I was appalled at the news that Facebook was planning to open its
service to persons under 13. As I was starting to write my post, this
came from Walt Mueller of the Center for Parent Youth Understanding. He
speaks both passionately and knowledgeably. He says it better than I. -
STEVE
Facebook and Kids Under 13. . . Not A Good Idea. . .
So social networking giant Facebook - now the third most populated
"country" in the world - is considering a planned "baby boom." OK. . .
so they've already got millions of kids under the allowed age of 13
already "living" within their boundaries. . . all of them on there as a
result of ignoring Facebook's rules, either with or without parental
permission, the former being pretty doggone troubling.
I would side with those who say this isn't only not a good idea, but
it's a horribly bad idea. Supporters of the shift will scoff at the
notion that allowing young kids on Facebook is anything less than
harmless. But will that be the case? My starting point is with what I've
been learning as a part of loads of research for our growing
Digital Kids Initiative here at CPYU. All you have to do is take a look at some of our handouts and fact sheets, including our
Primer on Social Networking and
Primer on Electronic Addiction.
Then, add just a little bit of common sense that's been steeped in
careful observation of the kids and adults that we already know have
been shaped in negative ways by too much social media and a lack of
personal boundaries or thoughtful engagement.
This week I've been hunkered down with a new doctoral cohort in our
Ministry to Emerging Generations track at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
One of our Korean students is passionate about teaching media literacy
to his students. He's used the term "mediaholics" several times in his
description of their media use.
I think we need to listen carefully to our Korean
friends as they've not only recognized that the South Korean population
has a deep documented problem with electronic addiction, but they are
wisely and out of necessity working to develop preventive strategies.
And that's where I think we need to begin on this question of Facebook
and kids younger than 13.
Some initial thoughts on why I think Facebook for the younger set shouldn't be an option. . .
1. Where they're at developmentally. We are learning more and more about
the biophysiology of the human brain. Do we really think that removing
options for spending time in play, human interaction, reading, writing,
etc. and replacing them with static time in front of a screen is a good
thing? Take a look around your neighborhood this summer. If your
neighborhood is like mine, you're seeing fewer and fewer kids playing
outside. It's not because there are fewer kids. It's because there are
fewer kids playing outside with each other because they are inside glued
to some kind of screen. Do we really need more of that? Let's give it a
few years here until these kids grow up and the research starts to roll
in. I've got a strong more-than-a-hunch that our mistakes and
foolishness will be exposed. Little kids are extremely vulnerable. Their
brains are forming. Why would we risk endangering them at the level of
their developmental vulnerabilities?
2. The danger of addiction. Sure, people are currently arguing over
whether or not electronic addiction is something real to reckon with. At
the very least we are messing with potential idols. . . those things
that our fallen hearts are drawn to. I believe that electronic addiction
is real. Check out
our handout.
Our South Korean friends will tell you its real. And as with other
types of addictions, the fallout is immediate, long-term, and
far-reaching. Why would we risk facilitating and feeding electronic
addiction?
3. The danger of too-much too-soon. More time online means more exposure
to images, ideas, worldviews, etc. David Elkind warned us years ago
about the danger of actively or passively pushing kids to grow up too
soon. Why would we choose to push them into the world of adult ideas,
pressures, and actions when they need to be allowed to be kids?
4. Exposure to advertising. Fact: children and teens are the most
targeted market segment in the world. Fact: children are the most
impressionable and easily-swayed market segment in the world. Facebook
time will translate into exposure to hundreds of thousands of additional
advertising messages. Ads sell product. But ads are even more effective
at selling a worldview. Why would we want to sit them down in front of
even more commercials?
5. Facilitating relational isolation. Flesh-and-blood relationships are
increasingly at-risk and even disintegrating. Could a day be coming when
they are passe? Proponents will argue that Facebook time is social
networking time. . . which is relationship building time. These are not
real relationships. Social media can strengthen and deepen
a few flesh-and-blood relationships. Why would we want to fracture families, friendships, and communities even more?
6. Retarding socialization. Flesh-and-blood relationships with a diverse
multi-aged group of family and friends is necessary to healthy
socialization. Sitting on a screen curating yourself through photos and
posts fosters aloneness. . . not a well-adjusted socialized self.
Chances are we'd be throwing "miracle-grow" into the soil that fosters a
lack of ability to look others in the eye, carry on a conversation, and
answer with anything but a grunt or groan.
I know that today I'm sounding a little old and cranky. I'd like to think I'm being realistic.