They’re after your children
MARK Zuckerberg wants to get to know your kids.
Specifically, he wants to get to know your primary-schoolaged children (after all, he already knows more about your teenager than you do).
Hang on, isn’t Facebook restricted to people who are at least 13 years old?
Yes it is. In 1998 the US Congress passed laws that restricted children under the age of 13 from giving out their personal information without their parents’ permission. The cost of complying with these laws meant that most platforms put it in the “too hard basket”.
Until now. This week Facebook introduced “Messenger Kids”, for children aged 6 to 12.
Zuckerberg says it’s totally not about trying to lock little kids into using his platform. Rather, he’s motivated by wanting to help parents keep their kids safe online. Messenger Kids will be advertising free (for now), and the app has built-in parental controls.
Yes, the billionaire boy wonder is here to help you. True dinks! Well, let’s take a look at that.
Earlier this year a 23-page Facebook report marked “Confidential: Internal Only” was leaked to The Australian. In the report, Facebook promised advertisers the ability to track a teen’s emotions: “By monitoring posts, pictures, interactions and internet activity in real-time, Facebook can work out when young people feel ‘stressed’, ‘ defeated’, ‘ overwhelmed’, ‘anxious’, ‘nervous’, ‘stupid’, ‘silly’, ‘useless’, and a ‘failure’.”
This is truly the golden age of advertising! Facebook advertisers can target that anorexic girl at the very moment she truly hates herself.
For its part, the social media giant issued a public statement about the leaked report saying, “Facebook does not offer tools to target people based on their emotional state”. Yet.
But as the old saying goes, if you don’t pay for the product — you are the product.
My view? Give a bunch of my son’s little mates a backyard-built billycart and a hill that my wife has already warned me is “way too steep”, and these kids will get all the “likes” and “LOLs” they need. (Besides, they have the rest of their lives to learn to hate themselves, engage in superficial online relationships, and have billycart envy.)
The simple reason Facebook is worth $511 billion is that you and I hand them our private data. Even better, we devote an average 250 hours per person per year to updating our personal data for their advertisers!
Now parents have to decide whether or not they want to sign up their kids to work for Zuckerberg’s advertising machine.
Tread Your Own Path!
A pricey proposal
Dan asks: I have been seeing my girlfriend for three years now, and I am finally ready to propose. She pointed out the ring of her dreams on the weekend, and it looks like it is going to cost me $4800.
The jeweller is offering a payment plan that requires 10 per cent deposit plus 14 per cent interest a year. I have enough to cover the deposit, but I would also love to take her to Fiji so I can propose.
Should I go with the payment plan option or pay the ring with my credit card? Barefoot replies: It sounds like you’re about to get yourself on the hook, cobber ... in more ways than one. Let me spell this out for you: First, there is no correlation between how much you spend on the engagement ring, and how happy your marriage will be. None.
Second, diamond rings are one of the biggest marketing con-jobs in history (though of course I bought one anyway). The key is to save up and buy one with cash … hopefully via Gumtree at a substantial discount from a bruised bachelor. You’ve got rocks in your head if you borrow money to buy an engagement ring. Don’t do it.
Third, I proposed to my wife on the back porch. Would she rather it had been in Fiji? Sure. But she still said yes. If your girlfriend loves you, it won’t matter where you propose.
Finally, and most importantly, know this: the spending decisions you make today will set the tone for the rest of your married life. Bula Bula!
A super saving idea
Mandy asks: I heard you on Triple J this week talking about the fact that the First Home Super Saver Scheme has finally been passed by Parliament.
My parents, being traditional hardcore Asian parents, are telling me I have to open one up. But realistically it will be 10 years before I buy a house (I am 23). What do you think I should do? Barefoot replies: I thought the First Home Super Saver Scheme was as good as Sam Dastyari’s political career (dead and buried). Yet after seven long months the Government passed it into law. Here are the basics:
First home buyers can now divert extra money into their super (maxed at $15,000 a year), then draw it out as a deposit on their first home. The maximum they can save is $30,000 per person ($60,000 a couple).
For someone earning $65,000 a year, after three years of using the First Home Super Saver Scheme they’ll have $6314 more than if they’d saved via a standard bank account.
So I’d certainly use the First Home Super Saver Scheme if I knew I was going to buy a home in a couple of years and I’d already saved up a big deposit. For an average-earning couple it’s an extra $12,628.
However, if I were in your shoes, Mandy, I honestly wouldn’t bother. There’s “legislative risk” to doing something 10 years out. Instead, I’d focus on getting your buckets set up and sorted.
Advisers hate Barefoot
Mag asks: My husband and I would like to share with you a conversation he recently had with our financial adviser.
Husband: “My wife and I have been looking into our finances. We think we are paying too much for financial advice on your managed super fund. We will be switching to a Hostplus Indexed Balanced Fund.”
Adviser: “Sounds like your wife has been reading the Barefoot Investor.”
Husband: “I bet that’s the bane of your life.”
Adviser: “Yes. Hmf. Well, our fund is better because …” You can guess the rest. We are so thankful to you, Barefoot! Barefoot replies: Just for kicks, let me visualise the rest of the conversation: Adviser: “You’ll get better returns from our actively managed fund, which employs some of the finest fund managers in the world and has a history of outperforming the market.” Meg: “Go on.” Adviser: “Fees are important, but they’re not the only consideration. You need to consider long-term performance.”
Meg: “Do you have access to exclusive hedge funds?”
Adviser (panting): “We most certainly do!”
Meg: “Well, did you read about the million-dollar bet Warren Buffett made in 2007? He bet that a basic no-brainer index fund that simply tracks the market would outperform the most elite hedge funds over 10 years. Guess what happened? The $1 million invested in the expensive hedge funds gained $220,000 … the ultralow cost index fund gained $854,000.”
Adviser (closing his folder): “I’m late for my next appointment.”