Instagram - Is It Really a Case about Being Under 13? Proof That It's NOT.

 Bella, Zoe, Sabre, Sierra, Quincy and Minna doing what they love

Instagram - The topic of the deleted young surfers & skaters won't stop, and we have been getting calls, texts, emails, and post after post, in support of these young athletes with huge followings who have had their instagram accounts deleted, shut down or hacked - whichever word you'd like to insert here is fine, because until Instagram issues a statement, who really knows which it is?

The point I have made before is if a parent runs the instagram and it says so on the bio, is that really a violation of the rules that state you have to be over 13 to have an account? If it is, why are many very popular kids instagrams (some with over 342,000 followers) still up and running?

We can't say instagram isn't aware of them because the kids I have looked into that are still there have been written up on websites like Business Daily which nicely provided a list awhile back of some of the most popular instagram kids and click through links to their sites.

We also can't say that if you have the tag line "run by management or mom" in bio you are safe - not all profiles that were deleted, or those still up, fit this scenario. Nor can we say it's because you listed your child's age in the bio and publicly admitted they were under the 13 yr old age requirement. Because once again I have seen and heard both scenarios that equaled deletion.

That leads me to this interesting bit of information that a concerned party was nice enough to share with me....

This info is part of an article in the Daily Mail out of the UK about Pixie and her mom Roxy

"Instagram has reversed the decision to close an account run by Sydney PR star Roxy Jacenko on behalf of her daughter Pixie".

"The mother-of-two was outraged - and her daughter sorely disappointed - last week when Instagram disabled the popular @pixiecurtis account, claiming it violated the photo-sharing app's age restrictions".

"But after writing to Instagram headquarters explaining the account is not run by a two-year-old but in fact her social media savvy mother, the account - which has more than 18,000 followers - was re-activated".

"Roxy described the move as 'ludicrous' given it is she - a 33-year-old mother - running the account, not a toddler".  'It's all a bit silly really, a harmless account run by a 33-year-old mother to share funny content – it's hardly breaking any laws,' she said.

"The business woman wrote to Instagram demanding they reactivate the account, and told MailOnline she didn't understand why she'd been targeted when there are countless Instagram profiles that purport to authored by a child - but obviously are not"

Let's read that again. Two? Pixie is two? Well yes, it stands to reason to any sane person, that a two year old could not possibly run their own instagram, of this I am quite certain. But at what age are we saying that it could "possibly" be the child running it, which would make it a violation of the FCC regulations?  Five? Seven? Nine? Twelve?

If the parent agrees, as Pixie's mom did, to take full control of the account and signs off on that legally, why can't the account then be left alone or reinstated? We have all heard about companies computer servers holding on to all your information forever (remember the Snap Chat debacle?) so we know the info on these deleted accounts is stored somewhere.  Seems like in Pixie's case it was "recovered" so there is a glimmer of hope here for the athletes accounts that were deleted.

What about parents, teams & groups who continually post pictures of their kids under the age of thirteen that are still on instagram? How is that different, if in fact, the issue is the FCC being worried about child predators?  I have a few references of instagram accounts to back this up but I'm not going to out them, as I'm stoked they are still able to share these athletic kids photos to inspire others.

NEW INFO as of 10/20:  Here is a great article that was posted on Saturday "40 percent of moms aged 18 to 34 created social media accounts for their baby before the child’s first birthday — and another 7 percent made one before their kid’s second birthday" Yes, dedicated accounts FOR the child.  Right or wrong it bolsters the claim that children's accounts are on instagram and there is public knowledge of this phenomenon. You can read the well written article by Allesandra Dubin  HERE

What about the kids I know who are thirteen to seventeen and allowed full reign on social media? I worry more about people luring them into conversations online and bad situations, than I do with these six to ten year old athletes whose parents fully manage their accounts.  

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to all this  and I think that is what most people that have been affected by this find  maddening. That and the lack of communication and answers from instagram itself.

But the good part is that by evidenced by the info above on two year old Pixie, if you lobby, state your case, and ban together,  you may be able to have the instagram account reactivated. It obviously is not irreversible nor do you have to be 13 or over.  Remember that Pixie is two.

P.S. At the time of this post two year old @pixiecurtis has over 89,251 followers and counting - although I highly doubt that she even knows or cares...