I saw a Facebook status from a fellow mother the other day expressing outrage over R-rated status updates. The compliant went a little like this: I have small children who look over my shoulder when I'm online, so at least give me a warning or don't post questionable pictures.
This is shaky territory for me. My first reaction was, "wow, she must have some exciting friends!" but the more I thought about it, I realized could be the culprit. I recommend articles all the time from news sources targeting adult readers. Not that I would post anything X-rated, but the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show was mass-consuption news and came with a few spicy images.
I have been operating under the assumption that content viewed online is the responsibility of the parent, just like what television shows are on in front of the kids and what magazines are brought into the home. Besides, Facebook purports to have a minimum age requirement of 13 to participate. As long as users respect there may be an under-18 crowd online, isn't it safe to assume conversation could stretch into the realm of PG-13?
This is a point on which my friend and I respectfully disagree. She cites the fact these status offenders wouldn't post the same content in front of their own children, so why hers?
I prodded her to show me the money shots and what I saw were a pair of men's underwear that looked like an elephant face. (Guess what goes in the trunk?)
Ah, I get it. It's not decency she's worried about, it's taste. In that case my friend, you've got some "hiding" to do. There is some tacky crap out there and unfortunately that doesn't come with a rating except for me saying those elephant knickers are a D. A very low, snug D.
Culture police: Should tacky Facebook content come with a warning?
Watch me stumble as I learn Twitter @HighGlossSauce
Filed under: Uncategorized