
Young people ignore social media age limits - DanBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35524429
======
delish
The headline invites ridicule. A more descriptive headline would be, "That
young people ignore social media age limits exposes them to bullying."

When I was a 6th grader, I played Diablo II online. A player named "I-Dupe"
told me he'd duplicate my items and give them to me. I thought he had a
program to do this.

I gave him my items, and he left the game. My items were not duped; I was. I
bawled, and ran downstairs and yelled to my parents. They offered consolation
and advice ("be careful online"). But you can tell my parents couldn't
ameliorate my hurt feelings.

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd turn this situation--wherein parents have to
cope with the relationship between their kids and the web--to one where
parents can do something about it. The ridicule I've seen in HN's comments
just now demonstrates that age requirements don't work and appear
disingenuous. I'm also skeptical of what someone from UK Safer Internet Centre
said, "It's so important that we show children what other things they can do
using digital technology that are engaging, creative and age-appropriate. It's
about showing them what else it could be and inspiring them with that." When
we make things for people "less" than us (young, less-tech-literate, etc), we
often make something crappy[0].

[0]
[http://paulgraham.com/javacover.html](http://paulgraham.com/javacover.html)
relevant excerpt: Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours,
Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart
as them.

This "smart people creating for people less than them" problem is exacerbated
with students. You can convince almost any unemployed adult to learn Java by
telling them it's profitable, even if they can detect condescension. But
students are just as good at detecting condescension, and these "engaging,
creative, and age-appropriate" tools are probably made to occupy students'
time, not make them money.

~~~
Swizec
Reminds me of this exchange when the Hogfather gives a sword to a little girl:
[http://m.imgur.com/gallery/DXDvM](http://m.imgur.com/gallery/DXDvM)

You learned two valuable lessons that day on Diablo. 1) don't be too trusting,
2) crying does not fix things in real life

I think kids _should_ be exposed to experiences like that. They should be
given guidance, not bans.

Take alcohol for instance: in Europe people start drinking very young
(illegally). It's socially accepted as the norm that everyone knows happens.
But for kids this is very hard to do of course.

As a result, college is a lot less ... shall we say exciting? By the time we
have easy access to alcohol (money+legal) we already know how to treat it with
some amount of respect.

~~~
dspillett
_> in Europe people start drinking very young (illegally)....

> By the time we have easy access to alcohol (money+legal) we already know how
> to treat it with some amount of respect._

I would suggest that early illegal drinking is a dangerous thing. It works as
you say for the majority, but for a sizeable minority it causes serious
problems both then and in the future. Overall it is a bad risk/reward
situation IMO.

 _Legal_ early drinking while young more reliably has the effect you describe
in my experience though.

I don't know about elsewhere in Europe, but in the UK while it is illegal to
sell alcohol directly to anyone under 18 under _any_ circumstances, or those
18+ if you have any reason to believe they are buying in order to supply a
minor except under specific conditions, you _can_ (at your discretion)
knowingly sell it to a "responsible adult" who is buying for a minor (IIRC the
cut-off here is 14+) _if_ the drink is part of a sit-down meal in a properly
licensed premises. This covers having wine or beer with a meal in a
restaurant. Furthermore, in your private residence you can give alcohol (again
at your discretion) to anyone older than 5. The "at your discretion" part is
vitally important here, it is the caveat through which the seller/giver is
liable for prosecution under child protection laws if they are seen to allow
anything that might be dangerous to a minor or get the "responsible adult"
judgement wrong, and is also the caveat that allows the seller/giver to say
"no" for _any_ reason (which they do not have any legal obligation to explain,
and if the customer gets angry about the situation that is adequate reason for
refusal on its own in addition to any other considerations).

~~~
maxerickson
10 US states have parental consent exceptions for service in a bar or
restaurant:

[http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...](http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591)

(It's an interesting mix, including Massachusetts and Texas)

A good deal more let parents give their kids a drink at home.

I guess social attitudes contribute at least as much to college age binge
drinking as legal regimes.

------
cbhl
It's worth noting that a lot of these age limits are a result of COPPA, which
is legislation that prohibits companies from tracking people under the age of
14 without parental permission.

When this law was first introduced, a site that I used heavily as a minor
required me to get a permission form signed and faxed by my parents before
they'd unlock my account -- while I actually got them to do this, it would
have been faster and easier to create a new account with a fake age.

I think these laws need to be revamped, although because they only affect kids
they're not really on anyone's radar (in the US, the deteriorating and
underfunded school system is a more pressing problem). Companies end up
tracking kids anyway through their parents, whether it's the "35-year-old
female using Angry Birds" (actually their mother handing their phone to their
kid on a train) or having your parents upload your baby photos to Facebook
hours after your birth.

------
yk
Basically a repost of

[http://www.theonion.com/article/i-am-under-18-button-
clicked...](http://www.theonion.com/article/i-am-under-18-button-clicked-for-
first-time-in-his-6396)

------
tedks
This is a bad title edit, if it was edited. The original title, "Safer
Internet Day: Young ignore 'social media age limit'", at least focuses
partially on the actual topic of the article, an event meant to raise
awareness of online bullying. A better title edit would be "10-12 year olds
report seeing, experiencing online bullying in spite of social media age
limits".

But, you know what else puts youth at risk for bullying? Going outside. Going
to school. Being different. Liking things other kids don't like. Being gay.
Being black. Being asian. Etc..

Random trolls on the internet can do orders of magnitude less psychological
damage to a kid than their actual peers can by excluding them from activities
in the real world and making the state-mandated 9-5 they go to an experience
they dread.

This sort of dominance behavior is likely a human evolutionary constant, but
so are a lot of behaviors we've as a society decided are no longer acceptable.
What will actually stop bullying is enforcing, across society and consistently
in front of children, that it isn't acceptable to hurt other people to benefit
yourself.

I'm sure virtually every educator knows this, because they're usually trained
in child psychology. So if you see an "educator" saying that the thing we
_really_ need is an "internet safe zone" "for the children" you should know
where their loyalties really lie.

~~~
DanBC
> at least focuses partially on the actual topic of the article

Yes, sorry. I thought people would read the article before commenting, and it
seems a few people didn't bother doing that.

------
Lawtonfogle
I assure you, those are not the only digital media/online age limits being
ignored.

------
CM30
And young people ignore age limits for everything else. Just ask how many
people under 18 watch ultra violent movies and what not. Or how many Call of
Duty fans are under 17 years old (read, probably most of them).

Or heck, how completely non effective COPPA is on internet forums. Seriously,
the amount of people who care about it is maybe... 0.1% of the population?

And practically speaking, you will never avoid this. Any form of tick box or
date of birth verification is faked in seconds, any credit card details will
just be taken from a parent or friend's account. Just like real life really.
If a kid can't buy something on their own, their parents will probably just
buy it for them.

As for the claims of bullying and stuff... well sure. At least social media
has a way of dealing with the issue (by banning accounts, blocking people from
contacting each other, etc). That's ten times more effective than anything a
school would ever do, especially given how the latter often just make the
situation even worse by uneven enforcement and victim blaming.

And hey, it's at least easier to ignore bullies online than in the real world.

------
fweespeech
Does anyone think something based on something like SMOG readability to check
grade level + something like uClassify [or some other machine learning API for
age:text correlation] would go a decent way towards fixing this?

For sites that actually care about this sort of thing and aren't doing the
legal minimum?

[i.e. Take a 500 word sample from the user over their initial posts, test it
against SMOG to see if it meets a minimum grade level. Test it against a
machine learning tool to see if it estimates reasonable age. If it doesn't
pass, disable the account and ask for ID and/or parental consent form]

------
jwcacces
News at 11

~~~
JabavuAdams
Also, minors drink alcohol.

~~~
elthran
and people don't read ToS

~~~
JabavuAdams
Well, it's all about plausible deniability. The people who run these sites
know that minors are using them, and it would be cost-prohibitive to make it
really hard for minors to use them.

So, instead, embed some text in your ToS and pretend to act shocked whenever
confronted with direct evidence that people aren't complying with the ToS.

It's the same for porn. An "are you 18?" page isn't going to stop anyone, but
it shifts the blame from the publisher to the consumer.

~~~
draugadrotten
> An "are you 18?" page isn't going to stop anyone, but it shifts the blame
> from the publisher to the consumer.

That makes no sense, considering that someone under 18 is not able to enter
into any contract (with the publisher) in most jurisdictions. compare: It
would not be enough to ask "are you of legal age?" before serving alcohol to
someone. Proof is required.

~~~
Falling3
It's actually very common in Oregon to be asked if you're over 21 before
having alcohol served to you (without being proofed).

~~~
ChristianBundy
Yeah, but that's not what's _supposed to_ happen. They'd be more diligent if
you looked younger.

------
rco8786
Shocking

------
shockzzz
the youth are a menace

------
bobby_9x
yeah, I've known this for a long time.

On Reddit, for instance, I saw a discussion in /politics (by many, many users
at the time) about why a 13 year old can still be just as mature and smart as
someone over 18.

I'm in my mid 30s and the only reason anyone would say this is if they are
close to that age or they want to have sex with someone that age (and justify
it).

~~~
corin_
I disagree (and for the record, not because I want to have sex with someone
that age.)

A 13 year old _can_ be just as mature and smart as someone 18+, the reason the
law exists is because it isn't the case nearly all of the time, and there's no
simple way of judging on a case by case situation, so it's better to protect
the 99(.9?)% of 13 year olds who need protecting.

This doesn't justify any adult having sex with a 13 year old, regardless.

~~~
bobby_9x
How old are you?

I only ask because a 13 year old cannot possibly have the experience,
knowedge, or wisdom to be as smart as an average 18 year old.

Unless of course, the 18 year old is really stupid or has some sort of
disability.

