Facebook Should Halt Instagram Kids Plan, Attorneys General Say (bloomberg.com) 43
Forty-four attorneys general sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg asking him to abandon plans to create a version of Instagram for children under 13. From a report: "Facebook has historically failed to protect the welfare of children on its platforms," according to the letter, signed by attorneys general from New York and Massachusetts, among others. "The attorneys general have an interest in protecting our youngest citizens, and Facebook's plans to create a platform where kids under the age of 13 are encouraged to share content online is contrary to that interest."
You know that on Instagram YOU're the product, so (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a facebook bot or employee of facebook?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you defend the need for government to keep your children from an Internet site without ad hominem?
Re: (Score:2)
The law is pretty clear, there's a lot of legal restrictions with kids and they suck for ad revenue so you basically everybody just prevents kids from participating because it's the cheaper and better option for them.
I think it's kinda admirable to try to give them a platform at all, it's also a money pit and a waste of time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an investment in the company's future. They're not going to stay 13 forever. The less people who have ever known a life without Facetwitgram, the better.
Besides, half the reason Grandma Moneybags starts on these services is for access to the grandkids.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Feel free to come up with a reliable method that does not require government involvement any time you wish.
Re: (Score:1)
A reliable method for what, Karen?
For keeping your children away from somebody's web-site?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Chad, for keep yours away from mine. I don't want their grotty little inbred shitposts messing up my feeds.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite frankly, Kyle, it ain't your web-site either...
Re: (Score:1)
Like cigarettes for kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need an upper limit too if they're going to do that. I know damn good and well my parents would be a million times better off in the mental health realm if they'd stay away from that shit. As it is I can sense their brains melting out of their heads from the amount of pure, unadulterated bullshit they pick up from social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I didn't realize that many older folks were on social media.
I still do good to coach my Mom to just use her iPad I gave her to search on YouTube. She pretty
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I didn't realize that many older folks were on social media.
Oh yeah. The Young people fled, and now it's getting close to the Depends crowd. The place has changed over the years.
Alternate title: (Score:2)
"Attorneys General Request Known Privacy Rapist to Halt Program Aimed at Kids"
They need laws against this kind of stuff (Score:2)
Kids absolutely do not need a facebook, let kids be kids. And seeing how facebook has a hard enough time keeping kids from bulling each other or other issues.
Nobody needs Facebook (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody needs Facebook. Some people choose to use it.
Why must government be involved in keeping your children away from it?
Re: (Score:3)
Why must government be involved in keeping your children away from it?
Because capitalism demands that Facebook be allowed to do the equivalent of luring kids to smoke cigarettes.
The only way to prevent Facebook from doing that (harm kids) is for the government to intervene.
Re: (Score:1)
Not capitalism. Human rights demand that. If Zuckerberg chooses to pursue happiness that way, it is his right.
At least, smoking has been scientifically proven to harm... Social media? Meh...
You don't value parenting for much, do you?
It does not just "take a village", "it takes a sheriff", in your opinion, to keep all k
Re: (Score:2)
Because otherwise Instagram/facebook for kids will get implemented, and facebook has shown that they can't moderate their content or protect people. Other than throwing laws at it, I don't see a way to stop it. Zuckerberg is going to lobby any way he can to start this thing up.
Re: (Score:1)
Hate, when that happens!
Protect from what?
Sticks and stones — which break bones — do not transfer through Internet. And the words never hurt me...
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that your either a employee for facebook, or a bot. Because not to many other humans would want to support facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
It appears, you've run out of arguments — and had to switch to Ad Hominem. I accept your surrender. Remember to logout.
Can we all agree finally (Score:2)
That FB is a bad place to be, and run by an amoral scumbag and just be done with the daily "FB is teh Debil!" stories?
New policy: Tell, don't ask (Score:5, Insightful)
The threat's been identified, they shouldn't bother with Zuck, they should be bringing this to the attention of the public and their political representatives to get legislation in place to prevent it.
You don't ask a predator not to please abuse your kids, you take action to prevent it from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
I will, however, ask the average Slashdotter to overlook the really clumsy phrasing.
"Not to please abuse your kids" is not something I should ever have both typed AND submitted.
Re:These AGs are way the fuck out of line. (Score:4, Informative)
That's not their only job [naag.org]. In addition to being the chief law enforcement officer, they are also public advocates in various areas including consumer protection.
Parents have their role in this as well... (Score:1)
I'm not a fan of the idea of Insta for Kids myself, but keep in mind that not all parenting is done responsibly.
More and more kids these days already have their own Instagram and/or Facebook account, and their parents are well aware of this. They don't want them to fall behind compared to other kids their age, think they'll teach them how to handle social media in a safe manner, or just want them to be quiet when they come home from school. As long as it's possible to create an account on a social media pla
Zuckerberg, Sacklers, what's the difference? (Score:2)
Saying Zuckerberg failed to protect anyone is like saying the Sacklers failed to protect their users.
No one questions that their products -- Facebook and OxyContin -- offer some value, but their whole business model is to addict.
If facebook doesn't make a kids site (Score:2)
Right now, as I understand it, savvy kids just figure out how to get regular facebook and instagram accounts.
So I don't really see the point of banning this.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - this is on a level with the attempts to prevent kids getting access to porn by age checks. Indeed in this case a walled garden to which only kids have access might be a good solution, though keeping predators out isn't necessarily straight forward; a recent UK TV documentary showed undercover cops in such a 'safe' environment and presenting as underage being approached to meet for sex almost immediately.