Facebook CEO's worst idea to date: Profiles for under-13's

By | May 20, 2011, 11:45am PDT

Summary: Mark Zuckerberg in a speech said under-13’s should be allowed on Facebook. Is this the most irresponsible statement from the company to date?

Perhaps in Mark Zuckerberg’s most irresponsible idea to date, he stated in a speech in California this week that children under the age of 13 should be allowed on Facebook, the world’s largest social network.

In the speech, he said:

“My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age. Because of the restrictions we haven’t even begun this learning process. . . . If they’re lifted, then we’d start to learn what works. We’d take a lot of precautions to make sure that they [younger kids] are safe.”

Considering there have been so many lapses in security, privacy and data-stealing applications on the site affecting tens of millions of users if not more, I cannot see for one second how Facebook is protecting even a minority of its users.

Though 7.5 million children under the age of 13 are on the site — with a reported majority of that under the age of 11 — Facebook should be spending its time removing them from potential harm’s way instead of encouraging them to start an account or continue as existing users.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) does not allow the collection or retention of data held on anyone under the age of 13. Facebook’s terms and conditions currently state that under-13’s are not allowed on the site. Yet, a simple age deception at the sign up process can allow anyone under the age of 13 to sign up without any extensive checks on the data they have submitted.

Accounts which are found to be of children under the age of 13 are cut off immediately, but it does not solve the problem altogether.

Considering the gross neglect that the company has continued to apply to its users, I am strongly against any child — regardless of whether they are over the age of 13 or not — to be on Facebook. In fact, I would even go as far to say that parents who do allow their child, particularly under the age of 13, are not effectively protecting their children from the dangers of submitting so much information to the social network.

I have argued before that today’s younger generation are not ‘lacking in experience’, and if anything are becoming more adept to the adult world faster than before — primarily through means of Facebook and fragile social relationships.

But nevertheless, in my eyes, it is socially irresponsible for Facebook to advocate children under the age of 13, who are already increasingly handing over personal data for which under law have effectively little right in handing over, and are not legally responsible to make such decisions yet.

While Facebook does make a clear and concerted effort in protecting children 13 and over, by implementing technologies to reduce and remove child abuse imagery, it is highly unethical to encourage children under the age of 13 to sign up to a service for which may not understand the consequences of their actions, and the long-term implications of their actions.

Related content:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

45
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Predators "tend not to hunt there" on the web? Seriously?
SAStarling 23rd May 2011
@wolf_z

You can't be serious about that statement, or you don't know anybody in law enforcement. I'm retired now, but I worked with the FBI's "Innocent Images" Task Force during my time on the job, and there are things I've seen that I can never UN-see, unfortunately. And I can tell you with 100% certainty, predators DO hunt on the internet, and they do set up "meets" to get together with the children they find. Fortunately, they were always met with a pair of silver bracelets and a free ride to the local jail in the cases where was involved.
Pedobear approved!
@Tommy S.
i think this is not a worst idea ..he addressed the education aspects
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/05/kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on.html
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Facebook CEO's worst idea to date: Profiles for under-13's
UrNotPayingAttention Updated - 21st May 2011
@TechExpert21 .

First, he does not address education. He drops a few buzz words, with no shred or indication of any plan to enhance education.

Second, less control + more education is a nice idea, but not realistic.

How about we drop all gun legislation, but extensively educate our youth on proper gun handling and responsibility?

Or, how about we de-criminalize marijauna? So long as we educate our youth on the potential dangers and how to use it responsibly?
@Tommy S.

Mark Zuckerberg is 27 years old. I don't think he has the life experience to understand how profoundly bad an idea this is. The exception is if his heart is stone and he intentionally wants to introduce children into the searching arms of sexual predators.
0 Votes
+ -
You do know...
wolf_z 21st May 2011
@Bookmark71

The vast majority of sexual predation takes place with someone the child *ALREADY TRUSTS*, right? Parent, uncle, teacher, scout master, doctor...

While predators do frequent the web they tend not to hunt there. After all, on the net nobody knows you're a dog...
@Bookmark71
You have no real clue.
Allow them in legitimatley under controlled conditions.
Say "NO" is not going to stop them. Be realistic.
Take a situation and explore the good that can come out of it.
Just jumping onto the "OMG Pedo Shopping" bandwagon is juvenile and shows you have not really given any thought into the suggestion.

plain
0 Votes
+ -
"haven't given any real thought into the suggestion"
UrNotPayingAttention 21st May 2011
@rhonin
It sounds like you haven't either... because we aren't talking just about Facebook accounts for under 13 year olds...

Zuckerberg is talking about changing regulations and statutes for data collection and mining on children under 13 (even @ 13, the current law is assinine).

It is from that perspective that the majority of abuse would be personified by changing this practice. Not account abuse, or online activity, or even pedofiles (which, by the way, I agree is a stupid argument).
0 Votes
+ -
@chmod 777
Have you looked at public schools lately?
Everything they do it tied into corporations or organizations that leverage and sell this info. Almost all funcraising looks to leverage our children as the front end with a protion going to the schools.
Now add anything your child signs up for or is registered for by themselves, parents or... yup - public institutions.

Let's be realistic here.
A Facebook makeover has the potential to be a positive step.

Facebook is just a drop in the bucket.
@wolf_z

You can't be serious about that statement, or you don't know anybody in law enforcement. I'm retired now, but I worked with the FBI's "Innocent Images" Task Force during my time on the job, and there are things I've seen that I can never UN-see, unfortunately. And I can tell you with 100% certainty, predators DO hunt on the internet, and they do set up "meets" to get together with the children they find. Fortunately, they were always met with a pair of silver bracelets and a free ride to the local jail in the cases where was involved.
As a parent, I'm fine with that because I can supervise my child online and make sure they're receiving their information about online safety from me, not some random source.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@Real World I'm very glad you do. You're a credit to parents everywhere. More parents should be engaged with their children's activities online.
0 Votes
+ -
100% Agree with @zwhittaker
gergyllaer 20th May 2011
Thank you thank you for taking on ALL of the responsibilities as a parent. That includes what your kids do when you're not around. I'm tired of people whining and complaining about what the world is exposing their kids to. How about, take action and be a freaking parent.

Good on you.
@zwhittaker
i think this is not a worst idea ..he addressed the education aspects
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/05/kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on.html
0 Votes
+ -
But, Real World...
UrNotPayingAttention 21st May 2011
@Real World
This isn't about parental supervision of any activity, or education.

This is about changing data collection and retention statutes...the implications of which go far beyond how well you raise, monitor, or educate your child. If anything, COPPA needs to be given a steriod shot or two.

I'm a bit surprised Zuck's advisers are not screaming at him. There is a *bit* of a conflict of interest here, given how Facebook earns revenue.

Similarly, the CEO's of Smith & Wesson or Beretta don't lobby for the easing of firearm legislation; they let (have) groups that take up that fight.
0 Votes
+ -
Warm up the lawyers
Robert Hahn 20th May 2011
The amount of truly intrusive and Orwellian technology it would take to actually enforce an Internet-based age verification system makes all these kinds of bleats about "keeping children safe" laughable.

Yes, the little miscreants can lie about their age. Now stop pretending it's otherwise, or that rattling bigger swords at web site proprietors can change that.

Zuckerberg is right. If you remove the incentive for people to lie, you can get a handle on the problem and possibly manage it. If you insist on driving the adventurous little brats into hiding, all you've done is make it impossible to protect them.
0 Votes
+ -
How would you feel if ...
ryeckley82 20th May 2011
@Robert Hahn , how would you feel if your son or daughter got online, lied about their age, created a profile, and then accidentally got messed up with a pedophile (which is probably what would happen)? That's the risk that Zuckerberg and anyone else takes when they go against the COPPA act. I'll bet if some random pervert just came up to your kid and tried to molest them, you would want to beat their face until it was bleeding, right? Why not protect kids online as strongly?

Zuckerberg has to be REALLY out-of-this-world ignorant to not realize that fact. Why is the world trying to steal innocence from the children? Give them their innocence and leave them alone. They don't need the drama very early in life; it only makes for a future depression case.
0 Votes
+ -
False premise
Robert Hahn 20th May 2011
You're pretending that Zuckerberg can do something about that. He can't. I once worked for a company that spent a lot of time and money trying to find a way to detect under-13s who lie about their age ( this problem goes far beyond Facebook). The kind of sneaky measures examined included pulling up public records data (birth certificates, property ownership, etc.), credit ratings (don't have one? You're probably underage) and worse. All stuff that you'd be the first one to howl about if it ever came to light: Facebook snoops on you, film at 11!

You need to get it through your head: kids will lie. They've been doing it for decades to buy beer, they'll do it online in a heartbeat. There is no way -- as in NO WAY -- for someone processing a registration form to detect this without venturing into Serious Privacy Ugliness.

If the age limit were 18 instead of 13, you could cover your butt legally by asking for a credit card number, since you have to be 18 to sign contracts. But even then, the smarter kids can get the number and type it in.

You're talking as if Zuckerberg can stop this if he only wants to. Please... stop believing in the Truth Fairy.
@ryeckley82
i think this is not a worst idea ..he addressed the education aspects
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/05/kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on.html
@Robert Hahn

It's not going to stop them from lying about their age.
@Cylon Centurion

i think this is not a worst idea ..he addressed the education aspects
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/05/kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on.html
What exactly do 13 year olds need a Facebook account for? We should be encouraging our kids to be more active. Not sitting behind a computer all day.

There is no reason why anyone who isn't in college or at least the high school level to be on Facebook.
@Cylon Centurion
Kids will see ads on facebook and go buy stuff.
That will help the economy and create jobs.
@Linux Geek Exactly! Now we are on the same page. The Z man just wants to get more money by selling more ads to our yonger kids. This would be a better strategy - adults get loored to buy a product because their "you know" will get longer or bigger, whereas the kids will be sold on golden starts and cartoon heroes. The real question is, are you ready to feed your children with all kinds of ads (they get them on TV anyway) and allow the Z man get even more money (and maybe great more jobs for Americans) or would you rather let them play outside with other kids as they should do.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@pupkin_z But just think what personal information the advertisers are collecting from young children. Very unethical.
0 Votes
+ -
@zwhittaker
LMAO!!!
They get it anyway.
A significant portion of public school incentives, forms and money raising activities are tied into companies and other organizations.
Why can't people take a step back and look at the potential of FB.....
Whether you like it or not, they will be on it or something similiar. Give them a legitimate outlet.
0 Votes
+ -
Correction...
wolf_z 21st May 2011
@Cylon Centurion

"There is no reason why anyone who isn't in college or at least the high school level to be on Facebook."

There is no reason anyone should be on Facebook.

There, fixed that for you.
0 Votes
+ -
@wolf_z
Why not?
There is a significant level of social interaction in our lives today.
Work / Home / Friends / etc...
It is not going away and will get more pervasive.
Start them young and help mold their habits. Teach them before their "friends" do.
I disagree. There's nothing wrong with allowing u13s on Facebook if the parents keep an eye out for them and, obviously, Facebook themselves do too.

Besides, how does Facebook suddenly become "safe" on someone's 13th birthday? There are vulnerable people in society well over that age.
0 Votes
+ -
@supabof93

How are parents supposed to keep an eye out for the mass marketing agencies who do nothing but collect and mine data? to bundle it up and sell it off to anyone who will cut a check?

How is a parent supposed to stop a data warehouse from creating a data profile for their 9 year old? They can't.

As to your question, it's not safe for a 13 year old, or for most people for that matter - 21 years and up.
Admittedly, Facebook has some interesting components to it. But, as in many things in life, all is not as it seems. Thinking adults will realize that providing a service like Facebook does not come for free, even if logging in and posting doesn't require you take out your wallet, and as such they should have some understanding that Facebook is lifting money from the publics pocket through side door left, so to speak.

Children under 13 are not going to get this hitch, indeed from what I have seen too many avid adult Facebook users don't get it. Facebook is rife with opportunities to get involved with data mining to the point where its actually annoying at times. Distracting when you want no part of it.

Just how is it that Facebook intends to keep the side door left locked for those under 13? And how is it Facebook will make profit off the multiple millions of under 13's that would swarm unabated onto their servers if allowed access? These are questions that its hard to see a good answer.
@Cayble
Agree.
With these difficult and not really answerable questions, this means our active choices are simple:
1. no under 13 allowed
2. allow all ages in.

One choice will help teach/reinforce improper habits
One will legitamize and encourage proper habits.

As a responsible thoughtful parent, I'll choose number 2.
happy
I think if you're under 13, you have to have a parent that's already on Facebook sponsor you and you cannot unfriend that parent. The parent has control of the child's account. Does that stop the kid from sneaking on facebook on their own and lying about their age? Nope, but good parenting does. Know what your kids are doing and where, including online. I still think if they are going to let u-13 on, they have to be associated to a parent's account that has control and can see ALL of their activity.
@swelch@...
Not a bad idea but not really enforceable.
This just encourages falsifying your age.
Adds aditional steps to the current system with no real benefit.
Its a dispicable idea and Zuckerberg's best interest here is profit not the children. I'm no parent but it doesn't take one to know that the FB of today is an inappropriate place for children under 13. The staggering amount of indecent profile pics, profanity, porn, security issues, breach of privacy, lurking & poking perverts, and time sucking nature of it, just to name a few.
0 Votes
+ -
@2generate
Nice of you to voice the problem - we already know that.
At least toss a minimal thought into addressing the issue and send us a crumb....

Echo's don't really add value.
Just today, a Jamaican paper ran an article highlighting the fact that perverts were now successfully using Facebook and Twitter to target kids in that country.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110520/lead/lead5.html

Apparently, it's a growing problem there already. Facebook has a significant international user base, so the site needs to structure its policies around this reality.
so, one has to excuse his youthful ignorance.
i think this is not a worst idea ..he addressed the education aspects
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/05/kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on.html
0 Votes
+ -
Facebook CEO's worst idea to date is...
anothersmartguy 20th May 2011
Facebook.
There is, in fact, no reason at all why anyone should be on Facebook, period.

As for allowing kids younger than thirteen to register on Facebook: bad idea. At the age of thirteen-fourteen, I kept a blog. The language I used was mediocre, the stuff I wrote about embarrassing, awkward and sometimes bordering on incriminating/insulting. I moved on from that blog, forgot what emailaddress I used as a login (not to mention the password or the answer to the secret question). But the blog remained and, naive as I was, for years if you googled my name that blog would be one of the first results you got.

Now a blog is an easy thing to remove all things considered, since it's a pretty static thing (they used to be, anyhow). I don't have a clue how an organization like Facebook handles their data however. And I don't know how they'd handle a request for removal from someone whose only identification is a name filled in a support query.

Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make: at age thirteen-fourteen I still couldn't grasp the implications of what I was unleashing onto the world. I didn't think about future implications or anything like that.

And then you'd allow eight year olds to register officially, keep everything about them in your archives for years to come, with no definite way to delete that data (later on in life)? (Because everything gets restored the minute you login again.) Consider that Facebook has basically replaced the function of IM, where I remember being even more stupid, in the ecosphere of the internet. (This applies for Twitter too, I guess.)

Sure, you can argue that kids lie about their age and register anyway, so why should you/we keep up the illusion? The fact of the matter is, when you're underage and you're lying to the system, you know you're lying. It's a conscious decision on your part, that naughty realization that what you're doing isn't something you should do, but still do.

Consequently, you'll be a bit more cautious with the system in place. If you haven't got that barrier in place, you just don't notice it and you'll afford yourself more breathing space / less caution.

If you don't get that feeling of "I can be caught anytime", you're feeling that little bit extra confident in what you're doing. It's that confidence, however, that is the illusion. And the moment when things are more probable to go wrong.

So yes, what Zuckerberg proposes to do stinks. And that's not because he lacks life experience, if anyone should be smart enough, it should be him.
@stragierk Great post.
0 Votes
+ -
@stragierk

Unfortunately the popular kids house is where they are already on FB - not to mention Public Libraries and schools.... Do you know where your kids are?

Everything you say (and you say it well) really does not add any value.
It is known information.
I would much rather see some thought into a solution.
Cyber Social Interaction (CSI - chuckle) is here to stay.

btw: our society today teaches you not to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
FB is a very minor piece of it - most have the message long before they initially login.

0 Votes
+ -
Well done, Zac.
UrNotPayingAttention Updated - 21st May 2011
I completely agree.

There's alot of talk here about 'education', 'online monitoring of activity', etc., and that certainly is one step in the right direction

But I think what's missing here is alot of people talking about how they plan to protect their child's identity, don't even know how to protect their own.

I would say the majority of people don't really know how Facebook makes their money, and how the data of people who are of age gets used, bought, sold, manipulated, then bought again.

And, it's not just Facebook that this data mining and transaction process occurs... pretty much anytime you type something into a browser window, you are helping to build your data profile in some data warehouse. (and, odds are, it's a company you've never heard of, never knew they were building a profile on you, and you never gave consent for the company to do so)

Yes, I think it is absolutely necessary to properly educate our youth on online and computer responsiblity...but I also think parents (or just consumers in general) also need alot of education about how everything they do in a browser gets tracked, mined, sorted, bought, sold, and bought again.
0 Votes
+ -
The internet is still the wild, wild west, where anything goes. Letting under 13's on to facebook would be a really, really bad idea. Can you say exploitation of minors ? It seems really clear that facebook will do anything to get more profits.
I don't know if Facebook will offer a good educational oppritunity for kids, and I don't know if it's dangerous, but I do know that kids will find a way to use Facebook if they want.
Poll: Should kids under 13 be allowed to use Facebook?
Link: http://www.wepolls.com/r/516798

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix