Facebook Has Decided To Put Instagram For Kids On Hold

Facebook has decided to put Instagram for kids on hold

Facebook has put a halt to the development of a kids' version of Instagram, which would be targeted at children under the age of 13, in order to address concerns about the vulnerability of younger users.

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show on Monday that he still believes it is a good idea to create a version of Instagram that is designed to be safe for tweens, but that the company wants to take the time to talk to parents, researchers, and safety experts in order to reach a more general consensus on how to move forward.

A series of investigative reports by The Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of the link between Instagram usage by some teenage girls and mental health issues, including anxiety. The announcement follows the publication of the series.

In spite of this, the expansion of Instagram to a younger demographic was met with widespread opposition almost immediately.

In March, Facebook announced the development of an Instagram Kids app, stating that it was "exploring the possibility of a parent-controlled experience." An attorney general from each state wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg two months later, urging him to abandon the project, citing the safety of children as the reason.

They cited increased cyberbullying, potential vulnerability to online predators, and what they described as Facebook's "checkered record" when it comes to protecting children on its platforms as reasons for their concerns, among other things. Similar criticism was leveled at Facebook in 2017 when it launched the Messenger Kids app, which was marketed as a way for children to communicate with family members and friends who had been approved by their parents.

Earlier this week, Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, a children's digital advocacy organization, urged the company to permanently discontinue use of the app. A group of Democratic members of Congress felt the same way.

According to Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, "Facebook is heeding our calls to stop plowing ahead with plans to launch a version of Instagram for kids." In this case 'pause' is insufficient. It's imperative that Facebook completely abandons this project."

An already-scheduled hearing with Facebook's global safety chief Antigone Davis on Thursday was scheduled to discuss what the company knows about how Instagram affects the mental health of younger users.

As of Monday, Mosseri maintained that the company believes it is better for children under the age of 13 to have a specific platform for age-appropriate content, and that other companies such as TikTok and YouTube have app versions tailored to that age group as well.

In a blog post, he argued that it is preferable to have a version of Instagram where parents can supervise and control their children's experience rather than relying on the company's ability to verify whether or not children are of legal age to use the app.

It is intended for children between the ages of 10 and 12, according to Mosseri, rather than children under the age of 10. It will require parental permission to join, will be ad-free, and will contain content and features that are appropriate for children of a certain age. Parents will be able to monitor the amount of time their children spend on the app, as well as who has access to message them, who can follow them, and who they can follow in exchange for messages.

While work on Instagram Kids is being put on hold, the company will be expanding its opt-in parental supervision tools to teen accounts of those 13 and older while the project is on hold. Detailed information about these tools will be released in the coming months, according to Mosseri.

Apparently, this isn't the first time that Facebook has faced backlash for a product that is geared toward children. Child development experts have urged Facebook to discontinue its Messenger Kids app in 2018, claiming that the app was not responding to a "need" as the company claimed, but rather was creating one instead.

In that case, Facebook decided to go ahead and develop the app.