Keeping Teens ‘Private’ on Facebook Won’t Protect Them

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

We’re afraid of and afraid for teenagers. And nothing brings out this dualism more than discussions of how and when teens should be allowed to participate in public life.

Last week, Facebook made changes to teens’ content-sharing options. They introduced the opportunity for those ages 13 to 17 to share their updates and images with everyone and not just with their friends. Until this change, teens could not post their content publicly even though adults could. When minors select to make their content public, they are given a notice and a reminder in order to make it very clear to them that this material will be shared publicly. “Public” is never the default for teens; they must choose to make their content public, and they must affirm that this is what they intended at the point in which they choose to publish.

Representatives of parenting organizations have responded to this change negatively, arguing that this puts children more at risk. And even though the Pew Internet & American Life Project has found that teens are quite attentive to their privacy, and many other popular sites allow teens to post publicly (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr), privacy advocates are arguing that Facebook’s decision to give teens choices suggests that the company is undermining teens’ privacy.

But why should youth not be allowed to participate in public life? Do paternalistic, age-specific technology barriers really protect or benefit teens?

One of the most crucial aspects of coming of age is learning how to navigate public life. The teenage years are precisely when people transition from being a child to being an adult. There is no magic serum that teens can drink on their 18th birthday to immediately mature and understand the world around them. Instead, adolescents must be exposed to — and allowed to participate in — public life while surrounded by adults who can help them navigate complex situations with grace. They must learn to be a part of society, and to do so, they must be allowed to participate.

Most teens no longer see Facebook as a private place. They befriend anyone they’ve ever met, from summer-camp pals to coaches at universities they wish to attend. Yet because Facebook doesn’t allow youth to contribute to public discourse through the site, there’s an assumption that the site is more private than it is. Facebook’s decision to allow teens to participate in public isn’t about suddenly exposing youth; it’s about giving them an option to treat the site as being as public as it often is in practice.

Rather than trying to protect teens from all fears and risks that we can imagine, let’s instead imagine ways of integrating them constructively into public life. The key to doing so is not to create technologies that reinforce limitations but to provide teens and parents with the mechanisms and information needed to make healthy decisions. Some young people may be ready to start navigating broad audiences at 13; others are not ready until they are much older. But it should not be up to technology companies to determine when teens are old enough to have their voices heard publicly. Parents should be allowed to work with their children to help them navigate public spaces as they see fit. And all of us should be working hard to inform our younger citizens about the responsibilities and challenges of being a part of public life. I commend Facebook for giving teens the option and working hard to inform them of the significance of their choices.

Boyd is a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, a research assistant professor in media, culture and communication at New York University and a fellow at Harvard‘s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. She co-authored Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning With New Media. Her new book It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (Yale University Press) will be in stores in February 2014. The views expressed are solely her own

3 comments
joelp77440
joelp77440

Two sides to this.  Side 1, public profiles help kids be aware that their parents maybe watching. This is good.  Side 2, predators are also watching looking for opportunity and can easily learn clues and behavior patterns of their potential victims.  That is bad.  I have no idea which side is right

GaurangaPérezRivas
GaurangaPérezRivas

I couldn't agree more with the writer. There is no escaping the fact that some parents fail to see the importance of allowing their children to have more decision-making over their lives. In a way, it just exposes their fear of not knowing what to do, which is why they opt for the easiest course of action: prohibiting. My humble opinion is that they are just avoiding the responsibility to prepare their kids to take control over the decisions they make in life. Moreover, it seems to me that they want to postpone this decisive learning stage because they can't trust their own children. The solution, to my mind, is to permit the teen to have a saying. Certainly, it will demand more involvement from the parents, but they are going to enjoy the rewarding feeling of knowing that they have tought their teenage son or daughter the lifelong lesson of being responsible for one's actions.  

RebeccaLoader
RebeccaLoader

@joelp77440 predators can also watch schools, look for kids who walk home alone, follow them to see if they are letting themselves in suggesting nobody home etc etc. Teaching your kids safety is the key, predators don't just ilive in cyberspace.