Top CEO keeps Nephew Off Social Media

[Guest]

Apple's Tim Cook keeps nephew off social media
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42774368

Quote

At a coding-related event at Harlow college, in Essex, Mr Cook told a Guardian reporter: "I don't have a kid, but I have a nephew that I put some boundaries on.

"There are some things that I won't allow. I don't want them on a social network."

 

Mr Cook did not disclose the age of his nephew, but in an interview in March 2015 he mentioned he was 10 years old at the time.

 

The US's Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Coppa) places restrictions on the information technology companies can collect about under-13s, and many social media companies officially bar younger users from their services as a consequence.

- BBC's Leo Kelion

 

The article goes on to mention the large influence these companies have on youths and older people, noting that it is illegal to collect data on people younger than 13 - whom are often not allowed on these sites due to these rules. It is certainly fair to have an age restriction on these sites and really they should be enforced more. Parents don't know who their kid is talking to, or what data will be collected on their children. Further education should be necessary to ensure that proper consideration of the kids activity online will be known to them. For instance there are a number of 'bots' on social media and polticial / pages with a certain agenda that could take advantage of the easily-influenced. Its time we realise that the internet has evolved a bit from when we were a bit younger and education surrounding the dangers is neccessary. Its a very reasonable that Tim Cook has restricted his nephew from social media at such a young age.

[Deli]

Good move.

[The Benjamins]

Does Top own Apple?

[suicidalfranco]

Good, one less person to absorb this cancer.

Inb4 "I need muh social networks to stay in touch with peeps I haven't talked to in person for years"

[Wauthar]

7 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Good, one less person to absorb this cancer.

Inb4 "I need muh social networks to stay in touch with peeps I haven't talked to in person for years"

No no, you got it all wrong. I use social media so I don't have to talk to people in person

 

In all seriousness, I think it's a pretty good move, at least until a certain age. (I think 13 is an acceptable age)

When everything is accessible for everyone to see all the time, there will be times where young children come across things that they didn't want to see...

[TidaLWaveZ]

Facebook literally needs to be destroyed, then twitter.

[Doobeedoo]

More like anti-social media. 

[Urishima]

He's doing that kid a favor, if you ask me.

[Eduard the weeb]

you spell worst in a strange way 

[mr moose]

But if it wasn't for facebook how would people know that every doctor, dietician, radiologist, oncologist, obgyn, etc are actually out to make me sick for the $$$$.  Muh conspirasees man.  It all Gubment fud. I need FB to show me where the healthy bleach is to drink and how to avoid dem NASTY Chemikillz.

[AshleyAshes]

But think of all that kid is missing out on.  Thousands of assfaces sending a 13yo child death threats every time their iPhone broke because some fuckwit on Reddit listed the kids twitter account in a rage post.  That's what we call LIFE EXPERIENCE, yo.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

But think of all that kid is missing out on.  Thousands of assfaces sending a 13yo child death threats every time their iPhone broke because some fuckwit on Reddit listed the kids twitter account in a rage post.  That's what we call LIFE EXPERIENCE, yo.

If this is a life experience im really old now.

[LAwLz]

Seems really weird to me.

Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide if their child will be allowed on social media or not? Why is Tim deciding what his nephew isn't allowed to do?

 

Anyway, good on them for following the law I guess? But once that child reaches 13 then I sure hope they let him get on whichever social media platform is popular with his friends.

 

Even if you don't like social media, being blocked from accessing it might cause problems socially.  Things like:

• Missing out on events because it's organized over Facebook.
• Not being able to participate in conversations because they involve things happening on twitter.
• Or simply having to explain to people you meet that you are not allowed by your parents to have a social media account and therefore you're different from the other kids.

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Seems really weird to me.

Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide if their child will be allowed on social media or not? Why is Tim deciding what his nephew isn't allowed to do?

Well, the child isn't 13 yet so it isn't legal (not that it stops anyone else). That and ol' Tim has a lot of money. Why would they jeopardize that by putting him on social media (eg scandals) or even the reverse why risk the child being exposed to various dangers. Of course you can monitor them a bit but ultimately being related to Tim Cook probably puts a crosshair on you for a lot of reasons.

[kilgore_T]

so why is it illegal to collect info on kids but not adults

f*ck adults? right?

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, kilgore_T said:

so why is it illegal to collect info on kids but not adults

f*ck adults? right?

Because adults can give consent and can legally sign documents. 

[D13H4RD]

Well, good on Timmy.

 

Because goodness, imagine the amount of edgelords on Facebook or Reddit flaming him because Apple "sux"

[NumLock21]

Good for Tim for protecting his nephew on the dangers of social media. Even Michael Dell, has prevented his daughter from flaunting their wealth on social media.

[Sauron]

It's sad that keeping kids off of facebook is now news...

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

It's sad that keeping kids off of facebook is now news...

The same way Facebook being down is considered newsworthy

[TidaLWaveZ]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:15 AM, Doobeedoo said:

More like anti-social media. 

Yeah, like /b/   

[LAwLz]

On 1/24/2018 at 11:06 AM, Trixanity said:

Well, the child isn't 13 yet so it isn't legal (not that it stops anyone else). That and ol' Tim has a lot of money. Why would they jeopardize that by putting him on social media (eg scandals) or even the reverse why risk the child being exposed to various dangers. Of course you can monitor them a bit but ultimately being related to Tim Cook probably puts a crosshair on you for a lot of reasons.

Well like I said, I guess it's good that they are following the law but once that child hits 13 I don't think Tim has the right to top someone else's child from being on social media. I think that's the parents choice to make, not the child's uncle.

"Sorry honey, uncle Tim has said that you can't be on social media so therefore you can't chat with your friends".

[MrDynamicMan]

On 1/24/2018 at 9:32 AM, LAwLz said:

Seems really weird to me.

Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide if their child will be allowed on social media or not? Why is Tim deciding what his nephew isn't allowed to do?

 

Anyway, good on them for following the law I guess? But once that child reaches 13 then I sure hope they let him get on whichever social media platform is popular with his friends.

 

Even if you don't like social media, being blocked from accessing it might cause problems socially.  Things like:

• Missing out on events because it's organized over Facebook.
• Not being able to participate in conversations because they involve things happening on twitter.
• Or simply having to explain to people you meet that you are not allowed by your parents to have a social media account and therefore you're different from the other kids.

10 bucks says that either this isn't actually happening or the kid is sneaking around it, honestly.