Do your kids under age 13 use Facebook?

[luvsJack]

The terms of service are there to protect FACEBOOK, not your child. I don't see that as a hard and fast rule as to whether my child should have a Facebook account or not. I gave my permission for my child to be on that site and it then becomes MY responsibility if something happens because of that. I am not the kind of parent that would blame Facebook if my child got in trouble for posting something inappropriate nor would I blame Facebook if someone did something to my child.

ITA besides what magical thing is going to happen to make them immune to all the "bad" stuff that they weren't immune to at 12? That one year is not going to make that much of a difference in maturity and no difference at all in some kids.

 

[HelenePA]

ITA besides what magical thing is going to happen to make them immune to all the "bad" stuff that they weren't immune to at 12? That one year is not going to make that much of a difference in maturity and no difference at all in some kids.

It's magic just like Disney tinker bell comes into their room at night and sprinkles pixi dust on them i want to add I have all the stuff me and their dad post on face book blocked along with aunt and uncle just in case we say something that isn't for kid eyes it's very easy to control that kind of stuff their friends are the only ones they see And I am also friends with both of them I have them blocked from seeing my updates too mine are mostly there for the games but they do makes plans with their friends on there to go to the park lol

 

[mamacatnv]

The terms of service are there to protect FACEBOOK, not your child. I don't see that as a hard and fast rule as to whether my child should have a Facebook account or not. I gave my permission for my child to be on that site and it then becomes MY responsibility if something happens because of that. I am not the kind of parent that would blame Facebook if my child got in trouble for posting something inappropriate nor would I blame Facebook if someone did something to my child.

Who cares who the terms of service are there to protect, they state the person having the profile must be 13. In order for a child under 13 to have an account then they have misrepresented their age. I personally do not agree with encouraging my kids to lie about their age, I think it sets a bad example for down the road.

My DS is 20, I might allow him to have a beer at home on my deck like the law allows but that does not mean he can go into a bar and say his Mommy says its okay and expect the bar to serve him.

ITA besides what magical thing is going to happen to make them immune to all the "bad" stuff that they weren't immune to at 12? That one year is not going to make that much of a difference in maturity and no difference at all in some kids.

For me it has nothing to do with "bad stuff" happening to them it is purely a terms of service thing. If FB said terms of service were 11 then DD would most likely have an account. They don't so neither does she.

You consenters can justify letting your children misrepresent their age all you want because that is what you are doing. Bottom line, you have all allowed your children (those under 13) to lie about their age plain and simple. That is your right but don't start throwing around a bunch of rationalizations to justify your actions that infer those of us who play by the rules are somehow ignorant, uninformed, afraid or naive when it comes to the internet.

 

[Scurvy]

You consenters can justify letting your children misrepresent their age all you want because that is what you are doing. Bottom line, you have all allowed your children (those under 13) to lie about their age plain and simple. That is your right but don't start throwing around a bunch of rationalizations to justify your actions that infer those of us who play by the rules are somehow ignorant, uninformed, afraid or naive when it comes to the internet.

Of course the age rule is there to protect Facebook. And of course no magical, mysterious thing happens to kids the moment they turn 13 that suddenly makes them immune to the hazards of social networking. Facebook doesn't know what's best for my child, and they can't decide when my child is mature enough to handle social networking. Only my husband and I can do that. The fact is, though, that Facebook does not allow those who are under 13 to have accounts. For anyone younger than that to get an account, they have to lie. I think it's ridiculous for parents to teach their kids that it's fine to lie about their age, and I think it will be interesting when those same parents have to deal with kids who think it's okay to lie other times if it helps them get what they want. I also think it's rude to go onto someone else's site and break the rules they have set for their site. Facebook may not know what's best for your kids, but they certainly know what's best for their site. If they don't want kids on there, then kids shouldn't be on there.

 

[5lilfish]

Of course the age rule is there to protect Facebook. And of course no magical, mysterious thing happens to kids the moment they turn 13 that suddenly makes them immune to the hazards of social networking. Facebook doesn't know what's best for my child, and they can't decide when my child is mature enough to handle social networking. Only my husband and I can do that. The fact is, though, that Facebook does not allow those who are under 13 to have accounts. For anyone younger than that to get an account, they have to lie. I think it's ridiculous for parents to teach their kids that it's fine to lie about their age, and I think it will be interesting when those same parents have to deal with kids who think it's okay to lie other times if it helps them get what they want. I also think it's rude to go onto someone else's site and break the rules they have set for their site. Facebook may not know what's best for your kids, but they certainly know what's best for their site. If they don't want kids on there, then kids shouldn't be on there.

I understand what you are saying. I don't want to give the impression that I think it is a good thing to encourage kids to lie. I do think, however, that my kids are bright enough to weed out the difference between me allowing them to flub their age for a website (again, with my permission) and lying to me about other things. If they weren't smart enough to know the difference, it would certainly become very clear after the first time they tried to lie to me.

Jess

 

[IDoDis]

DD 14 got a fb page when she was 13. DS is 11 and has been asking to sign up. Our answer is always the same and is consistent with our beliefs about following the rules: "No, you cannot have a facebook page." I don't care if he were only friends with family members or just wanted to play the games. No means no.

FB continues to change their privacy rules without people knowing. Heck, I'll bet 1/2 the posters here that have fb don't know that their settings are not private, even though they set them up that way. Facebook makes changes and wa-la -- everyone's page is public until the user goes back in and changes the setting.

I also would be willing to bet that many people reading this do not realize that if you have facebook open on your computer, and then open up a new tab to surf, that those other pages you visit install apps on your facebook account. Go to your fb applications settings and check your applications. Anything with an "x" next to it is an application you did not approve and should be deleted so you don't get spyware and other things on your computer.

So, it's not just the social issues of maturity that is an issue here. Facebook is not for kids --plain and simple.

 

[mamacatnv]

Of course the age rule is there to protect Facebook. And of course no magical, mysterious thing happens to kids the moment they turn 13 that suddenly makes them immune to the hazards of social networking. Facebook doesn't know what's best for my child, and they can't decide when my child is mature enough to handle social networking. Only my husband and I can do that. The fact is, though, that Facebook does not allow those who are under 13 to have accounts. For anyone younger than that to get an account, they have to lie. I think it's ridiculous for parents to teach their kids that it's fine to lie about their age, and I think it will be interesting when those same parents have to deal with kids who think it's okay to lie other times if it helps them get what they want. I also think it's rude to go onto someone else's site and break the rules they have set for their site. Facebook may not know what's best for your kids, but they certainly know what's best for their site. If they don't want kids on there, then kids shouldn't be on there.

 

[allison443]

My kids didn't have facebook accounts till they were 13...

but another age rule I see "broken" a lot is the R rating for movies. It seems like many, many parents let their kids see R rated movies before they reach age 17. ( and they are not "accompanied by a parent" like the rating says). Do any of the posters that follow facebook's age requirement, allow their kids to see R rated movies before they turn 17?

 

[mamacatnv]

My kids didn't have facebook accounts till they were 13...

but another age rule I see "broken" a lot is the R rating for movies. It seems like many, many parents let their kids see R rated movies before they reach age 17. ( and they are not "accompanied by a parent" like the rating says). Do any of the posters that follow facebook's age requirement, allow their kids to see R rated movies before they turn 17?

Our theaters are pretty strict and screen the kids - we didn't allow DS to go to R rated movies without an adult as the rule states. A friend of ours' 17 year old son had a 15 year old girlfriend and they the parents went along on the "date" so that girlfriend could get into the movie thankfully that relationship did not last long.

I am a stickler for rules. I may not always like them but I really do try to abide by them and if I don't like them and it is something I can change then I will.

 

[2girlsmom]

mine haven't tried to see an R rated movie at 9 and 12, but I would absolutely not allow them to see one.

 

[NotUrsula]

but another age rule I see "broken" a lot is the R rating for movies. It seems like many, many parents let their kids see R rated movies before they reach age 17. ( and they are not "accompanied by a parent" like the rating says). Do any of the posters that follow facebook's age requirement, allow their kids to see R rated movies before they turn 17?

You're joking, right? One is a suggestion (when no theatre entry is involved), and the other is a contractual requirement. It's not "no one under 13 without a parent's permission", it's just no one under 13.

I don't knowingly allow my child to enter into contracts that are unenforceable, for his own legal protection. I do allow him to see R-rated films if I have pre-screened them, because the MPAA is a marketing organization, and I don't trust my child's well-being to a bunch of salesmen.

 

[5lilfish]

mine haven't tried to see an R rated movie at 9 and 12, but I would absolutely not allow them to see one.

The more appropriate question would be: If you did not have any problem with the subject matter and you felt your child was mature enough, would you let your 16 1/2 yr old go see an R rated movie with a friend?

Jess

 

[5lilfish]

You're joking, right? One is a suggestion (when no theatre entry is involved), and the other is a contractual requirement. It's not "no one under 13 without a parent's permission", it's just no one under 13.

I don't knowingly allow my child to enter into contracts that are unenforceable, for his own legal protection. I do allow him to see R-rated films if I have pre-screened them, because the MPAA is a marketing organization, and I don't trust my child's well-being to a bunch of salesmen.

The movie theaters are not making a "suggestion." The rules at the theater say no admittance to anyone under 17 without an adult. The point was would you allow your child to lie (or lie by ommission)? I would, if I felt it was not an inappropraite movie...and I gave my permission to see it. I wouldn't take issue with someone that would not allow their child to see an R rated movie, but I'm pretty sure, by doing so, I have not locked my kids into a life of cheating and breaking laws.

Jess

 

[2girlsmom]

The more appropriate question would be: If you did not have any problem with the subject matter and you felt your child was mature enough, would you let your 16 1/2 yr old go see an R rated movie with a friend?

Jess

Not without an adult, no I would not. If I had no problem with the content, (which means I have already viewed it to confirm this, and I have difficulty believing that I wouldn't at this point, but then they aren't 16 yet, either, KWIM?) then I would allow them to see with an adult, but no I would not be in favor of them lying in order to see a movie, either.

 

[Scurvy]

No, I would not allow my child to lie in order to see a movie. If I found an R rated movie I was willing for him to see, I'd take him to it myself or let him watch it when it comes out on DVD. If the rule says "no one under 17 without an adult" then he won't be going to an R rated movie without an adult until he's old enough to not have to lie in order to get in.

 

[mamacatnv]

Not without an adult, no I would not. If I had no problem with the content, (which means I have already viewed it to confirm this, and I have difficulty believing that I wouldn't at this point, but then they aren't 16 yet, either, KWIM?) then I would allow them to see with an adult, but no I would not be in favor of them lying in order to see a movie, either.

No, I would not allow my child to lie in order to see a movie. If I found an R rated movie I was willing for him to see, I'd take him to it myself or let him watch it when it comes out on DVD. If the rule says "no one under 17 without an adult" then he won't be going to an R rated movie without an adult until he's old enough to not have to lie in order to get in.

Glad to see I am not the only rule follower out there

 

[5lilfish]

Glad to see I am not the only rule follower out there

Believe it or not, I am generally a rule follower too. I paid full price for my very tiny 3 yr old to go to Disney. I correct a waitress if she under-charges me, etc etc. I would, personally, be too nervous to try and go to a movie that I was not old enough for. On the other hand, I would not hold too much against a 16 yr old being allowed to try and get into an R rated movie and I do not have any issue with a 12 yr old on Facebook.

Jess

 

[golfgal]

Yes, we bought movie tickets or allowed him to buy, for our then 16 year old, who was a junior in high school, to go see R rated movies with his friends that we did not attend with him. We have also received phone calls from the movie theater to see if it was ok if DS went to the R rated movies when we did not buy tickets online. That was standard procedure for our theater for kids that were close to 17. I don't know what magically happens to a 16 year old turning into a 17 year old that makes him capable of watching an R rated movie. No I would not do the same for our 15 year olds.

 

[luvsJack]

I don't know why facebook has a "rule" of being 13 nor do I really care why. Its not like they are exactly trying to actively enforce the rule. I joined, looked it over, allowed dd to join with me over seeing it all.

She is intelligent enough to know why it was ok to fudge her age to get on facebook and why it is NOT ok to lie to me, her father, a teacher or anyone else in her life. Its not rocket science or anything.

If my 16 year old asked to go to an R rated movie, I might allow it but that would depend on the content of the movie and the kid. Would I allow dd at her age? No. I don't even let her watch PG-13 movies like Twilight until someone else has seen it.

The difference? On facebook she is seeing little Suzy say, "OMG! What a great day! I made cheerleader!" On the movie she is seeing Crazy Tom mow down an entire town with a sawed off shotgun with blood and guts flying everywhere. Big difference.

But whether its her on facebook at 11 or watching an R rated movie at 161/2--she is smart enough to know the difference in that and telling me and her dad a lie about where she is going Friday night.

 

[2girlsmom]

Luvsjack, I get what you are saying, I even agree to some extent. Certainly there is a difference between lying to Facebook about your birthdate and lying to your parents, and I would guess most kids are smart enough to know the difference. And I readily admit that I DID "sneak" into an r rated movie when I was 15 or 16 years old, and it certainly didn't do any harm. Of course, we also "snuck" into bars at 16 and 17 years old, though we didn't have fake id's or anything like that, I'm not entirely sure we did really understand why that was different than the theater. Bottom line for me is that these are not things that for us it makes sense to break the rules. Both my kids belong to other websites, like Fantage, Toontown, Club Penguin, etc. They don't need facebook yet. Yes, they sometimes want it, specifically when they hear that their friends have it, but really, I have always told them they could go play the games (which is largely what they want it for) on mine, both of them know MY password, and at the moment all my food is rotten on cafe world and my pet is at the pound on Petville, cause nobody gets online at facebook to play them. They both have cell phones with texting, so it isn't like they can't keep in touch with their friends. I agree that it isn't really up to facebook what we allow or don't allow for our children; that's a personal decision made by us, the parents, and I certainly wouldn't think anything of anyone who made a different choice than me. We all do what we feel is best for our individual children.