Zuckerberg wants children under 13 on Facebook?

Zuckerberg said he wants younger kids to be allowed on social networking sites like Facebook. Currently, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) mandates that websites that collect information about users (like Facebook does) aren’t allowed to sign on anyone under the age of 13. But Zuckerberg is determined to change this.

“That will be a fight we take on at some point,” he said. “My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age.”

But just how would Facebook’s social features be used by younger children?

“Because of the restrictions we haven’t even begun this learning process,” Zuckerberg said. “If they’re lifted then we’d start to learn what works. We’d take a lot of precautions to make sure that they [younger kids] are safe.”

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/20/zuckerberg-kids-under-13-should-be-allowed-on-facebook/

Here are my first thoughts.

1. PESSIMISM: Of course Mark Zuckerberg wants kids on Facebook – Facebook is a advertising & trend analysis GOLD MINE dressed as a happy, friend-connecting social network.  Kids are the largest licensing group, and advertisers would LOVE to get their hands on that kind of market.

So much for the ENTIRE POINT OF COPPA – which wasn’t created for your immediate privacy, but created to PROTECT CHILDREN FROM MARKETERS STEALING OR SWINDLING PII.

Fail.

Also see: Facebook Forced to Address Legal Gray Area of Kids and Advertising from AdAge. http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-forced-address-kids-advertising/227633/

2. FEAR: Oh, that’s a GREAT idea.  Why not make more PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS available?  Tre sigh.  Yes, education is VERY important – particularly about secret identities.  But, children under the age of 13 DO NOT HAVE THE COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES TO BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PUBLIC PERSONA.  Part of being young is that you’re protected and allowed to make mistakes – by allowing that on Facebook – a public platform that reaches far beyond the lunch room, and far beyond your mom telling your aunt about that stupid detention you got?  BOO.  Not ideal.

3. LOGISTICS & CONCERNS: MODERATION. SCALABILITY. COST. Even if Facebook DID man up and start pre-screening all content contributed by U13 sources, what a nightmare!  Staff to cover something like that?  Insane.  And neither revenue nor cost efficient.

4. HOPE: Any sort of “educational program” that comes with U13 on Facebook would have to be an entire new entity.  Think: Facebook Junior, profile training wheels.  It would have to be limited, with tutorials and information, and educational guidance.  Leverage the sort of YouTube content that SweetyHigh has created (worth checking out).  But in no way, would Facebook be able to cruise right into allowing U13 without redesigning the fundamental/core use of Facebook.

4. REALITY: I deal EVERY SINGLE DAY with kid chat, and kid posts, and kid interactions, and behavior crises from U13.  I worry about social networks for children that do NOT rely on fantastical role play or themed-content.  Those two elements help protect direct attacks (or even mistaken, indirect attacks) on a sensitive and underdeveloped child by allowing creative persona & identity hiding (to a certain extent, of course – real friends playing in fantasy worlds blends that reality vs role play, and takes interaction to a different level).  Children are still in the process of social learning.  Social learning CAN be expanded – and I do applaud the idea of social network education… but tossing youth into the deep end, where there are daily Trojan attacks on accounts, stolen identity issues & account phishing, cyberbullying, advertising lures, and STRANGERS is not ideal.  Think about it: not even normal, rational adults can successfully navigate Facebook accurately…

If there is a way for Zuckerberg to incorporate social networking education, with Facebook structure, I’m eager to see it – but there are quite a few MASSIVE problems in his path.  And with this audience?  Bowling through the ideals without proper guidance, understanding, or safety nets = not a safe agenda.

I hope Zuck collects his facts, has the necessary research concluded, and (excuse the phrase) gets his shizzz straight before he really dives into something like this.  For as much as I applaud optimistic philosophy, I desire educated practicality.