I think those checks are called "parents".12 year olds not being allowed on FB is all fine and well in theory but what actual checks are carried out to ensure that it doesn't reach those under age?
I think those checks are called "parents".12 year olds not being allowed on FB is all fine and well in theory but what actual checks are carried out to ensure that it doesn't reach those under age?
I think those checks are called "parents".
I'd imagine not. There are a lot of shitty parents around.Really? Do you reckon that every "parent" knows whether or not their child is on FB?
I'd imagine not. There are a lot of shitty parents around.
It remains the responsibility of the parent to monitor their kids online usage though.
It's easy to be critical of parents generally. 99.9% are doing their level best but it's a bloody tough job.As referenced earlier turning yer twelfth birthday doesn't make FB any more dramatically (un)suitable.
Parents will know best for their kids if/when they know. But there are many parents trying their level best who might have some pre-teenager that passes through the cracks of modern life every now and then in terms of accessing FB by pretending they're 12+ when in fact they're only 11 thanks to peer pressure and whatnot. I wouldn't be too critical of parents in such circs.
Is there a point to go with any of this?As referenced earlier turning yer twelfth birthday doesn't make FB any more dramatically (un)suitable.
Parents will know best for their kids if/when they know. But there are many parents trying their level best who might have some pre-teenager that passes through the cracks of modern life every now and then in terms of accessing FB by pretending they're 12+ when in fact they're only 11 thanks to peer pressure and whatnot. I wouldn't be too critical of parents in such circs.
Objection, argumentative.Is there a point to go with any of this?