Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.
Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is “designed to be addictive”. A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.
“That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance,” the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.
Starmer adds that the government is “not prepared to compromise” on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.
What country do you live in? And, if you don’t live in any of those affected countries, why should your opinion be more valuable than the one of the people living in it?
And that’s an IMPLEMENTATION concern. A legit one, but still relevant just on how the system is implemented, not on the purpose on the system by itself.
That’s a seller problem. Each of them already offers a limited version of their content if you don’t login. Youtube has a Youtube Kids portal too! If the legislation is in place, they would do whatever they could to offer a sanitised version of their content to underage or not identified users.
Why should a teenager do it without guidance? Quite the opposite, the risk is to find just bad advice. This argument gets me even more convinced.
Yeah because that’s how kids reason, isn’t it? If you forbid something to them they absolutely won’t go to their peers and friends to get access to that, will they?
There is some sense in that; however in this case this is completely absurd. Do human rights violations not matter? Because thats what’s happening here, there are also wars which fit right in your logic, is that out of our concern too?
I’m certainly against people forcefully planting their beliefs and culture (I.e. Christianity, or other “superiors” who think their ethics are true) in other places. But honestly, if you believe things like genocide (which is included In your logic) is non of our concern, as long as its in a different country - then there is no point even continuing to read your entire post.
This is the internet, an international place. Everyone’s informed opinion is valuable here, regardless of country.
But Youtube Kids fucks over everyone, even those who are not a kid. Google’s Youtube for example automatically deletes the comment section if it even remotely thinks your video is aimed at children. So content creators instead have to get creative and insert unneccessary violence/gore (like Cas van de Pol does), to avoid this.
If your kids go to peers to have social media access, then why don’t you host gatherings for the kids and friends that are social media-free? You know, the ones that existed before internet?
It can also be enforced differently. On schools, there are social media bans that work without infringing privacy.
Guess how they figured it out? They simply confiscated mobile phones until school was over.
Possibly, but I have enough time spent on the internet to smell the malicious intent if someone anywhere else in the world makes some negative remarks against decisions taken by a sovereign country or their society.
And having a good rigorous way to restrict adult-only content at account master data level could be a good technical solution.
I have already said what I think about this, and I quote that I agree with anyone who says that kids should be guided and assisted on social media in the right environments, or in a way to find the right spaces to express themselves (with hobbies, sports, group activities, whatever), and I’ll vote for anyone who could do anything on that purpose. But we can also imagine flying cars at this point.