HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Has Chow ever considered having a site just for the underaged?

Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 02:28 PM

Just a thought. Sometimes my links have a bit of adult commentary on them, and sometimes i just like bouncing ideas off adults. I'm not overly excited about children giving beer or wine recommendations no matter how much their parents preen about it.

Just my take. Feel free to flame away.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. melpy RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 02:29 PM

    I thought there was a restriction. Wasn't there a post a year or so ago that the parent had to post for the kid on some project?

    1 Reply
    1. re: melpy
      Servorg RE: melpy Jun 17, 2013 02:39 PM

      There's an age restriction to join and participate, but no way to restrict anyone from simply surfing or lurking via their parents or even on their own. It reminds me of those websites for liquor companies that ask you for a birth date before allowing you to enter. Yeah, that's going to stop the underage from viewing it...

    2. Servorg RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 02:35 PM

      First see if we can't do something about getting all the (non food) porn off the Internet. After that perhaps we can worry about childproofing Chowhound.

      2 Replies
      1. re: Servorg
        Firegoat RE: Servorg Jun 17, 2013 02:37 PM

        Who will the food porn be um... proactive with?

        1. re: Servorg
          MGZ RE: Servorg Jun 25, 2013 05:05 AM

          Wasn't (non-food) porn the reason that Clinton got Al Gore to invent the internet?

        2. Veggo RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 02:49 PM

          I think it's important that a knowledgeable sommelier at a fine restaurant, with a nice wine list and cellar, be at least 18 years old.

          1 Reply
          1. re: Veggo
            Servorg RE: Veggo Jun 17, 2013 02:50 PM

            I'd prefer if all their Scotch was at least 18 years old...the sommelier's age I'm not so concerned about...

          2. h
            Hobbert RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 02:54 PM

            I agree. No great interest in monitoring what I say for kids (yes, I realize this site is viewable to anyone). However, I doubt there are a ton of teenagers on here so I don't spend any time pouting about it :)

            1. Jacquilynne RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 03:53 PM

              We don't allow registered posters under 13 for legal reasons. Past that, there's no reason to split the site by age groups.

              We have a small handful of enthusiastic teenagers who participate on the site, but we don't moderate the site with a young audience in mind. If they or their parents find the content here inappropriate for them, they can skip some boards, or choose not to visit the site.

              As with any other poster whose opinions you might not agree with or respect, we'd ask you to just skip past those posts by posters you don't really want to read. There's no danger of our few teenaged members drowning out the adults on the site, so it should be relatively few posts that you need ignore.

              22 Replies
              1. re: Jacquilynne
                k
                kengk RE: Jacquilynne Jun 17, 2013 04:05 PM

                "We don't allow registered posters under 13 for legal reasons."

                Why? So the big kids can say fuck?

                1. re: kengk
                  juliejulez RE: kengk Jun 17, 2013 04:10 PM

                  Most websites have the same rule. I know Facebook does. My cousin let her kid, who is 9, have a profile, and they had to lie about what her birth date was so she could have it.

                  1. re: juliejulez
                    Veggo RE: juliejulez Jun 17, 2013 04:15 PM

                    How much could a 12 year old contribute to a food site?
                    "Oh yeah, those jars of Beech Nut pureed carrots, whatever I didn't spill on my high chair, drool, or throw across the room, were delicious."

                    1. re: Veggo
                      juliejulez RE: Veggo Jun 17, 2013 04:39 PM

                      I dunno, I was a pretty accomplished baker by the time I was 12. Cooking, not so much. I certainly wouldn't have been into talking about my baking on an online forum either. I was more interested in the AOL chat rooms they had for teens since I could talk to boys there. Although, in hindsight, most of those boys were probably pedophiles...

                      1. re: juliejulez
                        Veggo RE: juliejulez Jun 17, 2013 04:44 PM

                        There's no good future for a child swimming in a sea of predators.

                      2. re: Veggo
                        MGZ RE: Veggo Jun 25, 2013 05:07 AM

                        "How much could a 12 year old contribute to a food site?
                        'Oh yeah, those jars of Beech Nut pureed carrots, whatever I didn't spill on my high chair, drool, or throw across the room, were delicious.'"

                        Brilliant, Veggo, Brilliant!

                    2. re: kengk
                      Jacquilynne RE: kengk Jun 17, 2013 04:18 PM

                      There are quite strict US government requirements about how you may gather information from children under 13.

                      1. re: Jacquilynne
                        jrvedivici RE: Jacquilynne Jun 17, 2013 04:20 PM

                        Not questioning you, but rather thinking out loud. How much intellectual difference is there between a 12 & 13 year old to make that the pivotal age? 16/17/18 I could understand. Things that make you go hmmmmm......

                        1. re: jrvedivici
                          Veggo RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 04:23 PM

                          Ask Chris Hansen, Dateline NBC.

                          1. re: Veggo
                            jrvedivici RE: Veggo Jun 17, 2013 04:27 PM

                            Lol!!! I think that goes to support my point though.....a child is a child under 18 or perhaps 16 is the age of consent in certain areas. But why does the gov draw a line between 12 & 13?

                            If the Gov through prism is eavesdropping on a phone call and the call participants state they are under 13 does the Gov terminate the eavesdropping?

                            1. re: jrvedivici
                              Servorg RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 04:29 PM

                              "...does the Gov terminate the eavesdropping?"

                              Yes. Via Drone.

                          2. re: jrvedivici
                            Servorg RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 04:26 PM

                            If the criteria for posting here, or anywhere else on the Net, is going to be measured in "intellect" than we are going to have very little content to peruse...

                            1. re: Servorg
                              Veggo RE: Servorg Jun 17, 2013 04:28 PM

                              Join MENSA and get really bored.

                              1. re: Servorg
                                jrvedivici RE: Servorg Jun 17, 2013 04:29 PM

                                True dat! I've been told I swim in the shallow end of the intellectual pool, that still doesn't stop me from doing cannonballs!!!!

                              2. re: jrvedivici
                                juliejulez RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 04:41 PM

                                What's the difference really between 17 and 18? Not much, but courts seem to think so. Has to be a cut off somewhere I guess.

                                1. re: juliejulez
                                  jrvedivici RE: juliejulez Jun 17, 2013 04:51 PM

                                  Exactly my point, 18 is established as the age of adulthood, so that's understood. Jaquilynne above states the gov has specific laws against collecting info on children under 13, that's where my true question lays.

                                  MGZ where are you??

                                  1. re: jrvedivici
                                    Chris VR RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 05:04 PM

                                    http://coppa.org/ might be able to answer your questions, although I don't see anything there about why that's the age of Internet consent. I doubt you'll find anything explaining the reasoning about why 13 is OK but 12 isn't.

                                    1. re: Chris VR
                                      jrvedivici RE: Chris VR Jun 17, 2013 05:08 PM

                                      Chris, First thank you for putting in the research to find this information.

                                      Second, thank you for pointing out you doubt I will find any useful information, I trust you and won't bother looking myself.

                                    2. re: jrvedivici
                                      Jacquilynne RE: jrvedivici Jun 17, 2013 05:08 PM

                                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children...

                                      There's the wikipedia entry on the regulations I'm referring to. I don't know if that's detailed enough to answer the questions you have about it -- it doesn't go into details on why they set the age at 13, for example.

                                      1. re: Jacquilynne
                                        ipsedixit RE: Jacquilynne Jun 17, 2013 05:10 PM

                                        The age of 13 was chosen for the same reason 18, 21 and 35 were chosen.

                                        1. re: Jacquilynne
                                          jrvedivici RE: Jacquilynne Jun 17, 2013 05:12 PM

                                          Thank you as well for taking the time to research and respond. My question is just a general one for group thought. When I hear what I consider foolish laws like that it just makes me wonder and I try to expand the discussion, or thought on the topic.

                                          1. re: Jacquilynne
                                            h
                                            HillJ RE: Jacquilynne Jun 17, 2013 05:46 PM

                                            I always found this section of COPPA at odds with the mission of many non profits:

                                            "Although nonprofit entities generally are not subject to COPPA, the FTC encourages such entities to post privacy policies online and to provide COPPA’s protections to their child visitors." source:
                                            http://business.ftc.gov/documents/Com...

                              3. hohokam RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 04:44 PM

                                There is already a site for those people. It's called Yelp.

                                1. ipsedixit RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 04:55 PM

                                  I would like a separate board for the over-aged.

                                  4 Replies
                                  1. re: ipsedixit
                                    a
                                    acssss RE: ipsedixit Jun 17, 2013 04:59 PM

                                    Funny ipsedixit... but what is considered over-aged?

                                    1. re: ipsedixit
                                      Servorg RE: ipsedixit Jun 17, 2013 05:03 PM

                                      That made me recall the tag line that was applied to our servicemen stationed in the UK during the WWII years; "Oversexed, overpaid and over here"

                                      1. re: ipsedixit
                                        Veggo RE: ipsedixit Jun 17, 2013 05:03 PM

                                        Sounds like my homeowners association board in FL. Conversation revolves around hip replacements and reflux so I get all the oranges and grapefruit for free.

                                        1. re: ipsedixit
                                          h
                                          HillJ RE: ipsedixit Jun 17, 2013 05:22 PM

                                          http://www.aarp.org/food/
                                          here you go!

                                        2. Njchicaa RE: Firegoat Jun 17, 2013 06:18 PM

                                          Why would they? I imagine the number if underage posters (younger than 13 I believe is the age cutoff) is like 1% of the member population and probably even less.

                                          1. h
                                            HillJ RE: Firegoat Jun 25, 2013 06:44 AM

                                            Since CHOW has published that anyone 13 years of age or older is welcome to register, I don't see the issue. If that young person isn't interested in chow, how long are they going to be hanging around a forum of passionate food lovers?

                                            Members don't set the rules and aren't asked to curb their "adult content" ..so this is truly a non issue.

                                            Have you seen the content on some (strike that, most) sites geared to young people? It's insulting to those with a real intellect.

                                            1. cowboyardee RE: Firegoat Jun 25, 2013 12:51 PM

                                              Could be my naivete speaking, but age restrictions are pretty much impossible to enforce on a web forum anyway. Right? Providing a valid drivers license # isn't a prerequisite for signing up... and of course there would be ways around that.

                                              Any 12 year old hanging out here is spending their internet time much more wholesomely than most of their friends surely are, even with the discussion of alcohol and occasional swearing. I first got the internet when I was about 14. Though there weren't as many options then, I seem to remember having no difficulty finding mischief, smut, downright horrifying viewing material, outlets for criminal inclinations (were you a perfect angel as a teenager?), etc.

                                              4 Replies
                                              1. re: cowboyardee
                                                h
                                                HillJ RE: cowboyardee Jun 25, 2013 12:57 PM

                                                As long as COPPA is followed by a website, they are being responsible.

                                                1. re: HillJ
                                                  cowboyardee RE: HillJ Jun 25, 2013 01:03 PM

                                                  I'm not trying to criticize websites as irresponsible or anything. Just pointing out that there's no real way to enforce an age restriction online whether or not a website adheres to COPPA. Or rather, any method of enforcing an age restriction would have to be wildly impractical in order to be effective.

                                                  1. re: cowboyardee
                                                    h
                                                    HillJ RE: cowboyardee Jun 25, 2013 01:08 PM

                                                    Oh COPPA's no joke. Nor is it a whether or not adhere to. Web owners adhere. Because it covers the tall, impossible task of enforcing every visitor as you pointed out.

                                                    I didn't take your comment as criticism at all. It's a fact, sites really can't police their domain.

                                                    1. re: cowboyardee
                                                      Servorg RE: cowboyardee Jun 25, 2013 01:10 PM

                                                      Right. As I posted above "It reminds me of those websites for liquor companies that ask you for a birth date before allowing you to enter. Yeah, that's going to stop the underage from viewing it..."

                                                Show Hidden Posts