back to article Facebook Messenger ... for who now? Zuck points his digital crack at ever younger kids

"Won't somebody think of the children!" Hur hur. It's the great, sarcastic war cry of the childless middle aged tech guy. For example, when somebody wants to restrict extreme smut. "Won't somebody think of the children?!?" cries Shed Man. Cackle cackle. Sure, let nobody think of the children, ever, and let's see what kind of …

  1. wolfetone Silver badge

    "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups, parents tell me. If you do not use the class's WhatsApp group, you're ostracised. Your child is the weird one, whose parents didn't buy them an iPhone."

    Who knew such a day would dawn when a parent whose child doesn't use a electronic device as a pseudo-nanny/babysitter would be classed as "weird".

    1. MickyMc

      It has nothing to do with using an iNanny and more to do with the expectations of kids these days.

      They expect access to YouTube, Skype, Messenger, etc to stay in touch with their school mates?

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Thumb Up

        Simple solution, teach the kids who don't have smartphones and social media accounts that they will develop into superior, well-rounded people, who won't have to hire an army of scrubbers to remove all that stupid shit they did as a kid off the internet (oo-er).

        A nice sense of elitism should act as a barrier to being sneered at by the moron-brigade.

        Tell your kids that everyone else is in a race to the bottom, a race which none of them can actually win. The only winning move is not to play.

        Probability of success: Fairly high if kid has enough resilience and self-awareness, plus lots of parental support and positive re-inforcement.

        Probability of it happening: Who am I kidding? It'll never happen, because...SHINY!!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Probability of it happening:

          you're absolutely right, they're given this poison at this one crucial point in life, where all that matters is being a part of a pack. At this age it would take incredible strength and resilience to ignore this pressure and ignore it continuously. If you do, you WILL be hounded, every day, you will be a leper, for the next 6 - 8 years.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups

      Who knew such a day would dawn when a parent whose child doesn't use a electronic device as a pseudo-nanny/babysitter would be classed as "weird".

      Mine do no have a problem being the "weird ones". They also have no problem disassembling anyone who tries to make a problem out of them being weird. No hesitation to do so either and they have my full support in this too.

      As they are in the top 0.1% in terms of physical fitness for their age group, they usually have no need to get as far as disassembling anyone either - nobody dares.

      They also very happily live without FaceBook and with real (not Face) Books to keep them company.

      1. Paul 195

        Re: "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups

        So because your kids are bigger/stronger than everyone else's, they can thump anyone who teases them? Well, I suppose it might work for you and for them, but it doesn't sound like a scalable solution to a widespread problem. Still, you must be terribly proud.

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups

          So because your kids are bigger/stronger than everyone else's, they can thump anyone who teases them?

          Yes. And that is exactly what should happen. Keeps sociopathy at bay instead of letting it develop into a fully blown arseholeness. Bullies are usually cowards. A good rapid unscheduled disassembly usually deals with that. Especially if it is repeated a couple of times when they pick on OTHER weaker kids.

          As far as proud - it is out of necessity. The choice was either a Spartan fitness regime or the rest of the life on an inhaler. In fact, the inhalers were already prescribed and put on the shelf next to their beds - in both cases.

          As a parent I am quite proud to force the first option (I needed ear plugs not to listen to their mother in both cases). The inhalers have had no use ever since. One has been collecting dust for 10 years now, the other 5.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups

            FFS.

            OK VRH, your advice will be rolled out to all kids immediately and we will have our utopia.

            All kids will be joining your kids in the top 0.1% for physical fitness and all kids will be bigger and stronger than all other kids.

            I really have no idea why we haven't been doing it this way all along.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon
              Facepalm

              Re: "Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups

              OK VRH, your advice will be rolled out to all kids immediately and we will have our utopia.

              That's a bit disingenuous if you ask me. If part of taking VRH's advice is ditching the social media and smartphones then there wouldn't be a need to defend one's self from the 'pack' who have those devices as you would no longer be counted weird for not having them.

    3. User McUser

      If you do not use the class's WhatsApp group, you're ostracised.

      I'd just like to point out that this is not anything new - the ostracizing part that is. In my day wearing the wrong kind of shoes was the uncool thing that got you shunned. So if it isn't an app it'll be something else that your children's peer group will use to divide themselves into groups.

    4. John Lilburne

      Back in the early 1980s a couple of my friends refused to have a TV. They kept getting visits from the TV licensing people who refused to believe that any one would NOT have a TV on purpose. That they could handle, but they eventually caved in when the school was asking the kids to discuss popular TV soap operas, and their 9 yo was having to support a football team that he'd never seen.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As a childless curmudgeon.

    Having children should not be a right but a privilege.

    Children appear to be seen as a meal ticket these days, the more you have, the more £££ the govt will give you.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I lament the world kids are being forced to grow up in and with ever increasing population numbers, things are only EVER going to worsen.

    1. FIA Silver badge

      Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

      Having children is biology, it's not a right, or a privilege. The second you start saying who can and can't have kids you end up in some very dodgy waters. (or at the least an ageing population problem a few generations down the line).

      Children appear to be seen as a meal ticket these days, the more you have, the more £££ the govt will give you

      Do you have any evidence of this? I'm firmly in middle age now, and remember people saying similar when I was growing up. Has it got worse since? Isn't it just that if you have a system that takes care of the poor and disadvantaged you will also end up taking care of a percentage of the lazy and shameless too?

      I lament the world kids are being forced to grow up in

      Why? Genuinely why? Is it much worse now than it was 'then'? (I accept we're currently in a period I suspect we'll come to refer to as 'the batshit insane years' but I hope it's just a 'blip')

      But on a day to day actually living life level is it any worse? I look at my sister and her husband, they're a similar income level to my parents were when we were growing up (probably slightly worse), however their two kids have far more toys, etc, than we did growing up? They're well fed and happy and also living in a world with a diverse range of knowledge and entertainment at their fingertips. (No black and white tv watching late night ITV for them). They're certainly not worse off. Also, according to the ONS crime has fallen dramatically overall since the mid 90s so they're safer too.

      and with ever increasing population numbers, things are only EVER going to worsen.

      "Soooooommmeeeee things in life are bad...."

      1. Jeffrey Nonken

        Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

        Uphill both ways, barefoot, in the snow, carrying my sister.

        1. Charlie van Becelaere

          Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

          Yes, but your sister was carrying your books, so at least she was helping.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

        "Has it got worse since?"

        The rule in England is, or soon will be, that only the first two children are an entitlement to extra state money.

        What children do appear to lack is freedom. They are often constrained to a small physical area and rarely out of their parent's surveillance.

        Except that many do have their own room as effectively a private domain. In my day bedrooms were only for sleeping - and weren't heated unless you were ill enough to be kept in bed for several days. Sleepovers were unheard of.

        During school holidays: when our parents were at work we were locked out of the house - but so were our playmates. Toilets were outside so no problem there - and could be used as a shelter if it rained very heavily.

        From about the age of 7 we walked to school on our own - merging with groups of school pals as we progressed. Ditto going to Saturday morning cinema.

        Laws have changed such that in many cases 17 year olds are treated as "children" rather than the "almost adults" that they are. There used to be sensible age differentiations regarding the ability of a child to take on responsibility. Paradoxically the age of criminal responsibility in England is set at the low bar of 10 years old.

        Needing to keep children at school for longer to (theoretically) produce a more skilled workforce - has been conflated in many quarters with treating them as unable to behave responsibly.

        1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

          Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

          Saturday morning Pictures!

          Have an upvote for that.

          Then in the summer holidays we build camps. Both underground and up trees. No real Adult supervision or Hinder & Stop in those days. The most common injury was treading on a nail. Never mind, the Hospital was just a few hundred hops away along town Barn Road.

      3. Guus Leeuw

        Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

        Dear sir,

        Quote:

        Having children is biology, it's not a right, or a privilege

        More and more that biology is helped along by medicine (rightly or wrongly). So privilege sounds more correct than pure biology.

        Best regards,

        Guus

        1. Duffy Moon

          Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

          "More and more that biology is helped along by medicine (rightly or wrongly). So privilege sounds more correct than pure biology."

          Absolutely. There's a lot of pressure to be 'normal' and have children. It's something you don't experience unless you are a childless adult. My girlfriend can't have children and is often upset by inconsiderate comments or simply by being excluded from events/conversations.

          The government and businesses encourage the production of children to ensure a future workforce and the more the better (the great god Growth must be appeased). But how much longer can a country/world with finite resources grow? Why do we have to grow? Does growth bring only positives? We know this not to be the case. Perhaps it's time for a new way?

    2. dnicholas

      the more you have, the more £££ the govt will give you.

      Really? As a working class drone who "does OK" with an equally well off wife, I can tell you that little people cost a fortune and it isn't the government picking up our bills

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: the more you have, the more £££ the govt will give you.

        well, he probably means a (quite small) minority of people who don't do (much or any) work but producing more and more kids, which lands them in a 3 - 5 bedroom house, where a hard-working couple can't afford a deposit for a 2 bedroom house (should they wish to expand into 2+2). I'm sure it does happen, but then, this is a tiny, yet visible (and highly audible :) minority. In fact, the ones I observe daily at school, while they do seem to multiply like gremlins, the father works, and they seem like a very happy and friendly family (I don't think I'd swap for their x-bedroom house, this luxury comes with x-occupants!).

        But then, everybody takes an extreme case and makes it into a rule...

    3. Dr Stephen Jones
      Joke

      Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

      I suspect the reason you are childless may be your very attractive personality

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

        Social darwinism right there. No one wanted to procreate with him.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

          I'm the one in the LTR, not the pasty faced hand shandy barista in his bedroom.

    4. mrdalliard

      Re: As a childless curmudgeon.

      >>Children appear to be seen as a meal ticket these days, the more you have, the more £££ the govt will give you.

      Your post comes across more as a Daily Mail style rant against "bloody scroungers" than anything that has a degree of relevance to the original topic.

      Go on, tell us about the immigrunts.

  3. thondwe

    The Facebook (and Apple, etc) 13 age limit I think comes from US law and clearly it's widely ignored. There are some proper under 13 services, but only Skype seems "legal" as MS (bless) have children accounts for parents to manage. Apple recently did something similar.

    Trouble (as a parent) is actually that most of my kids friends are on line and text already, but most end up with their parents accounts (or accounts with the wrong age entered) so you don't know that there really is a kid at the other end. They (11 yr olds in my case) already on snapchat, Instagram, you name it - 90% of parents don't really understand it - it's the wild west!

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      "90% of parents don't really understand it"

      90% of parents don't want to understand it. It's really not difficult to understand how it works. But if they understood the problem, and they didn't deal with the problem, then when something goes wrong it can be argued as their fault. But if they're ignorant to it, and something happens, then they can always blame the companies for allowing it to happen.

    2. John Lilburne

      90% of parents don't really understand it.

      This is a common refrain which might have been true 20 years ago, but 90% of parents with 10 yo kids grew up with the internet. They know all about texting, messaging, whatsapp, and all the rest of the bullshit apps.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ...Zuck points his digital crack at ever younger kids....

    Jeez, arrest the pervert already!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What price can you put on the interactions of children when it comes to marketing and advertising?

    Sure you may not be using this to actively advertise towards children but I'm pretty sure using their interactions and what they like you can ascertain what will work when they are older.

    I hope one day facebook dies a fiery death.

  6. Lord Schwindratzheim

    It's things like this that make me relieved I don't have children - I genuinely feel for any parent that has to deal with this sort of bollocks.

    And who's fault will it be when (not if) the first evidence of misuse by innaproriate adults comes to light?

    Not Zuck's, that's for sure...

  7. FuzzyWuzzys
    Unhappy

    From cradle to grave!

    Zuck's nasty little insidious advertising tat bazaar. People's entire lives mapped out, tagged, recorded and analyzed the to Nth degree, from the second you learn to type to the second you kick your bucket, Zuck will have it all and it'll be sold on to the highest bidder.

    Sad, pathetic little species we are.

  8. Gavin Chester
    Meh

    It make me wonder why UKGov repeatedly parrots the lines that the "Tech Companies" need to do "something" to prevent child abuse / terrorism/ cyber threats, when its clear that said Tech Companies do not seem to care what UKGov thinks as long as they can continue to monetarise their product. Any "conversations" seem to be lip service that's got the aim of doing just enough to avoid regulation but not really make a heck of a difference.

    I can fully understand the request to do something, I just wonder why UKGov can't see that without a suitable stick to force any company into action its very unlikely that these requests will bear any fruit. After all they are usually not UK based so seem to manage to skirt most of the ways they could be forced to action.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      UK.gov could do something and just pass a damn law or two, but the mass of PPEs are incapable of formulating what it should be.

      The 13 year old limit only exists because someone in the US decided to pass the COPPA law, if it weren't for that kids in the UK would be completely defenceless.

    2. Paul 195

      The EU has had some success in constraining the behaviour of the large tech companies. Thankfully we in the UK will soon have no part of that nonsense and can continue an uninterrupted journey to the bottom as a low-regulation, low-tax billionaires' paradise.

  9. The Nazz

    Parenting.

    Isn't what it used to be, quite obviously.

    Couple years back, there was a little discussion about Faecesbooks age limit of 13. I said it is my understanding that kids younger than that use it.

    One woman chirps up, Yeah, my seven year old does. She seemed ever so boastful about it too. And no doubt she expects, indeed is entitled to, the rest of society to help her with subsequent problems.

  10. The Nazz

    re the UK Gov doing something.

    Do you honestly think that large, very large sections of the UK Gov, incl local gov, and the various social services, and such as the BBC actually care either?

    Read the Guardian front page story a few weeks back re parental alienation, yeah, truly "groundbreaking" in 2017, and then compare that to their output in the last 20-30 years.

  11. Alan J. Wylie

    Tom Lehrer

    He gives the kids free samples / Because he knows full well / That today's young innocent faces / Will be tomorrow's clientele

    The Old Dope Peddler

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jeremy Hunt

    Right or wrong, the last several years have conditioned me to associate anything this person says, with lying, malevolent, fuck wittery. If he's seriously wanting to speak up against something, and wants support he should deploy reverse psychology and speak in favour of the thing he opposes.

  13. Triumphantape

    OK...

    WTF is "shed man"?

    1. Chris G

      Re: OK...

      Exactly!

      I was wondering how Colin Furze came into this.

    2. Chemical Bob
      Joke

      Re: OK...

      >WTF is "shed man"?

      Half a step above Neanderthal, methinks.

    3. hplasm
      Holmes

      Re: OK...

      "WTF is "shed man"?"

      Sounds like an echo of some childhood trauma...

    4. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: OK...

      David Cameron who got a £25,000 one?

      I was going to put "who bought one for £25,000" but I guess his advertising mentioning the company bought it for him.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is a desperation move from Facebook. They realise they are losing the teen and twenties market that their customers prize, so they think that getting the kids when they're younger mean they'll keep them - showing a total misunderstanding of how yoof dynamics work.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "showing a total misunderstanding of how yoof dynamics work."

      Oh yes! The younger the child, the shorter the lifespan of the fad.

  15. Chemical Bob

    "This is really a further expansion of Mark Zuckerberg's crack..."

    If his crack expands too much, it'll get packed.

  16. doug_bostrom

    So much for disruption, innovation and all the rest of the gloss. Facebook has "reinvented" Happy Meals for Kids. BFD.

    Get 'em hooked while they're young.

    And just like Happy Meals, we'll insist that the product not be --acutely-- toxic and then call it all good.

  17. harmjschoonhoven

    Zuck

    has simply run out of flies to eat shit.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Year 6 children, or 10-year-olds, routinely use WhatsApp groups, parents tell me.

    this might be the case in your case, but it certainly isn't the case in our case. Unless you're talking about SOME parents of SOME children in year six (and this applies to the following paragraphs too). Naturally, this minority is going to turn into 99.9% majority in year 7....

    That said, there was a very interesting BBC piece (newsnight), not about the kids, but about effects on humans, in general. Actually, it's still on youtube:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoIufBVLDvM

    While nothing new per se, it asked rather interesting questions, but the conclusions, which are not included in the piece, but followed, in the studio, were grim: there's no protection, there's no way back, we're all fucked. And it's only going to get worse.

  19. Mage Silver badge

    Oh er!

    Can we bring back article voting so I can upvote?

  20. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Miiverse

    As a My First Social Network, Nintendo got it about right. It was moderated to within an inch of its life and if you got banned it meant you had to use a new Network ID which you didn't want to do as they are a limited number per console. It turned out to be a nice social network (mostly) about gaming.

    Shame it just got knocked on the head, they didn't want to carry on with it on the Switch.

    But a Silicon Valley business will never give us with a nice social network because they're obsessed with doing everything with dubiously-effective algorithms instead of realising that they need spend money enploying humans to proactively moderate.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like