Group items tagged

I think this is not a good trend, although FB will probably make it happen anyway. It is already pretty obvious that today's teens do not know how to interact socially in a proper manner - they text constantly even while standing next to each other because they prefer to send messages and avoid f2f interaction; they construct sentences in a twitter-like manner. Kids need to form friendships and interact socially face-to-face, not just virtually. They need to speak to others live, know how to write coherent sentences, and not spend so many hours glued to their technical devices. Parents need to impose more guidelines. Librarians can help by assisting in finding age-appropriate websites for children. We don't need to take away the technology, but we do need to help teens and children use it in a better way.

I guess the logic is that kids under 13 are using the site anyway, by lying about their age or getting someone older to create an account for them, so perhaps the best course of action is to create a space specifically for them--with more restrictions and stricter privacy settings. I hope that this pre-teen space is diligently patrolled, and content vetted thoroughly before it gets posted online (sort of like having a forum moderator approve all posts before they appear on the site). I'm not sure if this is feasible....I suppose it depends on how many pre-teens sign on to this thing.

I. don't. like. this. My 12-year old wants a FB account simply because all his friends have one and not for any other reason. It just adds one more layer of policing that schools and parents have to be on top of. I am one of the lucky few parents whose kids are pretty good at self-policing their screen time, but I know that's rare. There are plenty of fun, age-appropriate sites for kids that age -- Pottermore comes to mind... my kids both signed up for accounts there and spend time doing the things tweens like to do, i.e. dueling their friends and socking away Galleons in their Gringotts bank accounts. If they spend a hour on Pottermore, then they know they have to go outside and shoot hoops for an hour. I am a little shocked, actually, that FB thinks tweens are a shoe-in market, since usually that demographic wants NOTHING to do with what their parents do... has FB really cracked the generation gap??

While I don't condone kids spending all their time on the internet, interacting with their friends through IM, I do understand the need for Facebook to create a space for kids under 13. Kids *are* using it anyway, so it only stands to reason (in my opinion) that FB do the responsible thing and police them. My step-sons both have accounts on FB. The oldest is now 13, so he's legitimate, but the youngest is 11 and he wanted one because his brother had one. He also so he could keep in touch with us (he's in Kansas, we're in NJ), so his step-father set up the account and monitors it. I would be a lot happier with him being in a policed-by-moderators environment so I didn't have to rely on his step-dad to do it. I think that there's an upside to the possible changes to FB, as long as it can be properly implemented and policed. I'm just an optimist, what can I say? And yes, I also believe that FB has possibly put a little crack in the generation gap.

The biggest question for me is how will the children under 13 who desire to have a facebook account react when they learn that to do it, the account must be connected to their parents account? At some point every child does something that they do not want their parents to know about..... would that be a deterrent? Would they continue to lie about their ages and use the other tips and tricks to fool the system? Back when I was 14-15 I had a "LiveJournal" account, that I willingly gave my mother access too. I had nothing to hide. But I lost several friends who felt betrayed that my mom was able to then see their posts through my account. I trusted my mom, but my friends didn't. Its a tricky web of social norms, relationships and technology.

I think this an inevitable situation because it's so easy to circumvent the system by just modifying the birth year. Facebook is probably just trying to protect themselves from future legal actions by letting the parents be responsible for accounts of their kids. I still don't like this but let's face the reality, Internet is so big and difficult to be policed.

Great article! I have a younger sister who is 15 and I constantly worry about her possible future inability to carry ftf conversations, conduct herself professionally in job interviews and in the classroom. I find we never talk via the phone but always via text. However, when you spend most of a workday on the phone or on conference calls, sometimes text provides an alternate way to communicate quickly with others.

I think texting is a valuable form of communication under certain circumstances, however, like you said, it should only serve as "an alternate way to communicate quickly with others". It shouldn't be the other way around!

Perhaps it's not so bad anymore, but I have friend who's an associate professor that teaches writing classes. And in the past five years, he's had to grade papers where the student's literally used texting jargon/leet speak in their writing.

This is something that I've been wondering about since texting became so ubiquitous. At first it was a novelty, then something to do for a quick conversation, and now it's moved into full dialogues between people. I, too, wonder about the future generations and the impact this can have on their grasp of grammar. This is the same problem that I have with more and more people moving to telecommuting (even though I do it myself). When is it just TOO much?

I worked on a university IT helpdesk for years, and we used to get emails written in text-speak, but then teachers cottoned on to the fact they needed to teach "how to write an email", rather than "how to write a busines letter", and I haven't seen a text-speak email for years. In fact, those that do text me in text speak tend to be older now, as they have not grasped predictive texting!

@Anton I think that's a great point, I think now more than ever "how to write an email" seems to be an art form and one people know very little about. It seems like such a stupid and easy thing but I see more than my fair share of awful emails and lack of email etiquette. While I'm not downplaying the importance of writing a great critical paper, essay, letter, etc. I think how to write in new media would be something worth spending some time on with students.

@Samantha I agree with your ideas on email etiquette! I've seen many an email message blasting someone in rude and nasty ways that you would never use in person. It's too easy to reply via email or on social media sites in the heat of the moment and forget all courtesy - the online community is too removed from the personal so it doesn't feel real so there won't be real consequences for such harsh words.

It seems that texting allows for more shallow conversations; speaking in person or on the phone would definitely be a more meaningful conversation. I think texting has its place, but it should not be a substitute for good communication with others.

I think you all brought up a good point! Overall, whether we communicate via texting, email, face-to-face, snail mail (does anyone still do this? lol) etc. we need to acknowledge that each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. It's our responsibility as users on how we can utilize them ethically and not be dragged by social mishaps.

@RJ, I agree with what you've said. Texting has its place, and its purpose; it's really its own fascinating type of language, in a way. It's not analogous to business or conversational English (or insert your language here, as I'm sure this is done all over the world!), and shouldn't replace those modes of communicating, but it does have its proper time and place. It's up to schools to teach students how to communicate effectively in writing, according to what's required in higher education and the workplace. Language is constantly evolving, adding some elements and dropping others. Some words, phrases, and grammatical structures grow obsolete over time, and others emerge to take their place. English, in particular, is known for absorbing other languages' words with ease and adding them to the lexicon. I once read a sci fi novel set hundreds of years in the future in which the characters were purportedly speaking English, as the main character (who was from hundreds of years in the past) recognized it, but it sounded as foreign to him as Middle English would to a modern day speaker. Maybe standard English will always have its place as the preferred and proper mode of communication...or maybe we'll end up with something else entirely, as the digital era marches on!

@Meaghan: ooh, them's fighting words! I like to wind stauch grammerians up with the phrase, "Oh, standardised spelling is a Victorian affectation". People even changed the way they spelled their names from time to time. I love the way language evolves. Or at least I did, until young people started spoiling it all, by changing it again after my generation got it right! aa

@Anton: LOL! I agree. but find myself in that texting mess. I remember a few years ago, Meghan, that there was a huge backlash against ebonics. Similar to the texting situation now, but culturally different. It is amazing how language, through media, has just exploded with new concepts. When we talk about digital divide, perhaps we should talk about language. I mean, if I told my father to "google" something he'd think I was crazy. We have words now that simply mean things that certain people "get" while other don't. Not sure what that means.

@Anton, sometimes I want to eat my phone because of it's predictive texting feature. It'll incorrectly "predict" the word while I'm still typing, and by the time I press "enter" it's already got it lined up to be inputted instead.

@Jennifer - check out www.damnyouautocorrect.com

I think it is really interesting how we have managed to turn typos and autocorrect changes into a silly pasttime and part of our everyday vernacular. Similar to how we have now managed to turn "Google" into a verb! Sites like DamnYouAutoCorrect allow people to bond and relate over technological glitches and commiserating over embarassing text mishaps.

My favorite is http://www.parentsshouldnttext.com/.

These are great points here...I sometimes think that more attention needs to be paid to email (and texting) etiquette than even in person. When you've made a verbal misstep, perhaps offended or confused someone, in person, you can see their body language and offer an immediate response to right the situation. Online communications are more of a landmine because you don't know how someone is reading and interpreting something, and you have to wait for more information to proceed (and there could be any number of unknown factors that influence the receipt of that new information...dead phone or wi-fi down, anyone?). If I had a nickel for every friend of mine who has called me to help them figure out what a text or email might mean or how (or if) they should respond to one thing or another, I'd be a rich girl. I spend so much time unpacking the drama that unfolds in an online communication, I feel as if I'm getting a professional credential. Hmm.....

My question for Karen is would people approach a guy to ask how to respond to a text, or is this just part of women's conversation with each other? Jane Austen style stuff. I have said to younger people how lucky they are, whe I wanted to ask a girl out on a date when I was 15, I had to ring her up, or (shudder) ask in person. Now all you have to do is text. The responses I've had have been really interesting about the etiquette of getting the girl's number, then the dialogue that goes on behind the scenes once the invitation is made (as the response does not have to be immediate). It all sounds even more traumatic. I'm also told that ringing someone with a voice call is now regarded as quite rude here, if you don't text first to ask if someone is available. aa