Category: Let's talk
you have to be 13 to access the zone.
what do you all think of that, should it be raised? stay at 13? or even allow kids on, but have certain rules.
discuss
Even if they wanted they wouldn't be allowed to allow younger people to join because of the US law. I don't think the age should be rased but it would e good if sertain areas of the zone were restricted such as the sex board in graphity and the dating and relationship board. But as other people said in other topicks the young people could put a wrong age just to get access to the adult areas so i don't know if there is a point of doing something like that. But this topick was discussed before.
hmmm, i like the idea of that.
the idea of if you are a certain age, you can only acces certain parts
awsome
You know, I never get this argument that people will just lie so there’s no point doing anything about it. Underage kids go into shops and buy cigarettes, they get fake ID and get into bars/night clubs and buy alcohol, so should we not put an age limit on the sale of tobacco/alcohol because people will lie to get it anyway?
I think this site is inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18, 16 at the very least. How many of you have young sisters, cousins, potentially children? How many of you would be happy for them to be reading some of the stuff that goes on on this site? On the boards, on qn’s, on graffiti? I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had a 13 year old child or sister, or cousin, for them to be on this site. I do think the site should be restricted, or at the very least that there should be a statement on the front page saying that the content of the site is not appropriate for anyone under the age of 18.
i'm sure these kids have heard much worse than what is talked about on this site. I'm sure they learn a thing or two at school that they could teach us. smiles! In my opinion, Chris and Jay are not here to be internet babysitters. It's up to the parent's to restrict what there kids are doing on the internet! I'm sure there are much worse sites out there they could be frequenting! So yeah, back to the Chris and jay point. Say they put a age restriction on the site, yeah? so then a twelve year old kid comes on and says she or he is twenty so now how do they prove this. So yeah, they let them on, they come on and there parents find them on the site, yeah? Then they come at jay and Chris because there kid got through the restriction? So then what, it's a no win situation! And as far as the restriction on the front page, they could do this and it probably wouldn't hurt. At the same time, do you really think a twelve year old kid set out to rubell is actually going to care about the ratings on the front page? I highly doubt it. smiles, shea
I agree with Shea. To put it plain and simple, leave well enough alone.
John
But no-one said chris/j had to be internet babysitters, and of course the responsibility ultimately lies with the parents to ensure their children aren’t visiting inappropriate sites.
But this site advertises itself as being for “games, community, and more”. All sounds very innocent from the front page. We advertise “anagrams”, “an hourly points lottery”, “hangman”, “private messaging facility”, etc, etc. A parent looking at the front page of this site to assess whether he/she would be happy for his/her child to come on here would be led to believe that what goes on on here is all very innocent and is quite appropriate for their 13 year old. It’s not until you delve deeper, eg into the graffiti boards that the content becomes highly inappropriate. In fact I would go so far as to say that some of what has been written on the sex addicts board is tantamount to text pornography.
Shea there is already a box that you have to tick as a new member that states that you are over 13, and of course a 12 year old could tick that box and gain access to the site. But it’s damage limitation. If it transpires that a 12 year old has been accessing the site, J and Chris have covered themselves by stating that the site is not eligible for those under the age of 13, but that has nothing to do with site content, it has to do with the Children’s Online Privacy Act (COPA) which states that sites that are run from the United states are not allowed to obtain any personal information, e.g. email address/name etc from children under the age of 13. J/Chris have covered themselves by putting that box on the site for all members to tick, thus if a child under the age of 13 gained access to the site by lying and J/Chris were challenged about it, they have made that child aware that he/she actually should not be accessing the site.
I don’t see how changing that tick box to say 16, would be any different, if a 15 year old accessed the site and the parents challenged j/Chris, again they would have the comeback that the child had ticked a box to say he/she was over the recommended age for visiting the site. And I also don’t see what is wrong with having some text on the front page stating that “some” of the content of the site is inappropriate for younger users, that way a parent looking at the front page to see what the site was all about would be fully informed of what his/her child was actually accessing, whereas now he/she would have to sign up and access the graffiti boards before having any idea of the kind of material that is on here.
From the front page...
Disclaimer
Please note that we prefer not to censor our members thoughts, and believe in freedom of speech. There are options to ignore most forms of communication
if you choose not to participate, and we encourage you to make your own decisions as to what you view as acceptable content. We are not your parents.
and you think a 13 year old can/or will decide what is appropriate content?
yes you can ignore quicknotes/board posts, but you can't ignore grafiti. As someone who chooses not to partake of that kind of chatter I choose to ignore grafiti by not going there, but for a curious 13, 15 year old the temptation to go there would be all too great. And there is absolutely nothing that gives any indication that there is highly inappropriate content on this site. This site is designed as a community, and yet some of the material on it is certainly not appropriate for all.
Yes, as a parent I am responsible for what my child accesses on the internet. And as a parent I would look at the sites he/she decided to visit. But as a parent, looking at that front page I could have no reason to believe that there was anything on the site I wouldn't want my child to see. After all, most of it can be ignored right? wrong. It's highly misleading, and I can tell you now that as a parent, if my child gained access to this site thinking it was just about games and happened upon the grafiti boards, I would be doing more than just complaining about it on the boards - I would be taking action to get this site closed down, and I would probably have a very good case for doing so once the media became involved.
One other thing interests me, why is it people are so anti not allowing kids on the site? You wouldn't normally socialize with 13 year olds as a rule would you? you wouldn't go to a club/bar/anywhere else and ask a group of kids to join in your discussions, so why would you want to do it any more on here?
I think 13 year olds are getting more and more to learn the ways of the land at a yunger d and yunger age. They'll find about it anyway, you'll just prolong the process that's all.
i still stick with what i said. i don't think raising the age limit any is going to help anything! I still think they won't learn any more here than they do in real life. and you can't do anything about them walking on the streets and hearing two people talking about sex or whatever the heck you think they shouldn't be hearing! and maybe your right they are to young to hear this and are at an immpressionable age. my point is this is the net, no matter how hard you try, your not goig to prevent, whatever age limit you set, them coming on here.
i have to agree with john, younger children are learning so quick
I don't know about you guys, but I certainly knew about sex when I was thirteen, and yes, before I was thirteen, too. Honestly, not much shocks a thirteen-year-old these days. My parents never censored the books I read, the TV I watched or the internet sites I visited. And you know what? I never had the urge to do anything stupid or crazy.
You need to give the kids some credit. Thirteen-year-olds have the ability to realize, "Ugh, this guy is a creep/these board posts are gross/graffiti is generally disgusting. I'll ignore him/won't visit this thread/won't read the graffiti boards anymore." Yes, I know there are all those stories about young kids being lured into dangerous situations by sexual predators online, but. Let's examine this situation here. The Zone is a place where mostly blind people congregate. As most of you know, blind children are some of the most overprotected children. Normally, I don't agree with this, but really, do you think a parent of a blind child is going to let them meet any old person from the internet without supervision? I don't think so.
So, the long and short of it is, I think the age limit should be kept where it is. Kids are smart. If they don't want to read something/talk to someone, they won't.
Even as an adult, lots of people wouldn't meet someone off the internet without someone there. I can tell you I sure wouldn't. I have met someone off the net and my dad drove me there. It was in a public place, and nothing weird happend at all. I had talked to her on the phone before for a long time, and also AIM. People who feel uncomfortable meeting you because you have someone else with you just in case wel maybe they aren't the ones to meet then. Those kids who do meet people on there own and get hurt for it, well part of it is there fault too. Its only common sense that when meeting someone from the net, that percausions would be taken. Besides, everyone somehow thinks meeting someone off the net is somehow more dangerous then meeting a stranger in say, a bar or any other public place. I can agree with that to a point, but I also believe that any thing can happen to anyone, anywhare. In other words its not just those people from the net that can be good or bad. I mean a person at a bar could try to take advantage just as easy as say someone you would meet from the net, or even say someone that decides to grab you as you walk down the street. Sorry for rambeling, but that's my $0.02.
John
I completely agree with you. That's essentially what I was trying to say. Or part of what I was trying to say, anyway.
I see where you are coming from with the thirteen year old beeing old enough to make his or her own decisions, but i totally disaggree with you saying they are going to make the right decision. they are at a stage where they are of course going to make the decision they think is right, in some situations this may not always be the safest one! though. but as I said before it's life and whether they hear it on the net or in person there going to here it. The only thing is there more likely not going to act on it being on the net. As to in person they may be more likely to act on it!
So claire are you saying your on the train and a young one is sitting next to you and starts to carry on a conversation with you. Are you going to stop them and ask them there age and if there thirteen say i can't talk to you any more? your under my age limit?
Shea
Yes, not all thirteen-year-olds are going to make the right decision, but I think we need to give them a little credit. Coddling kids only gets them so far. Boundaries need to be set in place, but kids need to be allowed to screw up once in a while. How else will they learn?
I agree that parents should be aware of what their kids are doing both on and off the internet, but I also think that kids should be trusted a little more than most parents do trust them. There's no reason to assume that your kid will do something stupid on the internet -- or off of it -- unless they've previously shown that they're not the best decisionmakers.
personally there are people having kis at 13. People will do what they want when they want. If you feel you can limit them they willl get around it trust me.
Exactly. The more boundaries you put up, the more ways kids will find to get around them.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any limits placed on the activities of kids. That's just stupid. But you need to give kids the freedom to explore and to make mistakes. Otherwise, they'll either a) think that the world is a very safe place where nothing goes wrong (ha ha, wouldn't that be nice) or b) will test their parents to the point of insanity.
I'm 15 and I signed up last year I think and I no what is a good decision my parents don't reallly limit me or anything
I think the zone should keep the age restriction, not for the kids sake, but for the protection of the zone.
I'm not sure what the restrictions are for sites rated as safe for children, but I'm sure there are some.
The idea of letting kids in certain parts of the zone might have some merrit, but should be thought out very carefully to avoid complications.
Bob
Everyone has raised good points here, and this is a very thoughtful area of discussion, and everyone has handled themselves as adults. Would that other discussions were handled the same way here.
Having said that, I was drawn to the word "community." In a real community in which one could walk the streets and interact with others, I don't see many blind children walking about by themselves. Parents need to take an active part in their children's lives both in their loc al community, and in the cybercommunity. I know how naieve this sounds, but that's my $.02 worth.
Lou
see, thing is, say we do raise the age limit, as some people had suggested. Fine, we raise the age limit, that's all well and good, but what's to stop new users from simply lying about their age, and letting themselves access the bigger parts of the site? I think that 13 is fine, because however we raised the age, people would still be able to lie about it, still be able to just...get on as adults if they choose. I mean, for the love of God, for all you all know, I could be a 70 year old guy...(for those who haven't heard my voice before).
This is going to sound really wierd coming from me, seeing as I'm only 14 but I think that the age limmit should be 16 because I personally don't think that anyone yunger than that is to inmature to have any common sense to be careful.
Shea, no of course I wouldn’t check a person’s age before deciding to have a conversation with them. But there’s a vast difference between having a random conversation with a 13 year old and a 13 year old joining a “community” that is visited predominantly by adults and becoming an equal member on there.
To the poster who said that if a child meets someone from the internet and comes to some harm it is their own fault for not having any common sense, I totally disagree. We all know that it’s a lot easier to gain friendship over the internet than it is in rl, generally because you can say the things that others want to hear over the net. And Children are impressionable. At 13 they are at the age where they want to be liked, where they want to be seen as grown-up despite the fact that they are actually still children. And if someone comes along and apparently treats them as adults, and tells them they’re special and that that their parents/guardians are wrong to treat them as children, then of course they will be attracted to that. Because they feel that they are finally being treated as grown-ups. As adults it is our responsibility to protect our children, and to give them the guidance to know what is right and wrong as they grow up.
So what if a 13 year old came on here and was chatted up by an older member who made inappropriate conversation with that child. Is that ok too? Should we consider that the child is old enough to be able to handle that? Most of the people on here have more sense than to chat up a 13 year old, but not all. I know of at least one user who has made inappropriate comments to and about younger users, if they’re prepared to do it in public then what goes on in private qn’s?
A 13 year old is not mature enough to be able to always make the right decisions. No we can’t stop them from hearing about sex in the street or on other websites, but surely that doesn’t preclude us from responsibility? Surely we should be the ones saying that it’s wrong that such young children are being exposed to such adult things as such a young age and be the ones offering a safer place to be without the need to see sex/swearing etc?
Yes children can lie but then it's their responsibility or that of their parents. IMO children under 16 should have access to the games, and they should have their own message board which the older members do not have access to. but certainly not grafiti or qn's, and they shouldn't be allowed to buy premium.