Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 253–262

Who cares? Practical ethics and the problem of underage users on social networking sites

Original Paper

Abstract

Internet companies place a high priority on the safety of their services and on their corporate social responsibility towards protection of all users, especially younger ones. However, such efforts are undermined by the large numbers of children who circumvent age restrictions and lie about their age to gain access to such platforms. This paper deals with the ethical issues that arise in this not-so-hypothetical situation. Who, for instance, bears responsibility for children’s welfare in this context? Are parents/carers ethically culpable in failing to be sufficiently vigilant or even facilitating their children’s social media use? Do industry providers do enough to enforce their own regulations and remove those users they know to be underage? How far does a duty of care extend? Regulation of age restrictions has, it is argued, created unintended consequences that heighten online dangers for young people. While children are inevitably drawn to new online spaces for entertainment and fun, should their rights to participate in the social world around them be curtailed to ensure their best interests and those of the wider community? Such questions now pose significant practical and ethical dilemmas for policy makers and other stakeholders involved in internet governance. It especially highlights the question of responsibility for protection of minors online and calls into question whether the current model of shared responsibility is working.

Keywords

Social networking Internet safety Protection of minors Children and privacy Self-regulation 

References

  1. Berger, M. (2012). A safe place to surf. Science. http://www.scienceomega.com/article/587/a-safer-place-to-surf.
  2. boyd, d., Hargittai, E., Schultz, J., & Palfrey, J. (2011). Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. First Monday, 16(11). doi:10.5210/fm.v16i11.3850.
  3. Buse, C. E. (2009). When you retire, does everything become leisure? Information and communication technology use and the work/leisure boundary in retirement. New Media & Society, 11(7), 1143–1161. doi:10.1177/1461444809342052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron review. London: DCSF.Google Scholar
  5. Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 313–334. doi:10.1080/13691180600751298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donoso, V. (2011). Assessment of the implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU on 14 websites: Summary report. Luxembourg: European Commission, Safer Internet Programme.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2007). Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS) Directive 2007/65/EC. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2008). Background report on cross media rating and classification, and age verification solutions. Luxembourg: European Commission Safer Internet Programme.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2009). Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU. Luxembourg: European Commission Safer Internet Programme.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (2012). Safeguarding privacy in a connected world. A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st century. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2013). Green paper COM (2013) 231 final. Preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world: Growth, creation and values. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. FOSI. (2011). Who needs parental controls? A survey of awareness, attitudes, and use of online parental controls. Washington, DC: Family Online Safety Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Görzig, A. (2011). Who bullies and who is bullied online?. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  14. Helberger, N. (2007). The Changing Role of the User in the “Television Without Frontiers Directive”, in Legal Aspects of Video on Demand, IRIS Special. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.Google Scholar
  15. Helberger, N. (2008). The media-literate viewer. In N. van Eijk & P. B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), Dommering-bundel: Opstellen over informatierecht aangeboden aan prof. mr. E.J. Dommering (pp. 135–148). Amsterdam: Otto Cramwinckel Uitgever.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, S. E., & Yarbrough, M. E. (2002). Suing the insecure?: A duty of care in cyberspace. New Mexico Law Review, 31, 11–25.Google Scholar
  17. ITU. (2009). Child online protection. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.Google Scholar
  18. Kaiser Foundation. (2004). Parents, media and public policy. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Keller, D., & Verhulst, S. G. (2000). Parental control in a converged communications environment self-regulation, technical devices and meta-information. Oxford: Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Kirwil, L. (2009). Parental mediation of children’s internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and Media, 3(4), 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Boston, MA: Pew Internet and American Life Project.Google Scholar
  22. Lev-Ram, M. (2011). Zuckerberg: Kids under 13 should be allowed on Facebook. Fortune, (May 20).Google Scholar
  23. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the internet at home: Contrasting the perspectives of children and parents. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media (pp. 93–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011a). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  25. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599. doi:10.1080/08838150802437396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. (2013). In their own words: What bothers children online?. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  27. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., O’Neill, B., & Donoso, V. (2012). Towards a better internet for children. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  28. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., & Staksrud, E. (2011b). Social networking, age and privacy. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  29. Lobe, B., Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., & Vodeb, H. (2011). Cross-national comparison of risks and safety on the internet: Initial analysis from the EU Kids Online survey of European children. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  30. Loos, E., Haddon, L., & Mante-Meijer, E. (Eds.). (2012). Generational use of new media. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Magid, L. (2013). FTC clarifies Children’s Online Privacy Law (COPPA). http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/04/25/ftc-clarifies-childrens-online-privacy-law-coppa/.
  32. McGonagle, T. (2003). Practical and regulatory issues facing the media online. In C. Hardy & C. Möller (Eds.), Spreading the word on the internet: 16 Answers to 4 questions (pp. 81–94). Vienna: OSCE.Google Scholar
  33. Montgomery, K. C. (2007). Generation digital: Politics, commerce, and childhood in the age of the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research Policy, 31(2), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (2011). Facebook Ireland Ltd report of audit.Google Scholar
  36. O’Neill, B. (2010). Media literacy and communication rights ethical individualism in the new media environment. International Communication Gazette, 72(4–5), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neill, B., & Dinh, T. (2012). Social networking among Irish 9–16 year olds. Digital childhoods working paper no. 3. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. O’Neill, B., Staksrud, E., & McLaughlin, S. (Eds.). (2013). Towards a better internet for children? Policy pillars, players and paradoxes. Goteborg: Nordicom/UNESCO Clearinghouse for Children and Media.Google Scholar
  39. Reese, L. D., Petito, L., & Pijpers, R. (2010). Producing and providing online content for children and young people: An inventory. Luxembourg: European Commission, Safer Internet Programme.Google Scholar
  40. Schellekens, M. (2011). Liability of internet intermediaries: A slippery slope? SCRIPTed, 8(2), 154–174.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Staksrud, E., & Livingstone, S. (2011). A-B-Cyberspace. Can children ever be safe on social networking sites? Public Service Review, European Union, 22. http://www.publicservice.co.uk/article.asp?publication=European%20Union&id=525&content_name=Science,%20Research%20and%20Technology&article=17613
  42. Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., & Livingstone, S. (2012). Does the use of social networking sites increase children’s risk of harm? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 40–50.Google Scholar
  43. Thierer, A. (2009). Parental controls & online child protection: A survey of tools and methods. Washington, DC: The Progress & Freedom Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, D. F. (2007). What is practical ethics? Ethics at Harvard, 19872007. http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/the-center/what-is-practical-ethics.
  45. Tikk, E. (2011). Ten rules for cyber security. Survival, 53(3), 119–132. doi:10.1080/00396338.2011.571016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tufte, B., & Tufte, T. (1999). Parental control of broadcasting, film, audiovisual and on-line services in Denmark. NORDICOM Review, 1, 45–58.Google Scholar
  47. UNICEF. (2011). Child safety online—Global challenges and strategies. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
  48. Vedder, A. (2001). Accountability of internet access and service providers, strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 67–74. doi:10.1023/a:1011492109277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verbiest, T., & Spindler, G. (2007). Study on the liability of internet intermediaries. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MediaDublin Institute of TechnologyDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations