Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie

from the for-the-encouragement-of-lying dept

Thu, Feb 21st 2013 5:51am — Mike Masnick

There are plenty of stories about children under the age of 13 having to lie (often with the assistance of their parents) to get on Facebook. This is due to the ridiculous COPPA law that the FTC supports strongly, despite it doing close to nothing to actually "protect children." But what's the excuse for people lying at the other end of the scale? A 104 years old woman is forced to be perpetually 99 years old because Facebook apparently refuses ages higher than that. It makes you wonder if they just never thought someone with three digits in their age would use the service and only set up the database to handle two digits. Oddly, rather than defaulting down to 99 years old when Marguerite Joseph tried to enter her birth year of 1908, the system automatically took 20 years off her life and said she was born in 1928. Either way, just as parents are helping children lie about their age at the youth end of the spectrum, in this case, it's Marguerite's granddaughter who's the accomplice here, since Marguerite is legally blind, but still likes to keep in touch with people via Facebook.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: age, coppa, services, social networks
Companies: facebook

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 4:09am

All sorts of dark humor and age related jokes came to mind with an evil chuckle when I thought about how Facebook (and the current admins) will be 100 years from now. Time is a bitch, it spares none ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:54am

104 or 108? Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:59am
  
  Re:
  >99
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:55am

If you're legally blind, you have no legal right to bypass any technology that prevents you from doing legal things that people who can see are permitted to do. Remember, doing so is against the DMCA, and that is above all law. Don't be a filthy sight pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:58am
  
  Re:
  Remember that you don't own the sight that you have, you are only licensing it and it can be revoked at any time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AB, 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    That brought tears to my eyes!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 11:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are those tears legal, or are they third-party unlicensed tears? In the case of the latter, you need a SWAT team to raid your house and acquire your eyes for illegal usage; by force if necessary.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  Needs a "true, but anyone who reads this and agrees with this statement must promptly shoot themselves" button
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:11am

Meh, this just sounds like an edge case scenario where an incorrect assumption was made when programming the site, and the number of users likely to be affected is probably not high enough for them to worry too much about fixing it. They probably should fix it, but it's a far cry from the legal and other reasons why the limits exist on the other end of the scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:06am
  
  Re:
  It probably is, but it is still pretty embarrassing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:20am

Run for the Hills!
It's Y2K all over again! Facebook's lack of foresight will cause the cyber-Apocalypse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: Run for the Hills!
  two digits for an age ... lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RonKaminsky (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re: Run for the Hills!
    Considering that the term of copyright is currently almost universally "life of author + N", I'm not laughing with you...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: Run for the Hills!
  We desperately need CISPA to avoid this cyber-zombie-apocalypse!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Burns (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:26am

It's a 1909 bug. It's even in Excel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheLastCzarnian (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:34am
  
  Re:
  Excel isn't exactly the model for robustness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:33am

As if it wasn't bad enough that lack of fore*sight* saw (pun intended) people unable to *insert four digits into their dates* back at the turn of the millennium, it's been replicated ... here, Facebook, have some Y2KY Jelly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:13am
  
  Re:
  You have Y2KY Jelly? I have some peanut butter and a loaf of bread.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  As if it wasn't bad enough that lack of fore*sight* saw (pun intended) people unable to *insert four digits into their dates* back at the turn of the millennium, it's been replicated
  
  That is unlikely. They are not going to store the user's age since that changes, but her birthdate. It's much more likely they decided as an error-checking measure that any age over 99 must be a mistake. It's bad design rather than bad coding. That distinction may seem like splitting hairs but not to a programmer. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Old Man in The Sea, 21 Feb 2013 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What design??????
    
    You are not splitting hairs on this one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 4:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What design??????
      
      The design that says "any age over 99 is an error condition".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
justok (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:38am

You'd think she be old enough to know better than to use facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  Being legally blind she hasn't actually seen it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:59am

This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
I'm still amazed at how little actual economics you mention here. -- Heck, you won't even do Fantasy Economics of what changes you wish to promote. (Though you've said you do Fantasy Football). -- It's quite odd that you almost never write about anything in your own (supposed) field, one of the points that continue to intrigue me -- especially when goes for years of little stories that like this one, apply only to decimal point anomalies while ignoring everyday items many orders of magnitude more important.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Mike claims to have a college degree in economics, don't ya know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  "Mike claims to have a college degree in economics, don't ya know?"
  
  As apposed to you and joe? Who have degrees in nothing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:26am
    
    Re: Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
    No No No.. He has a Masters in Stupidity and a Doctorate of Inane Ramblings
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:04am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  When you haven't got anything to say about what's being written, whine about what's not being written. That way, you don't even have to concede anything and compete the "I'm a complete asshole" look that you've worked so hard to cultivate here!
  
  Hey, ootb, where's your blog where you're reporting this story? I'd like to read your quality journalism since Mike isn't writing it yet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. Applegate, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:17am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  Hmmm, so you are expecting articles here only about economics?
  
  Maybe you should try economicdirt.com.
  
  This is "TechDirt" which focuses on technology and how that impacts people. Sure, sometimes technology does have an economic impact, but not always.
  
  Facebook uses a technology, and in this case the impact to the economy is non-existent, so why would this article focus on economics?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  Its called techdirt, not taxdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  O Hai der Blue.
  
  I see they are still experimenting with your dosage levels, good luck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
  Got a citation for that "dodging taxes" claim?
  
  I've never seen you post anything in your own field either. Unless your own field is being a complete and thorough jackass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re: This is more important than Facebook dodging taxes?
    He's presumably referring to this non-story:
    
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/02/18/facebook-doesnt-pay-taxes-on-its-pr ofits-so-what/
    
    I'm not sure why he demands that Mike debunk it for him since it's already been debunked elsewhere, but I assume the facts have been filtered out with whatever system he's using that filters out his civility, sanity and common sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:02am

Lol poor 108 year old. Cool that this person still uses technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:11am

Odd, I am over 100 on facebook. At least I was at my last birthday. I'll have to remember my login and see if im younger now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:12am

For the children
It's still the same excuse. It is for the children. She may be 104 but she is still someone's child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 7:47am

Just wait
In a few years, a goodly percentage of FB's users are going to be centenarians, given the increase in longevity that modern medicine (costs be darned) is allowing us! Sounds very near-sighted to me, and being a myopic 65yo with otherwise good/great health, that is something I can relate to! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:23am

Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
Given that you never quite know what Facebook is doing with your data, I'm not sure you want to provide the company with your real birth date anyway.

This article says "has to lie." How about, "wants to lie"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
  The headline gives her age as 108 and the article says 104. Who's doing the lying here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - athe, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:46pm
    
    Re: Re: Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
    Regardless, both ages are >99, so really, who cares...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2013 @ 6:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
      They fixed that for us. Okay. Moving along...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 9:23pm
  
  Re: Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
  Just saw this. How much info do you really want to give Facebook?
  
  Here�s what Facebook Graph Search is doing next | VentureBeat: "Once Facebook dumps all the Open Graph data into the mix � way beyond what pages you like, including what you bought, sites you�ve commented on, your online game scores, etc. � the computations get even more complex, the filters for relevance even more clever."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DogBreath, 21 Feb 2013 @ 11:22am

I and others will rue the day...
when say, something happens like PayPal buying up Facebook or vise versa (Google bought Youtube, and are combining accounts). They compare data on both accounts and figure out that your real identity & age on one site does not correspond to your age on the other site.

Rather than figure out a fix for it, they will probably decide you are a liar/scam artist/flim flammer/etc, and shut down both your accounts (locking up any money you had in your PayPal account, and your online identity with Facebook) with no recourse, until you can prove you were born in 1908 and 1928.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: I and others will rue the day...
  I'm sure companies are already comparing data. If they want to start deleting people who don't provide accurate birth dates on social media (it's not like these important financial records), so be it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
    If they want to start deleting people who don't provide accurate birth dates on social media (it's not like these important financial records)
    
    Unless one of them is PayPal or the like...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
      Unless one of them is PayPal or the like...
      
      If the PayPal user is linking to a legitimate bank or credit card and there have been no problems and the user has been using PayPal, I doubt that PayPal is going to delete the user. (eBay has had some sketchy people/companies selling stuff there, so I don't think eBay goes out of its way to delete people.)
      
      Now, a company like Facebook could start deleting people if their birthdates don't match up, but I suspect that those who get deleted will figure it is time to take a break from Facebook anyway.
      
      These companies don't want to delete people unless there's a real problem for the companies. I doubt that providing an incorrect birth date (unless you are a minor) is actually much of a problem for Facebook. Of course, they want as much accurate info as possible to sell your data, but that's precisely why people don't always provide it. Facebook is going to have to figure out that privacy balance.
      
      Most websites (unless they are liquor sites) don't require you to provide birth dates.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Old Man in The Sea, 21 Feb 2013 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: I and others will rue the day...
  Most of us have been given names that actually mean something in one language or another. Once you expand you name fully, you then have a variety of options as to what you can call yourself legitimately.
  
  For example, Forrest Hill, Forrest Small, Forrest Strong are all variations on one name. Can you guess it?
  
  Or you could just use another language variation on a name, such as John, Ian, Iain, Sean, Shawn, Jan, Yani, Jack.
  
  How on earth and why on earth would they then make the assumption that any two names belong to the same person. if you do a web search for me, there are at least six of us to be found around the world, funnily enough, a number of those are in the same field of endeavour.
  
  Unless there is other information such as addresses or bank accounts or other identifiers used, you cannot make an assumption programmatically that two individuals are in fact the same person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
    How on earth and why on earth would they then make the assumption that any two names belong to the same person.
    
    Nobody said they'd be comparing names. Matching email address could be enough information for a business to make a stupid decision.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
    Unless there is other information such as addresses or bank accounts or other identifiers used, you cannot make an assumption programmatically that two individuals are in fact the same person.
    
    I assume that many of these tracking companies do, in fact, know who they are following and can figure out one person from another. But again, I don't think they are actually going to be blocking people who don't give them the correct birth date unless there is a very specific reason to supply it. And if they do start blocking people because people try to hide personal info about themselves from companies like Facebook, then the privacy wars are going to get kicked up a notch or two.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]