By all means, let's get children under the age of 13 on Facebook. After all, there must be a glaring need for somebody, somewhere to know the daily details of 8- and 9-year-olds.
We're not serious, of course, because there's no need for children under 13 to be on Facebook. None whatsoever.
Facebook currently bans users under the age of 13, although officials admit that of the 900 million users worldwide, there are an estimated 7.5 million kids under 13 already using the popular social media site by lying about their age when they register. But why make it easier to the under-13 crowd to get access to Facebook?
Facebook officials say accounts for children under 13 (yes, they are still children at that age) could be linked to a parent's account, and the accounts could be limited to "friends only" so strangers couldn't see their posts. That all sounds great, but, again, what purpose would it serve to have a 10-year-old on Facebook? How long will it be before over-zealous parents create an account for their newborn, and post daily updates on bowel movements and spit-ups? It's simply not necessary.
We'd prefer the age limit stay at 13, and even that often gives us reason for concern. There should still be some things that children must wait for in life, and access to the all-encompassing Facebook is one of them. Is there a child who is legitimately being harmed by the 13-year-old age requirement? We doubt it.
This is another issue that will create discord between already overwhelmed parents and their children, with some parents giving in to their child simply because they're tired of hearing "I'm the only one at pre-school who's not on Facebook!"
Sheesh, can't the tykes be satisfied with texting, video games and iPods anymore?