

Ask HN: Underage users and the best approach to tactfully dealing with them - throwaway31911

Been on HN for a few years but posting under this throwaway account as this is a sensitive topic. I run a website where we have a minimum age of 16 y/o required in our TOS in order to use the site, so invoking COPPA wouldn't necessarily work. We've been wanting to deal with users who fall under this minimum in a tactful way for a while now, since we've noticed a correlation between these users and problematic behavior[1] on site. The problem is that our existence as a site/company has been predicated (in part) on transparency and being nice guys; I feel it would be, for lack of a better term, a "dick move" to suddenly notify users and remove accounts now that we've finally decided that we really need to clean things up, but on the other hand, it's something I really feel we need to do for the health of the site. We also are torn as to whether to grandfather in users falling below the threshold who've exhibited good behavior, or just deal with everyone irrespective of history. My primary concern is potential backlash from users (both those being removed <i>and</i> observers of this) in that it makes us look evil, even though at the end of the day, it's a violation of our TOS, plain and simple, and we <i>could</i> remove any account for any/no reason at any time.<p>So, I ask: what would you do in this situation?<p>[1] problematic in that it creates tension for other users, but does not technically break any laws/rules
======
zacharycohn
What kind of site is it? Could you just ban troublemakers, regardless of their
age?

~~~
throwaway31911
UGC site. Part of the issue is that we weren't proactive about doing it as it
started to become an issue.

------
Mz
If you want to grandfather in users who have behaved, then I think you need to
consider rewriting the TOS to include an option for doing similar in the
future. Let me suggest that since it is an age-based issue, your wording of
termination should not be along the lines of "get lost, you broke the rules"
but more along the lines of "we look forward to seeing you back when you hit
the magic number: 13".

But given your description here, I would ask some hard questions and consider
redoing the rules so that what you are enforcing is something that actually
makes sense:

1) Why did you put age 13 in the TOS to begin with? What was the specific
goal? Is age really directly related to the stated intent or was it being used
as a proxy for something you felt was too hard to directly quantify?

2) Since some kids under the age of 13 behave well enough that you are
considering letting them stay, what does that tell you? What specifically are
you trying to accomplish here, in terms of site environment/site development?

3) Why is this coming to a head now? Is it, for example, a numbers issue such
as there being a higher percentage of younger kids now? If so, is there some
other move that could improve the situation (such as trying to attract more
older kids or changing how you advertise the site to avoid attracting more
young kids)?

4) If you do just wholesale remove accounts, please be polite, professional,
firm, "unapologetic", unemotional, and impersonal: These are the rules. The
move is being made to get the site in compliance...etc. Don't let yourself get
dragged into emotional crap. If the emotional crap matters to you, seriously
consider some of the above ideas first. And accept that there will be some
fall-out and it will take a bit of time for things to settle down. That's
okay, if it's not excessive.

~~~
throwaway31911
Thanks for the thorough reply. The min. age is actually 16 -- I updated the
post to reflect that.

1) 16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt to keep us out of
issues that may arise state to state w/r/t minors and privacy laws

2) The goal is (hopefully) to help curb the issues that we've noticed stem
from underage users. Perhaps then, banning would be most effective, but that
comes back around to "how do we retroactively ban users now that should have
been banned X months ago"

3) My guess is scale. I think generally speaking we need to be more aggressive
about banning when the situation warrants that.

4) Great advice here.

Thanks again for the thoughtful and insightful reply.

~~~
Mz
_16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt to keep us out of
issues that may arise state to state w/r/t minors and privacy laws_

I suggest you get with counsel and if they still feel 16 should be the minimum
age to keep you out of court, then wholesale ban all accounts below that age
and state that it is to comply with privacy laws regarding minors. In this
case, you can apologize and indicate you wish you could keep them. Do not in
any way mention that behavior issues were at all a concern. If counsel
indicates this is important, than do it as a business move to stay out of
court and let everyone know that it sucks, but you have no real choice. Then
let folks know you look forward to having them back at age 16.

Alternately, look more closely into state-by-state laws and put out rules that
indicate that age of entry varies by state. Enforce by IP address or something
else reasonable along those lines. This might allow you to keep more members
that you would like to keep and do less damage to the site culture but there
is a significantly larger cost involved in terms of determining state
exceptions, enforcing the rules, etc. If you can bear the cost, this might be
a good option. If you cannot bear the cost, do an across-the-board thing for
all states based on what counsel tells you.

Since this question came up due to behavior concerns, revisit that issue
separately. It won't magically disappear just because all the underage
accounts were removed. Banning should be a last resort. Try hard to find other
means to deal with this first. When it does come time to ban someone, I
recommend public bannings which state the cause of the banning. This helps
create an atmosphere of "rule of law" and helps encourage members who do want
to stay to behave properly without being scared to death they will do the
wrong thing. Secret bannings are a good way to scare the hell out of your
members and cause them to walk on eggshells, which is generally not conducive
to creating a healthy site culture. It also does not provide any closure when
someone bad is finally removed. Public bannings allow remaining members to
breathe a sigh of relief and feel safer once they know the troublemaker is
gone.

Good luck with this.

