Facebook ♥* Teens (*Couldn't care less)

As of Wednesday, October 16, Facebook has altered its privacy settings for teenagers (anyone within the 13 to 17 threshold, or at least claiming to be so). Honestly, as I've expressed multiple times, I'll tackle with issues when they're presented to me, discuss them in class, but I'm usually either:

a) Too busy/occupied with work and/or Pokémon
b) So indifferent that I really can't be bothered

Admittedly, my discovery of this fact came in a somewhat silly way, as I encountered the Facebook Privacy Simulator, a game that satirizes the plethora of privacy options that users need to sift through to achieve privacy. After this, I searched to see what the controversy was, and this is something that I legitimately piqued my interest.

The new options that Facebook is presenting its teenage users with allows them to decide whether they fellow Facebook users beyond whom they added as "Friends" to see their posts. Formerly, the outer bound for whom could see teenagers' posts were people they were "friends" with -- or completely private. Now Facebook has given teens the ability to "be heard," a phrase that their press release is anchored around.

Facebook states that "other social media sites" allow users to post whatever; this is true. However, "other social media sites" aren't the largest living information cataloguing database on the Web. Facebook, and I refer to Facebook because corporations are people, too, [Insert eye roll] surely must be aware of how powerful it is with respect to "other social media sites."

Right, because teens say this.

If you notice the image above, you can see the nice corporate polish that Facebook has put on its example as to what teens might want to use this for. Why, Alison just finished her 10k charity run! Jeremy is starting a drive to help the hungry -- what a nice kid. Oh, and Anne-Marie is going to the movies and DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO SEE.

Yes, I'm being quite sarcastic, perhaps even detracting from the legitimacy of my concern; but this is ridiculous. At the risk of riling up cyberlibertarians and absolute free speech advocates, I think it's important to step aside from the technical arguments of whether teens should be able to say whatever they want, etc., and realize that by assisting in teenagers' display for all to see, there are several dangerous doors that are opened. One that Dick Wolf might tell you is the possibilities for sex offenders:

"Darn, I haven't 'friended' that teen boy on Facebook -- hey, wait: Billy is posting public! Yum."

Christopher Meloni would come back for this.

Granted, I'd be unfair and remiss if I didn't mention this, Facebook does have a persistent notification for whenever teenagers post publicly reminding them that they are posting publicly. This annoyance of a notification may be enough to turn some teens away from posting publicly, but at the end of the day it is just a minor hindrance that can be ignored for any non-adult using Facebook.

At the end of the day, yes, I hate to sound like my grandmother asking why kids need cell phones, but I have to ask: Why do teenagers need to be allowed to broadcast their every move to the entire world? Has Facebook forgotten the ubiquity of cyber bullying? It isn't just a fad that dominated the mid-2000s; it is as present a threat as ever, minus the media's sporadic coverage.

Is there a point to what has become a rant? Yes. Facebook's new privacy policies are troublesome. On one hand they appease the teenage population, garnering support from that demographic in a very backhanded sort of way. Conversely, Facebook is endangering many of its teenage constituency by giving them this freedom. There are reasons why there are provisions in place both in the online and offline world to create a distinct separation between those who are legal adults and those who are not.

The end.