.
Feedback

Facebook May Allow Users Under 13 [POLL]

Facebook may revamp its age requirements, according to reports; sound off in our Patch poll

Facebook has tapped into almost every demographic over the past few years—college students eager to tag photographs, Gen Xers seeking to reconnect with old classmates, and high schoolers all-too-happy to converse through the small chat box in the lower right corner.

Almost every demographic. But what about youngsters?

The social networking site currently bans users under the age of 13—but that may change in the near future.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Facebook may be planning technology that would allow children under 13 to register for the site and give parents more control over how their kids use it. A child's account would link to their parents', who would then have control over apps, friend requests and other features.

The Journal says some 7.5 million pre-teens are on the site already, by lying about their age.

"Facebook, concerned that it faces reputation and regulatory risks from children already using the service despite its rules, believes it has little choice but to look into ways of establishing controls that could formalize their presence on the site," the Journal reports.

So, Patch wants to know: are you all for the change? Vehemently opposed? Or something else entirely? Vote in our poll below, and be sure to sound off in the comments.

Katie Ryan O'Connor (Editor) June 5, 2012 at 08:53 pm
I have a near 11 year old (and younger) and I can't see the point, really. He does have a phone and sends and receives texts...that seems appropriate. It's all too much sometimes, isn't it?
Tyler Durden June 6, 2012 at 10:43 am
The narcissistic, social-masturbation world of facebook is not fit for people of any age. When we meet face to face, and look each other in the eye, that is social networking.
Aidan June 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm
This entire issue is another societal burp. I'm sure that parents felt the same way transistor radios made the scene and the coming of cable TV. Everyone was certain that the end of civilization was just around the corner. This is new stuff. And we'll all handle just as we've handled other technological developments in the past.
It's sexy and edgy now, but it'll all settle into its proper place in society soon enough. Every bit of new technology is not cause to walk the plank. For God's sake ... it is all, after all, a machine ... controlled by us. We're all acting as though this is the end of childhood or innocence or whatever. Relax.
Mom of Two June 7, 2012 at 02:35 pm
Aidan,
I completely disagree with your statement "For God's sake ... it is all, after all, a machine ... controlled by us. We're all acting as though this is the end of childhood or innocence or whatever." Unfortunately, it IS the end of childhood and innocence. Children under the age of 18 (and many older ones as well) do not have the capacity to understand the repercussions of their actions. The ability to post anything on the internet, whether on Facebook, Tumblr, or any other social media site, provides a cloak of perceived anonymity and as a result, people say and do things online that they would never in a million years say out loud in a face-to-face situation. Ask any school guidance counselor and they will tell you that kids are suffering endlessly from overexposure to too much information, at younger and younger ages, and their self esteem is going right out the window. The exposure to all media, particularly that which promotes unrealistic expectations of how people should look, feel and act is damaging this generation in a way that no other generation before it has experienced. I constantly hear (mostly from people who don't have children, or who have very young children) that one should just turn off the TV, limit internet access, monitor what their children are doing. That sounds like good advice, until you consider that all media is available everywhere 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Anyone determined enough will find a way to access the forbidden.
Aidan June 7, 2012 at 03:04 pm
I suggest you re-read what you've written. At first, you wanna shield kids from all of the murky junk out there ... but then you kind of admit that it is not goin' away. If that's the case, teach them how to deal with it. How to sift thru things and make some proper judgements. Age might have something to do with it, but you also have to take into account a certain level of experience you'd like your youngster to acquire. By age 16 or 18, well, kids might feel a sudden urge of independence and be less forthright in asking about such matters.
You can't shut the world off no matter how hard you try. It will not clean itself up for you either. YOU have to prepare your child to deal with the good, the bad and even the ugly.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.
drostan June 19, 2013 at 03:13 pm
A Response to the Response Mr. Michael Pointing, writing on behalf of United Water, opined in theRead More Journal News (June 7) and the Nyack Patch (June 11) that an Issues Conference on the pending desalination project is unnecessary. When it is so greatly to his personal and professional benefit to support this project, how can he expect to be taken seriously? Comments on the "desal" plant have only rarely mentioned that the radioactive tritium, which each day leaks into the Hudson from Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - just 3 miles upstream from the plant - will end up, in diluted form, in our drinking water. Problem is, although highly diluted, there's no way to filter out tritium since it is chemically identical to water. Worse, there's no known safe exposure level. Like "normal" water, tritium goes into your body as fast as you drink it. Good news: about half of the tritium you do drink is filtered out by the kidneys within about ten days. Bad news: When your kitchen faucet keeps providing you with small amounts of tritium day after day, it tends to keep whatever levels you have in your body elevated. Welcome to your future, Rockland. Say, how about cracking open a nice plastic bottle of Deer Park for mixing up that baby formula? Why does United Water want this project to go forward so quickly as to necessarily preclude a thorough public education process in which all the variables and all the options can be openly discussed? What if one day you decided you don't like UW anymore and you wished the water utility was still owned by the government and not the private sector, because at least that way through your vote, you could democratically elect new people who would shut the plant down (whereas you can never "vote out" a private corporation from owning the pipes that carry your drinking water)? Let's just say arbitrarily that for the first ten years following completion of this more or less irreversible project there was an average of 500 additional picocuries of tritium per liter showing up in drinking water in Rockland County that was not there before. Even the NRC says Indian Point emits tritium into the ground water and presumably into the Hudson as well, since Hudson water is what flows - 24 hours a day - into and out of the power plant, cooling the atomic reaction that creates electrical power). In 1976 the EPA decided (more or less arbitrarily) that 20,000 picocuries of radioactivity would be roughly the "safe" upper limit for human consumption (due to drinking tritium or any other radionuclide). I say "arbitrarily" because I am aware of no one who has actually tried this since then, to see if it really turned out to be safe. Whose insurance policy would make Rockland homeowners whole again if at some future point tritium (or other radionuclide) levels skyrocketed while property values plummeted? Maybe something so terrible could never, ever happen. I certainly hope it couldn't. But why are we residents the guinea pigs, and how come we pay more - not less - for our water just so UW can do more business and, of course, collect more in utility bills? By the way, Fukushima was also never ever supposed to happen. Human health is not something you go back and study all over again once you realize you've lost it. Doesn't Rockland County have enough cancer already? Dan Rostan Nyack