DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Up to the parents. Or the technical savvy of the children in question if the parents are opposed.

What is so dangerous about facebook/internet for say, a 13-17 year old?

Or a toddler for that matter?

First of all, for those who have commented above; Would you take your children down to "skid row" or "the red light district" and turn them loose with the instruction of "Go out there and learn about life!"?!?

Pedophiles lurk on all those social networking sites just ready to pounce on a child who is on there without parental supervision, so why would any parent in their right mind allow their children to frolic around those kind of websites unsupervised? (there is even a reality TV show that uses the internet to lure pedophiles into thinking they are meeting unsupervised children for sex!)

And PLEASE do not insult me by saying that kids see more and experience more in this modern day and age than us older folks ever did at that age as that is nothing but a lame excuse for not caring about your children – either that or you are one of those pedophiles that I have been talking about!

Maturity comes with education and age, NOT unsupervised internet surfing!

FYI – I am a Father of three(2 boys, 1 girl) and Grandfather of eight (5 boys and 3 girls) so I think that qualifies me to comment on this subject. B)

The frequency of pedophilia is much overblown. Large numbers of people are effectively entrapped for it, this is not to say they might not be dangerous, but very, very few people are trolling through the internet looking for naive teenagers and children. Moreover, it's not that hard to block such advances or ignore them when they occur in online places rather than reality. If reality TV shows are somehow instructive of your perceptions of reality, I'd say its high time you turned off the TV. This is not to diminish the actual fact of sexual predators and pedophiles. But they're not exactly legion on the net and coming for all our children either. Far more constructive and far more common problems for parents to be worrying about are
1) other teens (though the logic of using sexual offender criminal statutes against sexting is pretty silly)
2) themselves (parents) who are abusing the kids because of domestic problems/alcohol/etc.

I really don't think it necessary or appropriate to paint parents or potential parents who disagree with the apparent necessity of total supervision over every aspect of a child's life, and in particular their digital interactions as though they are pedophiles. This accusation provides no proof that these parents are unfeeling or unconcerned. It is far more likely that they will provide instruction and warning rather than simply be dropping kids off in the midst of some horrible place as you imagine we must be doing by allowing kids to populate social media websites. The comparison of the internet to a red light district or a heroin alley is hardly valid as a result. The one offers a great many more uses than abusive use of drugs and sexuality for starters, and while it contains a population of people who abuse it, the internet is widely populated by people who have the good sense to ignore other people and their children, just as the real world is.

And you have raised how many children?

And you have worked how many years in law enforcement?

You put me down because I live in the real world, all the while claiming to know all there is to know about everything. You do not. Neither do I. But I have been in places and have seen things that I pray that you never will go or see. Children need parameters, because children do not come with an auto-pilot as far as being raised. To turn a child loose on the internet without any supervision, to me, is nothing short of criminal.

I "put you down" because you treat everyone like they couldn't possibly have a point which contradicts your world view. I note you (as usual) did not actually address anything I wrote in response to your point, you merely presume it comes from some elitist point of view and dismissed it without noting any of it as even possibly valid. Which is amusing. But hardly constructive.

I do not intend to come off as insulting. You do. Otherwise you wouldn't call anyone who could possibly disagree with you a "pedophile". I avoid making sweeping generalisations of this sort if I can. It would be nice if you had a more nuanced understanding of the world rather than a set of black and white googles. But since you don't, it would be nice if you could refer to people who disagree with you with a little more class than to compare them to criminals. Without offering any proof that their behavior is in fact criminal. That is, as you are essentially admitting here, your opinion only, which makes it little more valid than an insult or ad hominem rather than actually raising a substantive and useful point. In this case, if you could demonstrate that there is in fact some increased risk or incidence of child molestation caused by less authoritarian child rearing, I'd be happy to entertain this notion. There isn't any such evidence because the vast majorities of child molestation cases are caused not by trolling internet strangers (or strangers period). But by people who already know the child through family, friends, or adults in associated social roles (school, church, etc). In other words, it does not matter whether you rule over your children with an iron fist or apply a lighter touch and expect children to make decisions themselves under reasonable stewardship guiding them through to adulthood.

Neither of those two questions refute my position or make yours inherently superior. They supply context to why you hold the views you do, and that's valuable, I'd admit that this sort of information is valuable. To an extent. They are not an end of discussion point as you seem to want to wield them, not even close. Indeed, your claims that somehow I've never seen this or its effects are plainly foolish. I've known at least a dozen people who have been molested or sexually abused or who have children who were. All of them (so far) were so maltreated by family members, extended family, or other adults who had access to the family (sitters, teachers, etc). And this is hardly unusual.

These claims do not make your parenting style performance empirically "better" over one which is more free form and doesn't require close monitoring over every activity (and you seem to be pretending that a parent who lets their child have more freedom rather than supervise everything and anything would not also inculcate sets of values which might give them a level of internal supervision or protection, which is generally very far from the reality).

Nor does it make the views of law enforcement toward the admittedly reprehensible behavior of pedophiles applicable to other human beings (who are mostly, and fortunately, neither pedophiles. Nor law enforcement).

For future reference here are some things that do not actually prove anything when you begin using them (particularly when used inaccurately).
1) "You're a socialist!"
2) "You're an anarchist!"
3) "You're (fill in religion)!"
4) "You're a pedophile!"
5) "You're a pothead!"
6) "You're an elitist egghead"
7) "You hate America!" "I'm a parent, you're not!"
9) "I served in the military/police, you don't!"
10) "I'm old, you're not!"

I've now seen you use all of these as those they are useful debate points to prove a point. They're usually not even effective at insulting someone else, but that's basically all you accomplish by attempting to use them the way you do. They do not advance your arguments nor diminish someone else's.

I'm not blind or oblivious to the fact that there are dangerous people out in the world. Don't pretend that there are things I'm unaware of because I've not been a cop or been out in the world. What I'm saying is that those are not typically the things that most people should spend considerable energy worrying about. It is sufficient before setting loose a child into the wild, wild world that is the internet to discuss with them some pitfalls and dangers to avoid or be cautious with, and to have open lines of communication in case they encounter them anyway. But it's not smart to blanket-decree that a kid shouldn't wander on the web or on a social network even. There are far, far too many benefits and the risks (things like child predators) exist regardless of how much or how little supervision and freedom is provided.

I'd much rather have a child develop their own experiences to begin to learn how to avoid these things, helped and aided at first to provide a redoubt of strength to learn in, than presume that these things simply must not exist in their universe at all because a minute quantity of people will abuse it for some nefarious end that can be easily avoided and most of the time will far more likely be encountered in other ways (at home, extended family, school, church, etc). That's where child molestation tends to happen in the real world. It is not some random creep on the internet who we need to be worrying about. The dangers are usually far closer to home.

"Allowed"? Allowed by whom? The government? Why should children be any more under the government's control than adults? By their parents? That's up to the individual parent. By Facebook itself? It's easy to lie to them. I know many kids who have done it.

You're not going to keep kids off the internet. It's a useless venture that will only take away time and energy from arguably more important things.