[mlevental]

fuck this. i'm sorry i know this isn't language appropriate to hn but fuck this.

does anyone believe this is really for the betterment of any child's life? say anything you want about how children use messenger apps now and this just improves that experience for them but accommodations aside that's basically the same excuse that drug dealers use - "they're going to get it from somewhere so they might as well get it from me". we all know this is just another vehicle for ads (their promises notwithstanding) and we all know that fb/social media has pernicious effects on psychology, let alone child psychology.

i don't live in a cabin in the woods and i'm not amish and i'm not a luddite (i consume technology more or less like everyone else) but yet still i challenge someone to show me the intrinsic value (as opposed to circumstantial to the fact that fb/social media inundates us).

[BenchRouter]

I actually agree with you that this is "drug dealer" tactics but for totally different reasons. I think this is a classic "the first hit is free" move.

It's a long-term play. I believe FB when they say they won't show ads to kids, or use their chats for ad scraping. What they really want is for those kids to become so familiar and dependent on the system (FB), that they naturally transition to being active FB users as adults.

It's not a secret that FB has a perceived "uncool with kids" problem - hence the rise of things like Snapchat. If you hook them when they're really young, though, then FB just becomes an unquestioned part of life.

As far as the tool itself, i dunno - I mean messenger tools have been a fact of life for quite some time now. AIM, ICQ, etc. I don't think FB messenger is particularly different other than the fact that it's attached to, well, FB.

[monkeyprojects]

Watching my children I would argue its a desperate attempt to get children under the age of 16 using Facebook as they just don't.

Both children attend a Music group which has used a facebook group for years. The older children (17-18) all have active facebook profiles - the younger children don't they use Instagram and Snapchat...

[mlevental]

>I believe FB when they say they won't show ads to kids, or use their chats for ad scraping.

why do you believe this? i have no reason to believe it (since their entire business model is targeted ads) except the "first hit is free" alternate hypothesis.

does fb have a single "loss leader" feature?

[BenchRouter]

> why do you believe this?

Because why say it otherwise? Facebook could've easily left all of that out and just said "Introducing messenger for kids! We're making sure it's carefully curated and safe for your children" etc. etc.

People would've speculated that it was being used for ads, sure, but it wouldn't have caused a major outrage. I'd bet significant sums of money that most (not all, obviously) parents don't really care about their children being advertised to or used for market research - I mean hell, TV was doing that way before FB was a thing. Most parents probably worry about more obvious things w.r.t. children chatting online: Bullying, talking to strangers, etc.

Saying "we're not scraping childrens' messages" and then turning around and doing exactly that would be such a monumental PR disaster if it ever came out. I don't think FB is quite that stupid. They're clearly focused on the long-term.

Another possibility is that they're actually just legally barred from scraping messages sent by children, and this is them putting a PR spin on "we're complying with the law!"

So basically, I just don't see a lot of benefit to promising not to scrape messages if they really want to do that.

[JorgeGT]

> If you hook them when they're really young, though, then FB just becomes an unquestioned part of life.

Exactly like religion. Facebook is learning from the best!

[nxsynonym]

I've been wondering what the implications of a fully documented life on the internet will bring in the next 30-50 years.

Presumably, these kids have had and will have their entire lives documented on the internet (and most likely by a single platform, FB). From the time they were conceived (or ever before, a lot of parents having their first children were in middle or high school when FB became popular) until their death (or FB goes away, whichever is more likely) will be documented.

Facebook keeps spewing this "we won't do evil" rhetoric, but so far I don't see any evidence that they are using their powers for good.

Between the photos, psychological insights gathered from chats and posts, biometrics from face scanning, and even nude pics (but only to stop revenge porn, they swear!) - Facebook will know more about these kids then anyone else.

I can't imagine a scenario where hoarding all this information is even remotely useful, let alone what could happen if a major data breach happens.

I know it's a bit like throwing bottled water on a house fire, but I have been actively encouraging peers to at least be selective about what they share on Facebook. We have to resist the urge to overshare before it's too late, if it isn't already.

[murph-almighty]

I like to joke that everyone born past 1994 will never go into politics due to the sheer amount of damning cringeworthy material online from their teenage years.

[linkmotif]

Saw this post before it had any comments and now back and glad to see this is the first comment. These people have no boundaries or qualms. Drug dealing to minors is all this is.

[tw1010]

Meh. A lot of us nerds on HN spent our youths in chatrooms and forums. This isn't very different. In fact, I would have loved to be able to play with face filters when I was a kid. This isn't a Las Vegas-esque game that costs money, this is communication with friends and family. It's addictive, yes, but it's addictive for the same reason talking to other people is addictive, because it's fun and it stimulates the lower rungs of our maslowian pyramid.

[mlevental]

i spent my childhood on icq/irc/aim as well. this is different because the entirety of those systems was chat. the entirety of this system is analytics and the way it's being palletized is chat.

[cptskippy]

Those systems also had a very different dynamic because of the limits on non-textual communication. If you had a camera and if you had a decent connect you might be able to upload your crappy 640x480 picture to someone in 2 minutes or so, otherwise you were limited to emoticons.

[QAPereo]

Plus, irc was and is a great resource.

[danvoell]

Totally agree. Fuck this Mark. We don't need this social brain F for kids. I know you are totally disrupting and revolutionizing how 10 years old socialize. No thanks. I will just be at home consoling my daughter and trying to explain in bigger words why this is a bad idea and why I don't want her chatting with her friends, with a phone.

[zecg]

Exactly. This is due to the fact that young people have not embraced facebook and use other networks, it's their attempt to get into a demographic that's lost to them. I'd wager they'll have to keep shopping around to get the kids, the name and logo are tainted.

[abdullahi1]

Fully agreed. When I was a kid if I wanted to "connect" with my friends I'd go out in the neighborhood and socialize with them. The most "interactive online play" I had, was writing cringe worthy stuff on other friends' profiles on Orkut. Seriously though, does Facebook think that a bunch of eleven year olds have a social network so big that they need an app to stay in touch? they're simply discouraging kids to go outside and develop human relationships.