Facebook Age Limit

[Burgin]

Can anyone tell me why Facebook set the age restriction to 13yrs and older. Is there some legislation and whats the limit on other sites?

[jscheuer1]

I really don't know, but it sounds like they're going for a PG-13 (Motion Picture Association of America film rating system) sort of rating. This may be at the dictates of some law, more likely their minimum age target audience and what they're willing to self police in order to comply with. For those not in the know, PG-13 is minimum age 13, Parental Guidance Suggested.

[Burgin]

Do many American kids join it under age?

[bluewalrus]

13 is Facebook and myspace, not sure about other sites you can probably find them in their TOS's. I think the limitations is just a way for them limit their liability somewhat.


http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/age-limit-facebook


Stacy Arruda from the FBI's Cyber Crimes Division:

Why would you want to expose your child to any potential danger...By allowing your child to have a social networking page, I don't care what security you have at your house, you've punched a huge hole in the side of your house and you're allowing predators into your home

She later states that she thinks anyone under 18 is too young.

[djr33]

It's a law in the US. I don't know about other countries.

http://www.coppa.org/
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm

Basically, the legal age for registration is 13 and anyone under 13 must have permission from their parents, often by using a COPPA form offered at registration. Specifically, this refers to collecting personal information, so simply have visitors who are under 13 is not a problem, but it becomes one once you collect personal information-- review the sites above to learn the details, but that might be as general as an email address (or even username?).

So facebook and myspace absolutely must comply with this. Other websites might be a little less bound to the age restriction depending on how it works since they may not be collecting and distributing personal information.

And as a web designer it's extra work to allow for anyone 12 and under by getting parental consent, so that may be a reason to simply not allow it-- the law doesn't restrict it, except that you'd need to consent for anyone under that age. If facebook and myspace don't allow an option for consent though there's no legal way for anyone under 13 to have a profile.


The COPPA law is of course based on common sense. As bluewalrus noted, there are many reasons to think of privacy over the desire to have a social networking profile. In fact, I personally have objections to the concept in some ways, especially because nothing on facebook or myspace is actually as secure as anyone really thinks it is. And kids don't have the background to really understand the potential consequences of posting such information.

Specifically regarding facebook's policy above, I'm a bit suspicious that it sounds like they are claiming their own personal reasons for it-- it just so happens that's a law, so my guess is that's just a friendly way to say "because it's a law [and we agree with it]"-- but that's not particularly on topic for this discussion.

[spa667]

Age limit is so stupid, my son is only 10 and got his own account.and he did it all by himself.

[djr33]

Well, there's nothing stopping your 10 year old son from drinking alcohol either-- but of course if anyone finds out (including you, I expect), they will try to stop him. It works the same way with his account-- if facebook or myspace (or whatever website) finds out that he is not 13, they are legally required to suspend his account, at least until explicit parental consent.
I'm not sure why you say it is "stupid", or why you think that just because your son was capable of signing up it is wrong. (I'm also not defending the age limit, though I can certainly understand some of the reasoning behind it.)

[jscheuer1]

So it about works out to be PG-13. Younger kids can get in if they lie or are accompanied by (have explicit permission from) a parent.

[Burgin]

My Granddaughters been using a computer since 4 yrs old and been going on the internet since 5. Always in my office and by my side. She's had her own website, just full of animals, for 4 years and it's never been a problem but now at 11 she has gone up to the Senior school and all her year have joined facebook. The teachers are aware and whilst not condoning it they don't stop it. They've given them strict rules and I'm impressed with my granddaughters knowledge but I'm worried that she's much more vulnerable than she or her parents think.

[djr33]

That's how the world works now: connect to people on the internet. That said, your reservations shouldn't be ignored. Just be careful and it will probably be fine. I recommend only allowing confirmed friends to view anything (except perhaps a name and photo so that others can find her and request to be friends) and even so not to put up any personal information-- no phone numbers, no addresses, no emails. Maybe an email address, but again only if only confirmed friends can view the page. (But remember that doesn't make it entirely secure-- if a friend's account is hacked, or shares a computer, or someone gets around the security of the site.)

As an afterthought, one thing you can do is try to explain to her that people can see what she is posting. One way of doing this is to remind her that you can see what she posts. This will make her understand that it isn't just visible to her imagined audience.

John, that's about right, the PG-13 comparison, except that PG-13 (and PG) aren't actually restrictions of any kind. They are just recommendations and anyone can go to those films. (I'm not sure how theaters would deal with very young children going to a film alone regardless of its rating, though.) G is for anyone (in theory); PG is a general warning to "think first" to parents; PG-13 is "probably best for 13 and over". However, R-rated films are restricted to 17 and over or parental permission-- that's the best analogy to the case here, except that it's 17, not 13. (And NC-17 films are the same as R, but without possible parental permission-- no one under 17 can go in, regardless.)

[[Nicolas]]

Is it true that if a kid younger than 13 could have their parents arrested if they sign up (including having permission)? That was read by my parents on Ask.com or some sort of site...

[djr33]

That's what I said earlier in this thread: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showpost.php?p=250445&postcount=5

It's a law, at least in the US, and it isn't just "asking" them-- you need documented proof of their permission if you are under 13 and signing up for a website that will store "personal information".

[traq]

;250728']Is it true that if a kid younger than 13 could have their parents arrested if they sign up (including having permission)? That was read by my parents on Ask.com or some sort of site...

I'm not sure I follow your question, so correct me if I'm not answering it:

1. No, a parent cannot be arrested for creating a Facebook account for their under-13 child, even if they know that Facebook doesn't allow it.
It is likely, however, that if Facebook found out*, they would ban the parents.

2. COPPA is a rule for websites and operators, not for parents and children. It is the site owner and operators who are liable for violations.

For example, if a facebook-like website had actual knowledge* they were collecting personal info from under-13 children, and did nothing to either a) obtain parental consent, or b) remove the minor's accounts, they would be subject to fines and/or other legal action.

* of course, Facebook is certainly aware - at least in an abstract sense - that there are children under the age of thirteen registered on their site. "Knowing" is not the same as having "actual knowledge" in the legal sense; read djr's link (http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm).

[djr33]

Right. The legality is entirely upon the website owner/operator. If the parents want to allow an exception that's fine, but aside from that the website cannot keep information about users under 13. In other words, the website can allow under 13 users to USE the site, but they can't keep records. If the site's TOS requires that users who sign up are 13 or over, that protects them a bit, but as traq said they'd need to delete any accounts if they found out the users were younger.

[WesNileMusic]

I think the age limit is a good thing

[unscripted]

Facebook started toying with myspace status when they started breaking free from their college only roots. Once you break away from limiting e-mail addresses (such as .edu) you are pretty much abandoning all age restrictions. It is pretty easy to hit a button, I used to do it all the time when I was on CompuServe as a youngster.

[djr33]

Aside from instances where IDs are actually checked (such as selling alcohol or cigarettes, or entering a nightclub), that's how it will work, especially on the internet. Most ****ography sites don't have much more security than clicking a button to claim you are over 18. One method used on some websites is to verify age using a credit card (as well as sometimes charging a fee), but for obvious reasons that is inconvenient and would limit users. For a site like facebook (and most websites, in fact) there are reasons not to make it so difficult to sign up.*

But as mentioned above, the responsibility of the website appears, at least as commonly occurs in the world today, to notify visitors that only users 13 and older can sign up and then to delete any accounts if they find out users are under 13.


Another thought about this: I think it is actually legal to keep non-personal information about visitors under 13. You can't store names, phone numbers, addresses, or maybe even favorite colors or anything written by them, but if you store generic data like page hits or "member since", then I think that would be legal. The laws exist to protect the identities of the children, and if there is nothing that could be potentially identifying, then that should be permitted. An example of this is a page counter. Some visitors on the website may be under 13, and it is legal to count that as a page hit and store the information. Of course the ironic part of all that is that their age is probably personal information, so if you know they are under 13, you can't store anything. But if you don't know it (and don't have a possibility of it being posted) then there's no problem.





*Tangent: does anyone know if verifying age by credit card is actually possible? What if a minor has a credit card? Wouldn't that card process the same way as an adult's card? Or is there some special digital tag attached to the credit cards of minors?
I had a debit card that functioned as a credit card before I was 18. I'm not sure if having a real credit card is possible, but I also don't know if that method of verification would know the difference between debit and credit cards, when both are used as credit cards, or whether they try to limit debit cards like that. My bank certainly knew my age, but it wasn't directly connected to the card as far as I know.

[traq]

... does anyone know if verifying age by credit card is actually possible? What if a minor has a credit card?

it just "thins the herd" a little bit, so to speak. Such checks don't verify anything other than the fact that the credit card exists and is currently valid; the working assumption was that only adults had credit cards.

of course, that was never strictly true. credit cards have been held by minors, pets, cartoon characters, and the deceased (not to mention kiddies that simply pulled one from their parent's wallet).

about your non-personally-identifiable question: if you have no indication that the info came from a minor, then (logically) you can treat it as any other info. If your site is not "intended" for minors, you don't really have an obligation to check anyway.

[djr33]

I guess that would be the case, but I'm wondering about the technical details: is there in fact any way to know that sort of thing or perhaps coordinate blocking all cards under 18 through the credit card companies?
It seems logically possible, but I don't know if that system exists.

[traq]

I don't think so. I know for a fact that's not how the traditional process works; but I have no idea if that sort of thing would be supported nowadays. like you say, I'm sure it could be - but I kinda doubt it.

you need it for a specific reason? or just wondering?

[djr33]

I'm just curious. It would be interesting if that "security" functions entirely on odds.

[traq]

well, the odds were much better 15 years ago when they came up with the idea