Did no one else apart from Brown Eyed GirlSmellMyWortnotice the bit about the girl living in a care institition? Guys, she doesn’t live with her father, he didn’t buy her a computer, he doesn’t pay the IP bills, he can’t stop her from getting online.
In this situation, the two groups he could blame for it, apart from the kid, are the care institution or facebook. He chose to at least partially blame facebook. It’s very easy to get online without parents knowing for most kids- I know I used to sneak out of school and use the city library computers, which had unrestricted access and anonymous login… Mind you, the school computers were completely uncensored too.
But could you stop your kid from using your computer at all times of day? I’m sure they could get on if they wanted to. It just seems like nowadays especially keeping a kid away from a computer is a really hard task.
My priority would be about resolving the existence of “sexually suggestive pictures” of my 12 year old, before whether she can get on Facebook without my knowledge.
Huh? We know about them. In the hypothetical presented, they were still put on Facebook. Now the question is when and why they were taken. Behind your back is insufficiently specific.
In other words, I think he’s saying that the discovery Facebook’s allowing the pictures to be published or that the care facility granted her computer time are both nowhere as important as the discovery that the daughter is actually taking sexually suggestive pictures of herself.
Yes, but it’s a CYA policy, based on federal law. Zuckerberg has said he would love to provide service for younger users, and does not like the hoops he currently would have to go through to allow this legally.
This does not surprise me: I know of a lot of parents who let their underage kids be on Facebook. A few of the kids even added me.
I interpreted his statement, perhaps incorrectly, that he would have made sure to deal with the suggestive pictures before dealing with her unauthorized access to Facebook. That’s why questioned knowledge of the pictures. Until they are published, dad is unlikely to have any idea of their existence. Once they are published on the internet, I’m not sure there’s much you can do about it. Having them removed from Facebook, which I think is a given is unlikely to erase their existence. Digital media has a way of ending up on random strangers’ hard drives.
Considering what’s been reported about the girl’s behavior, I do agree he’s got bigger fish to fry than Facebook. I don’t doubt he realizes this, but he’s going through the motions. Facebook is a deep pocket. shrug
Facebook already has a thing that restricts photo uploads by image size. Can’t they tweak it a bit to automatically detect and reject photos of jailbait?
That Zuckerberg guy being such a big-time genius and all, according to a movie I saw…
Ok. Then how do you resolve this issue? And how does dealing with your 12-year old daughter’s sexual proclivity prohibit taking any action against the other parties involved? You can’t do both at once?
I’m not saying the lawsuit has any merit. I’m just questioning the assumption that because he’s suing FB, the father is ignoring the problem of the daughter’s behavior and/or responsible for it through poor parenting.
Since she is living in a ‘voluntary care institution,’ I don’t think as a parent I would be going after Facebook, I would be going after them. Who lets kids with behavioural problems have unrestricted access to the internet?
(Unless of course the dad let the kid have a smartphone with a camera and data package, then he has no one to blame but himself.)
Where on my post do I advocate that he not take the other actions? And if someone accused the father of negligence it was not me. I just meant that if I were in his shoes, my biggest (not only) worry would be how she got into such pictures to begin with - because taking her offline is the easy part.
And hell if I know how could I deal with it. Praise Og that I have no children of my own.
