.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    The research is that if you don't have 21 as a drinking age your state doesn't get as much federal funding for highways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A... "Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower."
    - Jach 15y ago
      Thanks for the historical correction. It looks like it was set at 21 for states before Prohibition as well. I'll admit then that research on teenagers is more rationalization for keeping the limit where it is, and you can similarly find other rationalizations for keeping/changing other seemingly arbitrary age limits like 18 for adulthood, 16 for driving (and counter-reasons, etc.) Also I may be putting too much stock in the available evidence, e.g. here's a writeup from 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04teen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04teen.html
  - ugh 15y ago
    That would be kinda odd, considering the drinking age varies from country to country and it isn’t 21 in most of them. In Germany, for example, you can drink (in public) and buy beer and wine when you turn 16, all other alcohol when you turn 18. Wikipedia has this informative table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age I would summarize it as follows: 18 wins. I suspect not for any scientific reasons. So what’s the history of the 21? 21 was the age of majority when prohibition ended. Most states set their legal drinking age accordingly and that’s that. Today all states have 21 as the legal drinking age since they would lose federal funding if the didn’t. By the way, today the age of majority is 18 in all but three states. All those drinking age limits are arbitrary. I’m actually fine with that, as long as grownups can buy alcohol. Alcohol may still be harmful for 18-year-olds (well, even more harmful than alcohol is anyway) but I don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell grownups what to do when it comes to things like alcohol or smoking or various (not sure whether I want to write all) other drugs. (It’s even possible to have a sensible argument about whether younger kids should be allowed to buy alcohol. When you drink too much beer when you are 16 in Germany you can’t kill anyone driving since you can only get your driver’s license with 18. Maybe those two years give those kids the time to get it out of their system and to learn about the effects alcohol has on them. On the other hand American’s can already have up to five years of driving experience when they are first legally allowed to drink, but I don’t think experience helps you when you are drunk driving. You just shouldn’t do it. That would be an interesting social science study – are young Americans or Germans more likely to drunk drive?)
    - Jach 15y ago
      Yes, I didn't mean to turn this into a debate on the merits of alcohol consumption or the role of the government in regulating it. I was using ex post facto research (that's probably not very strong anyway) as a rationalization for the current drinking age to suggest it's not just an "arbitrary number", but as I said in cousin comment there are similar justifications for other seemingly arbitrary numbers.
- corin_ 15y ago
  When you word it like that of course it's stupid, but what law would you suggest that doesn't use arbitrary ages? Obviously they don't fit everyone exactly, I know I was drinking before I was 18 and think that was fine, I've also known people who really hadn't matured by the time they were legally adults. Do you agree that a 40 year old shouldn't be able to have sex with a 6 year old? Do you agree that a ten year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop and buy a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka? Assuming yes, the only two options are an arbitrary age that won't be perfect for everyone, but will at least protect as many people as possible, or no law, and if shit happens to kids then oh well. After that you can of course debate where the arbitrary ages are, for example I think it's ridiculous that 21 is the drinking age in America.
  - donall 15y ago
    Do you agree that a ten year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop and buy a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka? When I was 10, I regularly bought beer and cigarettes in the shop near our house. I also bought bread, eggs, milk, etc. I was buying these things for my parents. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except for the fact that I occasionally bought sweets for myself with the change. Unsurprisingly, as a 10 year old, I was more interested in strawberry chewing gum and red licorice than beer and cigarettes (which I had tried and found to be revolting). When I was 10, my older brother turned 16. My father started including him when he ordered wine with dinner and he had the occasional beer with his friends. I have never seen any evidence of my brother abusing alcohol. On the other hand, I saw plenty of alcohol abuse when we moved to Ireland. The strictness of the law here leads to the same problems associated with any other illegal drug abuse. Users (in this case, minors) consume it in secret and often in uncontrolled and dangerous ways. I'd much prefer to have a 16 year old kid being kicked out of a bar for being too drunk than drinking a litre of whiskey in a field, passing out and dying of exposure. </2¢>
    - corin_ 15y ago
      I'm with you on lowering the drinking age in the US from 21 (though 18 seems pretty much OK in my view), and I also support legalisation of recreational drugs. Your story of being 10 is pretty irrelevant, though, you're just one person. If everybody behaved a particular way in all aspects of life, we'd have no need for any laws at all. The fact that you were useful buying them and not smoking them doesn't mean other children won't do the opposite. These sort of laws have to protect the vulnerable, not build on the basis that all children are grown up enough to look after themselves. As to drinking in bars, I'm not so sure. In my experience, I have, my friends have and random people I see any time I go out have been able to get very drunk without being thrown out. The only time I've seen people thrown out "for being too drunk" is actually when their being drunk has made them rude and/or violent, often towards bouncers. No-one I personally know has ever got so drunk that something bad happened, but I've seen no evidence that it's harder for that to be the case in a licensed bar than a field. Regardless, even if kids could drink legally, what's stopping them from, after being kicked out for being too drunk, heading to a field with a bottle of vodka?
brackin 15y ago
For some reason me and my friends are in and i'm 17. I don't remember entering my age into Google, I never lied just never entered it. Not sure what their data source it. Once hunch was Google accounts which use YouTube as they have an age limit.
- avolcano 15y ago
  Same here. I just did some poking around for places to put a day of birth into Google or see what my current one is and couldn't find one (not in Google+ or on the Google Accounts page). I have a feeling your YouTube theory is right though; there's a good chance I set mine to be a year older so I could watch the age-restricted videos.
- shii 15y ago
  Same, and I think you're right about them using the Youtube age.

bdhe 15y ago

Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is no way to change your birthday (without involving a credit card #). Heaven forbid you accidentally entered your birthday wrongly the first time, you're locked out with little recourse!

dekz 15y ago

Although my heart goes out for William (http://d.pr/41VG http://d.pr/41VG), I am quite happy google hasn't offered rich text features in plus.

corin_ 15y ago
There are some formatting options available - https://plus.google.com/106788603501468469828/posts/849WcarVCQA https://plus.google.com/106788603501468469828/posts/849WcarV...

ttttqqqq 15y ago

I love Google marketing, it's like a Soviet propaganda assault. "The masses are clamoring for Google's new product. The next generation has spoken."

jackolas 15y ago

I don't understand why they're applying US-centric age restrictions world-wide. There are other countries out there.

corin_ 15y ago
The over 18 limit is nothing to do with US law, it's Google making a moral decision (or more accurately, a PR decision that, if they are to have any privacy issues occur, they want to be able ot say "at least no minors were affected"). As to the 13 and over, it's very common for companies to make that a global policy, partly because US isn't the only country to have that law (off the top of my head I can't recall which others do), partly because it's a fairly common sense decision from an adult's point of view, meaning that few would argue against it, many would argue for it on grounds of morality rather than law. And the only people who'll ever complain are a few years away from being able to vote politically or with their wallet, by which time they will be allowed to do whatever they want, and will have stopped caring. So it's pretty win/win.
- JulianMorrison 15y ago
  Ugh. I certainly consider it immoral to lock children away from the ability to talk to one another online.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Technically they aren't being prevented from doing it, they just have to have a guardian's permission. Much the same as a 7 year old could join a local football/baseball/whatever team, but would need parental consent to do so.

FreshCode 15y ago

This is hilarious! Looks just like my little sister's Facebook feed.

ignifero 15y ago

Actually, since google strives to make a difference here, they should cater to kids as well. Teens love social networking and, if anything, google can use its knowledge of the web to provide a safer, child and teen-safe environment even more than facebook did. It's actually going to be impossible to keep teens away if G+ ever becomes trendy.

acak 15y ago

While the intention is noble, the illusion of scarcity and exclusivity around G+ that this creates among teens should actually benefit G+ when its finally open to them. Kids to want to be acknowledged as grown-ups. It frustrates them a lot when someone says they can't have or do something because they're too young. This should increase the desirability factor of G+. So G+, by using a roll-out strategy that is demographically reversed to Facebook's path (".edu" limitation et al), may still see the same crazed adoption in the teen segment.

Skywing 15y ago

How about opening Google+ up to Google Apps accounts, too? Google Apps accounts cannot create Google Profile accounts, which are required for G+.

orenmazor 15y ago

Facebook had all kinds of restrictions when it came out. my gf was not in university at the time and was very jealous, apparently, of those of us in facebook (on a highly related note, at that time facebook was just full of nerds and bros)