The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) should be abolished or amended

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 71679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires websites to seek verified parental consent before knowingly allowing children under 13 to sign up. I think the law should be abolished or amended.'s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act

1. Allowing your child online is implied consent.
It's like a parent dropping off a kid to an arcade and then all the individual games require a parent present and a parent's photo ID to play. Obviously if the parent dropped their kid off, they already consented to their kids playing those games. Similarly, if you allow your child online unsupervised, of course they are able to sign up for websites like Facebook, etc. I know not all parents care, but that's their business. It's up to parents to set the rules for online use, and they can make rules as they see fit. Many parents help their underage children sign up for websites like Facebook, so that is implied consent.

2. Kids lie about their age.
It's very easy for kids to lie about their age. 7.5 million children are on Facebook.
So obviously the law does not stop kids from joining social networking sites. That makes the law ineffective.


Yes, kids might be lying a lot. However we still have trust. They put themselves in harm by doing that. We still need to protect the youth of this nation.
Debate Round No. 1


We still need to protect the youth of this nation.
How are youth protected when many lie about their age. 7.5 million children are on Facebook, which shows children are not protected.

Quote from Wikipedia:'s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act#Violations
The FTC has brought a number of actions against website operators for failure to comply with COPPA requirements, including actions against Girl's Life, Inc.,[7] American Pop Corn Company,[8] Lisa Frank, Inc.,[9] Mrs. Field's Cookies, and Hershey Foods.[10] In September 2006, the FTC levied substantial fines on several enterprises for COPPA violations. The website Xanga was fined US$1 million for COPPA violations, for repeatedly allowing children under 13 to sign up for the service without getting their parent's consent.[11] Similarly, UMG Recordings, Inc. was fined US$400,000 for COPPA violations in connection with a Web site that promoted the then 13-year-old pop star Lil' Romeo, and hosted child-oriented games and activities, and Bonzi Software, which offered downloads of an animated figure "BonziBuddy" that provided shopping advice, jokes, and trivia was fined US$75,000 for COPPA violations.[12]

Why does the FTC need to fine websites when children can still get on the website by lying about their age.


Maybe the FTC should make it harder so kids can't lie about their ages.
Debate Round No. 2


Fanny forfeited this round.


ProConIK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
I know only a very little about COPPA, but am very involved in the technology industry. I think this may be interesting.

Are you 35, or?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Even's out. Con had grammar mistakes, so pro wins on that. Con's arguments were bad, they didn't really argue against the pro's case; So that point goes to pro. Pro was the only one with sources, so wins that too.