Should we be surprised that Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, thinks kids under 13 should be able to have their own Facebook pages?  I’m sure the founder of cigarette companies are only too happy to lower age restrictions on their products too.

You might think that my comparison is quite gratuitous, and I suppose it is, but one cannot properly articulate the damage inflicted on  cyber bullied children.

Zuckerberg thinks he can protect these kids:

“My philosophy is that for education, you need to start at a really young age”, said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at the New Schools Summit in California, about why he thinks children under the age of 13 should be allowed to be Facebook members. Currently the age restriction requires that one be thirteen years or older to get a Facebook log on ID, but of course it is not difficult to avoid this and create an account anyway. Consumer Reports recently reported that there are about 7.5 million children under the age of 13 on Facebook.

Zuckerberg explained that, in his view, software and technology will help students learn a lot from one another, and that if COPPA were lifted, “we’d start to learn what works. We’d take a lot of precautions to make sure that they [younger children] are safe. “ COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, makes it illegal for web sites to collect information on children under the age of 13.

However, amidst growing concern about online privacy in general, lifting COPPA may be optimistic. Senator John Rockefeller on Thursday question Facebook Chief Technology Officer on Capital Hill saying: “I want you to defend your company here because I don’t know how you can.”

Zuckerberg’s assurances are not in the least bit reassuring.  There is no way they can properly ensure the safety of children.  And why would they need to, if they only let kids be kids?  So they wait until 13 to use Facebook?  I’ve said it before.  Why would a 12-year old need a Facebook page anyway?

KCBS’ Tim Ryan Reports: [audio_link url="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d0/dX/dM/d2/dT/XM2T_3.MP3" name="Millions of Young Facebook Users Violating Terms of Service" artist="Tim Ryan"]

Just how widespread is pre-teen Facebook use?

“7.5 million, at least, kids younger than 13 are on Facebook and 5 million were 10 and under,” Consumer Reports Tech Editor Jeff Fox summed up a report published by the magazine on Tuesday.

Responding by written statement, Facebook insisted it welcomed debate on the issue, but warned it was hard to keep kids from lying about their age when registering for the social networking site.

“For Facebook to basically accept whatever a kid says his birthday is, it’s really inadequate,” countered Fox.

He pointed out that young Facebook users were vulnerable on a number of fronts – not just potentially falling victim to online bullying or cyber-infections, but to adults who preyed on children by themselves posing as youngsters.

Is there a sensible solution?

“There is no technology that really provides a failsafe way of keeping kids identified by age off of anything online,” pointed out ConnectSafely.org’s Anne Collier. “I don’t think Facebook is inherently dangerous in any way. I think it is important for parents to know what their kids are up to in Facebook.”

(© 2011 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Parents are increasingly ignoring the age restrictions on some social media sites. 

A survey from Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project finds 17 percent of parents in the U.S. would let their pre-teen children use sites like Twitter and Facebook.  That’s more than twice the number of parents who said it would be OK in last year’s survey.  Still, parents are not ready to let their children surf the Web unsupervised.  Most parents surveyed say kids under 18 should not be allowed to manage their own accounts, and a third say they monitor their kids when they’re online.  Nearly half also limit how much time their kids spend online or texting.  More than half of parents want teachers and schools to crack down on cyberbullying, but most parents also say it’s their responsibility to protect their own kids from cyberbullying.

It seems this week, every human celebrity with a working womb has declared herself pregnant. Since we blindly follow celebrities in all our actions, allow us to take this opportunity to announce that we, too, have a bun in the oven. Our due date is 13th January 2011 and we’ve already picked a name for the new arrival, Answer Me This! Episode 162. Ooohowowowow – we think the blighter’s on its way….:

Today’s episode is accompanied by a token amount of afterbirth and a sizable amount of the following:

Reebok Runtone Trainers
white-collar boxing
‘Heart and Soul’
Love and Other Drugs
Richard Branson
greedy Jet Li
Peter Pan, master builder
Babycham
ivy-covered halls
Mike Oldfield’s ‘Tubular Bells’
Ian McEwan’s Enduring Love
Sidney Paget
witches’ hats
bullet time*
the MTV Generation
the greatest album Meat Loaf never made
and
deep-fried eggs.

Plus: Olly has a horrific DIY suggestion for replacing a lost eye; Helen brings down London, one neighbourhood at a time; and Martin the Sound Man recommends that if you only read one book in your life, it should be this one.

This week’s Bit of Crap on the App (get it for your shiny iPhone or your shiny Android – those of you with non-shiny phones, forget it) is a question from Mark who’s been thinking the unthinkable: if Wills’n'Kate don’t make it to the altar on April 29th, what will happen to our promised national holiday? Panic! (Don’t panic.)

You’ll also note that, at the end of the episode, we appeal for your suggestions to guide listener Karen gently into the magnificent world of book-reading. Please leave those in the comments below; then please leave your QUESTIONS for future episodes as voicemails on the Question Line (dial 0208 123 5877 or Skype ID answermethis) or emails to answermethispodcast@googlemail.com.

Great! Now we’re off to stand on the front steps of the Portland Hospital holding a wadded-up pale blue blanket so that maybe someone takes our picture. We’re over the moon! Etc etc.

Helen & Olly

* In case you couldn’t remember what that is, here’s a refresher:

Subscribe with iTunes • Book • Question Archive • Episodes • Merch
• iPhone App • Android App • Facebook • Twitter • YouTube • FAQ

Ah, childhood. The most blissful life stage for most, as your biggest worry is generally what you’ll get to eat and which crayon to use next. That’s the way it should be – a stress-free time of learning and new experiences, discovering what you like and don’t like. At the same time, it’s a very sheltered stage, as your parents tend to make most of your decisions for you, such as which TV shows you’re allowed to watch, and for how long. This brings us to the ever-present ad breaks, where you’re bombarded with images for certain brands of cereal, toys and fast food take-aways – and that’s just during certain time slots, on certain channels.

My concern lies in the fact that over and above instilling a certain level of brand loyalty at such a young age. It’s not just these ‘kiddie-friendly’ channels children are exposed to, as many don’t have that level of parental control/ guidance and are allowed to roam free, channel hopping to their hearts’ desire and viewing all manner of things. This is where the campaign for a commercial-free childhood comes in.

The official ‘Campaign for a commercial-free childhood’ (CFC) website, while American, lists the following as concerns which are no doubt global: marketing in schools (using certain branded teaching products and toys), sexualisation (with overly made-up, sexily-dressed dolls such as those from the Bratz and Barbie ranges getting most of the brunt), media violence (this is where age restrictions on movies fits in) as well as food marketing and the resulting rise in childhood obesity.

It’s a touchy topic for some. Please share your views, but before you do, click on this link to view one of the commercials the CFC objects to. It makes use of Spongebob Squarepants to advertise Burger King to children… with the result that the kids go around singing the somewhat questionable, catchy song – which was, surely, the intention all along. This reminds me of how horrified a friend of mine was a few years ago, when her much younger, then-’tweenaged’ sister would innocently sing along to Kelis’ ‘Milkshake’ song.. there’s a Pokemon version of the song out, too.

What’s too ‘adult’ for kids to be exposed to? Do we need to rethink the strategy of marketing to children? Or has advertising become so interwoven in the fabric of our modern lives that we longer bat an eyelid?

The National SAFEKIDS Campaign recommends that no child under the age of 12 be left at home alone.

However, consider a child’s age and maturity level. For example, if a child is extremely impulsive, it might be best to wait until he or she is older than 12.

There appear to be very few states with specific regulations about the age of a child left at home alone. However, since the number of latchkey kids is growing significantly due to 2 income parents and single parents and guardians, there is a growing movement within state agencies to set guidelines.

Lynn Yaney, spokeswoman for the agency that handles child welfare in Contra Costa County, California, states:

“A general rule of thumb is that kids under age seven aren’t capable of thinking logically and putting cause and effect together,” Tanner said. “They are reliant on caregivers to structure their day.” Children between ages 7 and 10 years aren’t generally ready to self-supervise for an extended period, but in a routine and predictable environment, such as just after school, they can manage, Tanner said. Children 12 and 13 years old should be judged on a case- by-case basis but should not be left alone overnight.

The following is a state by state listing of specific age restrictions on home alone children. This list was obtained from information on the web as well as contacts within certain state agencies. Where no information can be found, the age restriction is listed as unknown. Some states are listed where there were no legal restrictions on home alone children ages and these are marked as None. Some states publish recommended guideline limits and those are annotated with an asterisk (*).

Massachusetts has NO Restrictions on age for children home alone, but why leave your child alone? Instead send them to the After School Club where they can have fun, be supervised and have a structured, customized program. Register Today!

DISCLAIMER. The content herein is a summary of generally available information from the internet. DSC does not warrant its accuracy nor provide legal guidance to parents or guardians of potential home alone children. Contact your State DHS or local child welfare agency to learn about age guidelines in your area.

If you find any state information that needs to be added or updated, please Contact DSC and we will update this list as soon as possible.

http://www.latchkey-kids.com/latchkey-kids-age-limits.htm

(Art Christen Alqueza

By Katrina Nolasco

It’s difficult to believe that once one turns 18, under the law, one is considered an “adult” and is expected to make good life decisions. In actuality, many 18 year olds can be some of the most immature, irresponsible people to ever walk the face of the earth.

From what I’ve seen in class, most 18 year olds don’t take their responsibilities seriously. For the most part, they’d rather fool around than focus on the task at hand.

What determines a person’s maturity level, anyway? How does one magically morph from a carefree 17 year old to a sensible adult in just one day? It’s not possible.

With 30 being the new 20, the 21^st century is a tricky time for all age groups. Perhaps 18 is the new eight. Does that mean everyone should feel free to act ten years younger than their actual age?

Restrictions based on age are prevalent in teen life. A 16-year-old can’t watch a restricted movie, buy a rated “M” video game, or even get a license without taking driving school unless they’re 18. Most people would say age restrictions exist because they don’t want younger people to become exposed to certain things. Well, if they’re going to be exposed to these things later on, despite their age, what’s the difference?

Most people, if not all, are judged by their appearance or how old a person looks. In our society, one isn’t judged by their heart or mind but by how old they appear to be. Take the restricted movie scenario. One will usually get carded if they look younger than 17. But, what happens when a 15 year old looks 20? Any 16 year old can evade any movie security guard if they are tall and have a beard. What’s the point of the age restriction then?

With age comes different levels of trust. People tend not to take a person’s opinion seriously if they’re an “adult”. It doesn’t matter if they’re the smartest kid in the town if they’re only 15, people won’t really care. A person’s mindset doesn’t really change from 17 to 18, so should an 18 year old be trusted more? I can’t even tell the difference between juniors and seniors sometimes. They all pretty much just act the same – immaturely.

It seems our families bring us up to be dependent and needy. Due to this teens these days have no clue how to survive and make their own decisions. In some cultures, children are mature at 12. But in the U.S. we have six extra years, yet we fill them with ignorance, laziness and junk food.

People learn and mature at their own pace. Just because someone’s 17 doesn’t mean they can make better decisions than a 15 year old. Some people are getting treated unfairly just because they’re too young on their birth certificate. If only people could just see how the mind of a person actually works – maybe then all those mature 15-year-olds would get the credit they deserve and immature 18 year olds would just grow up already!

]]> http://freemolly.com/2010/07/27/a-modest-proposal-u-s-edition/ Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:34:22 +0000 Molly http://freemolly.com/2010/07/27/a-modest-proposal-u-s-edition/ Last week I was out to lunch with my parents and two brothers when I couldn’t help but notice a screaming baby and its extremely flustered parents at the table next to ours. The baby was crying for no apparent reason – though being strapped into a chair three feet off the ground might have been a factor – and the parents were visibly embarrassed and hurried out as soon as the check was paid.

We’ve all seen it. As a veteran babysitter, I know the frustration of situations like these. Trying to reason with a person who lacks the faculty of language is no easy task.

But neither is having a relaxing meal and/or adult conversation when someone at a neighboring table is neither an adult nor relaxed. As I took my first sip of coffee, it occurred to me: there should be an age – say, four years old – before which it is illegal to eat in a restaurant. With that quasi-tyrannical law in place, prospective parents would have to ask themselves which is more important: enjoying a spontaneous meal at a restaurant, or having a child? If they have a child, they’d be looking at four years of eating out only when they could line up a babysitter (at $10 an hour, more likely than not) to look after him or her. If they enjoy their adult life enough that this would constitute a great sacrifice, their desire for a child is not sufficient to justify having one in the first place.

Though I’m proposing this tongue-in-cheek, my overall point is serious: babies are a big deal, and their costs to the parents (and, incidentally, the planet) are huge over the long haul. But people keep having them, which leads me to believe there aren’t enough disincentives in place.

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. I mean, I couldn’t drink a beer legally until 18 months ago. The government’s primary reason was that I wasn’t old enough to drink responsibly. In fact, I probably wasn’t old enough to eat responsibly – that is, in public, without crying, screaming, or giggling uncontrollably – until about 18 years ago. Where was the government then?

Whenever I see that events have age ranges, I wonder about those who want to attend but don’t fit the criteria. On a personal level, as long as I fit the range, I am grateful because I don’t want “old men” hitting on me. But then I start wondering if it really is a good idea to segregate different age groups so much. Yes, it makes a lot of us feel safer but it’s not exactly a perfect solution.

You know how they say “it takes a village”? Well, I imagine a village as a place where all ages interact with each other on a regular basis. Today we are so segregated. I (theoretically) love the idea of different “kinds” of people hanging out together. Young, old(er), people with different opinions, ways of life…

It takes a beautiful Chinese village called Hong Cun.

We’ve gotten “spoiled” from living the urban life. We are able to be really choosy about who we hang out with and it probably creates a certain narrow-mindedness and narrow-experienceness.

So, honestly, I just don’t feel like I can hold it against someone above the age range when they show up at an event. I feel bad that it must be somewhat demeaning for them but from what I see, there are all these great events for “young adults” and not so many for anyone past a certain age. You know, old people might want to have fun too!

Speaking of fun (something I don’t know much about), I went into the GAP recently and noticed that the women’s clothes were boring and the girls’ clothes were amazing. I mean amazing. Colourful, interesting, fun… Who is it who’s deciding what is appropriate for what ages? Sheesh.

P.S. OK fine, I do know about fun. Taking a nap, eating caviar… Um, watching documentaries… I’m a barrel of laughs.

Photo by Chi King in flickr.

What I find very odd about this is that though the FDA’s new requirements bring in some changes this particular one, though it is already in place, seems to make the headlines (as in this one at The Medical News).

The FDA restrictions, issued today and scheduled to take effect June 22, bar tobacco sales to people younger than age 18. The agency also prohibited cigarette makers from distributing branded merchandise such as T-shirts and sponsoring sporting or entertainment events. The FDA invited comment on whether to restrict some forms of outdoor advertising for tobacco. (Source)

But then we have:

Age Restrictions on Sales of Tobacco Products: All 50 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. Most states define minors as persons under 18 years of age; however, enforcement varies widely. Four states – Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey and Utah – define minors as persons less than 19 years of age. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia require retailers to post signs at or near the point of purchase stating that selling tobacco products to minors is illegal. (Source)

Must be a really slow news day! Or is the news that 18 year olds in Alabama, Alask, New Jersey and Utah can now purchase tobacco?

-PLB

Every Time I Die announced the added tour dates on their MySpace blog where they wrote that they were “Very stoked to be heading back to the UK/Europe on the Rockstar Taste of Chaos Tour.”

Every Time I Die’s Rockstar Taste of Chaos Tour dates will be:
Nov. 27 @ Academy, Glasgow, UK
Nov. 28 @ Academy, Bristol, UK
Nov. 30 @ Academy, Newcastle, UK
Dec. 01 @ Academy, Birmingham, UK
Dec. 02 @ Manchester Academy, Manchester, UK
Dec. 03 @ Hammersmith Apollo, London, UK
Dec. 04 @ Trix Hall, Antwerp, Brussels
Dec. 06 @ Columbia Halle, Berlin, Germany
Dec. 07 @ Rhein Main Halle, Wiesbaden, Germany
Dec. 08 @ Zenith, Munich, Germany
Dec. 09 @ Turbinen Halle, Oberhausen, Germany
Dec. 11 @ Hovet, Stockholm, Sweden
Dec. 12 @ Scandanavium, Gothenburg, Sweden
Dec. 13 @ Spektrum, Oslo, Norway
Dec. 14 @ Arena, Malmo, Sweden
Dec. 16 @ Ice Hall, Helsinki, Finland

Tickets are availble online now at TicketMaster.

Fallowing up the Rockstar Taste of Chaos Tour, Every Time I Die will be continuing their European adventure with the Boys Of Summer Tour in Australia.

Every Time I Die’s Boys Of Summer Tour dates will be:

Jan. 12 @ The HiFi, Brisbane, Australia (18 & under) 

]]> http://hobbycollecting.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/about-age-restrictions/ Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:13:46 +0000 pinkgoggles http://hobbycollecting.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/about-age-restrictions/ —————————————————

At HobbyCollecting NZ, we offer the best quality of collectibles and is unbiased to the type of collectible.

For this reason, we do occasionally stock R18 (tagged “ecchi”) items. This is mostly due to nudity or anything of the sort.

We take pride in our ability to offer services for all kinds of collectors.

—————————————————

HobbyCollecting NZ will not take any responsibility in who views the R18 items!

- Customers who purchase an “ecchi” item will be asked for a photo ID with a visible birth date.

- If by chance that the customer manages to place an order for an ecchi item, pays the deposit and clearly proves not to be 18+ when the order arrives, the deposit will not be refunded and the item will not be sold. The order will be canceled.

- If any serious issues arise from providing ecchi items, they will be permanently removed from the catalog and we will stop offering our service for that kind of item.

Thank you for understanding,

HobbyCollecting NZ
————————————————————————

Tis quite bothersome…

As I’m sure you are all well aware, anime fights usually have some kind of blood here and there. If you don’t like watching videos with violence and blood then you’re on the wrong site. If you hadn’t realized that after reading the sub title, I suggest you just uninstall your internet browser.

If you really want us to add age ratings to the more violent battles, we will. But personally they’d really be almost no point. I mean c’mon, it’s Anime – not ganster rape.

Another problem is that it varies from country to country, and it’s hard enough finding out what it is in the UK let alone China.

So your answer is, mabye.

SUPERMARKET giant Tesco refused to sell tobacco to this man – because he could not prove he was over 18. James Earl, who uses a walking frame and turns 60 this year, was left dumbfounded when staff said they would not serve him without a valid form of identification.

The accompanying photo doesn’t appear to be of anyone who looks remotely 18.

Even ASH – the anti-smoking fascists – thought it was silly.

And Tesco’s response:

A Tesco spokesman today defended the store’s stance.

He said: “The store has introduced a policy, on a trial basis, to require ID from all customers wishing to buy age-restricted products to help prevent under-age sales.

“We will of course keep this under review and would like to apologise to customers for any inconvenience this may cause.”

Of course, as more and more petty restrictions are placed on what we buy, eat, smoke, drink, watch, read, hear and think then this trivial incident might just be the thin end of the wedge.

I bought cigarettes in Tesco today and had I been challenged then I couldn’t have produced any ID to prove I was over 18. I’m 57, actually, but there’s no way I look anywhere near 18.

In fact, I don’t think I have any ID that would prove my age.

So, is this the start of introducing ID cards by stealth?

If the government continues to bring in laws which legislate that certain activities are only achievable with some sort of ID being shown, then sooner or later we’re all going to be demanding some sort of standard ID.

And there it is…the ID card…by public assent…

Stupid laws and rules devised by idiots and enforced by morons – a sign of the times and the hallmark of New Labour.

So maybe not such an amusing story after all…

I’ve always had a thing for gymnasts—something about their musculature does it for me—but I also like taller girls, which makes their near-midget stature hard to deal with. So maybe part of my undying love for Liukin is spawned by the fact that, compared to Shawn Johnson and the Chinese girls, she seems to be about six feet tal. or maybe it’s jsut that approximately 4 feet of her 5’2″ is legs.

But tonight wasn’t about asthetics, even though the pretty girl won (Shawn Johnson, come talk to me when you’re not 16 and 4’9″, Chinese girls come talk to me when you aren’t 14 and have a different country of origin). It was really amazing to see the three leaders—Liukin, Johnson and Yilin Yang from China be basically perfect for all four events, and the fact that both Liukin and Johnson nailed their floor routines as the last two to go and with the medal sort of in doubt (though, as Lori Strong-Ballard was hesitant to say, Johnson didn’t have much of a chance to catch Liukin.

There’s not much else to comment on other than to say that it was great to watch and much better than the women’s team finals, so I’d like to weigh in on the Chinese age scandal. Apparently, some of the Chinese girls have been sort of proven to only be 14. My question is what does it matter? I mean, yes, the age restriction is 16, so they are breaking the rules, but why is their an age restriction on the Olympics? I mean, if a 12-year-old can handle the pressure and is good enoug to compete at that level, why shouldn’t they be allowed to? And I don’t understand how having younger athletes is such an advantage, when they clearly won’t have the muscle power of the slightly older girls. So yeah, chalk this up as another controversy that I just don’t care about, and consider it me wondering why Dan Wetzel can’t get off his high horse and find something better to write about. The US lost the team final to a bunch of pre-pubescents because they couldn’t hit on floor and because Alicia Sacramone decided to give the cleaning crews at the gym a little extra work by covering the place with phlegm from her epic choke job.