The Kid-Friendly Facebook—Can it exist?

With many (approximately 7.5 million) children under the age of 13 already creating Facebook accounts, by falsifying their age, perhaps it seems remiss of the now-public corporation to not take advantage of this market. By doing more to cater to this already engaged audience, Facebook can increase their profits in targeted ad revenue AND help control settings to create a safer social environment. At least that is the solution they’re presenting. Facebook knows that ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. The question seems to be, is this the best way to handle it?

The newly planned structure, which has not been officially confirmed, will allow children under the age of 13 to create and use Facebook accounts, but they must be hosted under a parent account. The parent account will have control of who their child can become friends with, what applications the child can use and what information, if any, is made public. Additionally, parents can see anything their child has posted, sent or received—including private messages. While this may sound like a cautious solution to an admittedly existent problem, it is also freely opening the doors of the world of social media to an audience that may not be ready to handle it. It is estimated that the under 13 user base would increase the number of Facebook users to 900 million, if this program is implemented. However, the question still remains, how effective will it be? Today, among the parents that are aware their preteen has a Facebook account, only 18% have requested their child as a friend. If such a simple step to monitor their children is not being taken, will parents have any interest in these additional monitoring tools and controls?

Though Facebook has yet to acknowledge the details, the supporters and cynics have already taken sides, all of which seem to be focused around safety. Among the supporters, parents and caregivers that feel this will create a safe place within social media where their child(ren) can be connected while still being protected. While those who don’t support the plan claim there is no place in social media for preteens. These parents and caregivers are concerned that even with monitoring, the internet may not be a safe place for kids. Of course, there are other groups just demanding details. In fact, two US Senators, Democrat Markey and Republican Barton, have crafted a quite lengthy (14 paragraphs!) letter to Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, full of questions about these preteen accounts and their protections.

What do you think about the change in age restrictions? Will these preteen accounts act as an alternative to ignoring the current age restriction and keep kids safe on Facebook? Would you force the preteen in your care to have a “preteen account” or bend the rules and stick with the 13 and over crowd? In our opinion, it all boils down to the issue of online safety that must be discussed with children and constantly monitored by parents, caregivers and internet moguls alike.

Child Labor Laws are Stupid?

Republican 2012 Presidential Candidate, Newt Gingrich, made an appearance at Harvard on Friday for a screening of his new documentary, “A City upon a Hill”, focused on American exceptionalism. Newt discussed poverty and a potential end to child labor laws stating, “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid. Saying to people you shouldn’t go to work before you’re 14, 16. You’re totally poor, you’re in a school that’s failing with a teacher that’s failing. I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they’d have cash; they’d have pride in the schools. They’d begin the process of rising. Go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job at 9 to 14 years of age. They are selling newspapers, going door to door, washing cars. They were all making money at a very young age. What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don’t do it. Remember all the stuff about not getting a hamburger-flipping job? Worst possible advice to give the poor children.”  

He went on to say, “You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America.”  This sentiment motivates his previous statement; he is trying to show voters not to expect more of the same in a time where many Americans are searching for economic reform.  But in the opinions of some, this does little to justify putting school-aged children to work.  

This statement does, however, provide many points of conversation. If a child is working short hours in the safety of their school, could that be a good thing for them? Would they learn a level of responsibility and of pride in their school and neighborhood? Would they be able to help provide a more stable and comfortable life for themselves and their families? Or is it too much too soon? Would we be robbing them of their youth? Would it cause lower rates of academic success? This is really great stuff to think about; maybe Gingrich is on to something.  He may not always say things with diplomacy and grace, but he throws out real food for thought. The only thing that’s certain is that Gingrich has opened Pandora’s box and no one has heard the last of this conversation.