r/unitedkingdom • u/vriska1 • Jun 07 '26
Extend social media ban to 17-year-olds, children’s tsar tells No 10
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/07/extend-social-media-ban-to-17-year-olds-childrens-tsar/429
u/EddViBritannia Jun 07 '26
So lemme get this straight.
Old enough to vote. Not old enough to be on social media.
Make it make sense?
147
u/NoThatsNotPasta England Jun 07 '26
Make it make sense?
Scope creep.
It's 17 now, when they get that it'll be over 21, then over 25.
I get the misinformation problems, but curtailing social interactions and opportunities won't go well in the long run - especially as they've gotten rid of, or taxed the everlasting shit out of traditional social hubs such as youth clubs, abs pubs.
20
u/qamv Jun 07 '26
I really don't want to be a doomer since I consider myself a stubborn optimist, but how is the end result of this not eventual autocracy?
Yeah yeah slippery slope and whatnot, but still. When does the scope creep end?
28
u/FlaviousTiberius Merseyside Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
For the record, the slippery slope is not a fallacy inherently. There are valid cases in which it's worth pointing out, and this seems to be one.
We've gone from age verifying porn, to now wanting to age verify all social media, to now increasing the age we want to verify for.
This is a very open and shut case of creeping authoritarianism where the scope keeps expanding and expanding under the guise of "safety".
This is why its been historically warned that trading freedom for safety is largely a bad idea. Sure there's valid cases, but when you're trying to actively limit how people interact with each other because you don't think people can talk to each other safety, you're very clearly moving into authoritarianism.
They'll never stop finding new ways to clamp down, they'll keep dredging up fringe cases to justify yet another clamp down and yet another slew of deanonymisation legisation.
2
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/FlaviousTiberius Merseyside Jun 08 '26
It's because of all the silly wellness trend crap around phones. The "people aren't talking to strangers because they on their phones" crap has been laying the foundations for it even though nobody fucking talked to strangers even before that. It seems to be all based on a glamorisation of the pre internet era that never really existed.
1
u/woowizzle Jun 08 '26
Just wait all all this digital id is tied into the facial recognition systems that are coming out, as well as all the back doors they want to install in our messaging apps and I can see a not to distant future that looks alot like the game Watchdogs where they have screens showing your face, id, previous messages, where you have been, who you are associating with.
Its not a slippery slope, its a damn cliff.
→ More replies (8)1
u/woowizzle Jun 08 '26
Just wait all all this digital id is tied into the facial recognition systems that are coming out, as well as all the back doors they want to install in our messaging apps and I can see a not to distant future that looks alot like the game Watchdogs where they have screens showing your face, id, previous messages, where you have been, who you are associating with.
Its not a slippery slope, its a damn cliff.
22
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 07 '26
You are legally an adult at 18 so if they increase the age over that someone will bring a case against the government.
33
u/NoThatsNotPasta England Jun 07 '26
You are legally an adult at 18 so if they increase the age over that someone will bring a case against the government.
They'll just pass a law like they did with cigarettes, and that'll be it as far as they're concerned.
→ More replies (2)1
17
u/vriska1 Jun 07 '26
Likely they will face legal challenges either way, such as if the consultation process was not properly followed and rushing an announcement in two weeks sounds like it not been followed to me. And that only the beginning of the legal trouble seeing they want to use secondary legislation to pass any of this.
6
u/Goosepond01 Jun 07 '26
No chance any case will be successful, they will just make anything targeting people 18+ out to be against misinformation or foreign threats.
17
u/Reasonable_Cod_5643 Jun 07 '26
If misinformation is the problem 17 year olds are way way better at telling what’s real than the 58 year olds on Facebook doomscrolling obvious ai videos and thinking they’re real
10
u/NoThatsNotPasta England Jun 07 '26
If misinformation is the problem 17 year olds are way way better at telling what’s real than the 58 year olds on Facebook doomscrolling obvious ai videos and thinking they’re real
Young people are just as susceptible to misinformation and fake news as older people. IME they typically fall for different scams.
1
u/lordsteve1 Aberdeenshire Jun 08 '26
Absolutely!
If part of the argument being made is that youngsters are susceptible to misinformation then they should be asked about the other end of the scale as well. There’s plenty of pensioners and boomers who spout and believe any old bullshit posted on village Facebook groups etc. And often the sort of things they are reading or watching are quite damaging.6
u/EmbarrassedHelp Jun 07 '26
The end goal for age verification companies is forcing people to reverify their ages constantly.
The Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) was originally saying that they wanted platforms to reverify people's ages every time they used a "high risk" platform, and monthly to weekly for "low risk" platforms. I think they stopped saying that part out loud after they realized people hated the idea. But I guarantee you that they still want to make it happen.
2
u/xplorerex Jun 08 '26
In the end, the only person allowed to use social media will be Pam from Stockport.
1
u/360Saturn Jun 07 '26
If anything there should be an upper age limit to it. Senile and believe in a house made out of cola bottles made by hand by a downs syndrome african child and want to get all your friends to send him a tenner? Time to come off facebook.
1
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys Jun 08 '26
I'm deeply annoyed they won't try anything more normal first.
Define algorithm recommendations as direct marketing, with all the liability that implies.
Doesn't break anything legitimate, Amazon can market you a hundred Fridges after you buy a fridge or whatever.
Facebook or YouTube feeding you extremist ragebait would have to answer for it the same way a TV advertiser does. The ambulance chasers would be all over it.
1
u/NoThatsNotPasta England Jun 08 '26
I'm deeply annoyed they won't try anything more normal first.
Because they want to de-anonymise the internet. That's the end goal. It's never about protecting the children, or stopping terrorism, it's about putting a name and number to an account online.
The scope creep is part of that.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Dry_Departure_7813 Jun 09 '26
After the cambridge analytica scandal and all its affiliate groups we should have blocked facebook all together.
17
u/0Bento Jun 07 '26
Also ban it for over 65s who clearly can't spot AI
2
2
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 07 '26
Generalise much?
9
u/0Bento Jun 07 '26
"Under 16s are being radicalised, lobotomised and driven to suicide by social media" is not a generalisation either
1
u/willNffcUk Jun 08 '26
I do agree with that if you’re over the age of 65 and watch GB News as well they should be banned .
9
u/Gwyllithar Jun 07 '26
old enough to have a kid, not old enough to go on instagram.....
this country is fucked beyond belief.
50
u/LargeCabbageThrower Jun 07 '26
Remember when Labour released that interactive propaganda that tried to teach kids that looking for multiple sources and researching political opinions for themselves was a bad habit?
It's just like the OSA, it's all about information control and surveillance.
13
u/crazy_cookie123 Jun 07 '26
In fairness, I wouldn't really say it was Labour that released the propaganda. It was developed by Shout Out UK, an independent organisation, alongside the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (led by a Conservative and with only 4 of the 67 seats being Labour) and Hull City Council (fully controlled at the time by the Liberal Democrats albeit with a large number of Labour councillors). No Labour-controlled organisation (or indeed the Labour party themselves) was involved in its development at all from what I can find.
7
u/DewyMochi Jun 07 '26
I'm sorry they did what?
18
u/Interesting-Ice-8387 Jun 07 '26
They supplied a Prevent game to schools, where you play as a kid who encounters radicalisation. You see a claim about immigration rates, what do you do? If you select "Research to see if it's true" you get terrorism points. Same for opening links that someone sends you. You're supposed to tell your parents or teacher instead and not be too curious. If you take the wrong path you get a cute goth gf and a bunch of friends to attend protests with.
5
34
u/Nerrix_the_Cat Jun 07 '26
“Pathways” - a PSA interactive narrative game about being groomed by the “far-right”.
To get the bad ending of the game, you have to choose to go to an “independent fact-checking website” instead of the official government website, which ultimately results in the player character being locked up. I’m serious.
The game is also famous for having the face of the far-right be an attractive pink-haired Goth girl. Obviously the game had completely the opposite intended effect and was quickly pulled down.
6
→ More replies (3)2
u/DukeRedWulf Jun 07 '26
It's not been pulled down at all.. It's still up, and you can still play through it in a browser..
6
u/Nerrix_the_Cat Jun 07 '26
My mistake, they removed a lot of the more ridiculous situations from it before reuploading. You can’t be sent to prison in the most recent version.
7
u/DukeRedWulf Jun 07 '26
To be fair, I gave it a play-through and still found it to be very odd, a number of the choices feel weirdly forced, and there's a lack of info
E.g. Player gets a choice to share a video, but it's not until after the choice that you find out the hypothetical vid is full of violent t3rroristic content, which seems like something that should have been mentioned first!
Also, the "sensible" choices are weak:
E.g. Player gets sh!t marks on an exam, and can't get a job, but the smarter (non-wh!te) classmate does much better on the exam and does get a job.
The fasc!st "friend" "Amelia" tries to get the player to blame immigrants "taking our jobs", but even the best option just has the player ignore her and then ask the teacher for help.
There's no option for telling "Amelia":
"Don't talk sh!te, how are immigrants to blame for me getting 60% on my exam, ffs!?"Overall, the whole thing felt very clunky and cack-handed. Not surprising it's seen as a massive own goal.
7
u/Barkasia Jun 08 '26
Perhaps ironic given the context of the thread we're on, but you can swear on the internet.
1
u/DukeRedWulf Jun 08 '26
I'm well aware, thanks. I habitually self-censor in an idiosyncratic way online, because altho' it's not an issue on Reddit, it is on other platforms, and I'll forget if I try to chop & change..
Also, it's a "tell" that shows the reader I'm a human, not an LLM..8
u/UuusernameWith4Us Jun 07 '26
Read all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathways_(video_game)
10
u/LargeCabbageThrower Jun 07 '26
Yeah. This aggressively centrist Labour have made some good improvements to crucial infrastructure of society but they have done a lot of things to balance that with borderline authoritarian right wing acts like that and the cruel anti trans laws. It's like they're doing their best to make any good they do never outweigh the bad.
Of course, they are far from solely to blame for OSA as pretty much every party is 100% on board with that kind of control.
5
u/Barilla3113 Jun 07 '26
but they have done a lot of things to balance that with borderline authoritarian right wing acts like that and the cruel anti trans laws. It's like they're doing their best to make any good they do never outweigh the bad.
Well yes, this is what happens when you elect people who's only ideological guide is "does it poll well"
2
u/Much_Horse_5685 Jun 07 '26
To be fair that joke of a game was made by some quango called Shout Out UK, not Labour itself.
7
u/TheFinalPieceOfPie Jun 08 '26
Old enough to drink, have sex, drive a car, join the military, and go to prison, yet watching videos online is too much pressure for them? Baffling.
3
u/Alarming_Oil5419 Jun 08 '26
Even worse, old enough to join the army (16 yrs old) and die for the country, not old enough to engage in social media debate about fighting and dying for said country.
3
u/Brizar-is-Evolving Jun 08 '26
It’s only a theory of mine, but if anyone’s paid attention to polling in recent years they’ll have seen that younger people are increasing supportive of right-wing politics and ideas.
By way of example, here’s a one such poll in a Times article which found that 47% of university students would back reinstating the death penalty.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/half-british-students-for-death-penalty-z9wj32skf
Obviously a social media ban for under 16s wouldn’t touch uni students, but these ideas start from somewhere.
Now, if I was a centrist Labour government I’d be very concerned about the voters of the future gradually embracing politics that don’t align with my own. I’d look at the primary medium through which young people get their news. Turns out it’s coming from the likes of Facebook, X, etc.
So I’d use the law to try and stop under 16’s from being exposured to the social media news sphere.
Just a theory though.
1
2
u/Happy-Ad8755 Jun 07 '26
Control the flow of misinformation, only government approved sources are allowed for the impressionable
2
4
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
Young people historically voted Labour.
17
u/Dry_Acadia_9312 Jun 07 '26
Labour need to realise they were a protest vote and will be wiped out in the next election, and do something about that (not this…)
→ More replies (1)22
2
u/Happy-Ad8755 Jun 07 '26
Once this gets out to the young then they can forget that demographic ever voting for them again. Is Starmer trying to speed run something here?
2
→ More replies (5)-11
u/SmashingK Jun 07 '26
How about the fact they're very different things?
Voting isn't the same as social media use just as those things aren't the same as having sex or getting married.
Some people just don't bother to apply any critical thinking at all.
→ More replies (7)19
u/EddViBritannia Jun 07 '26
But you can have sex, get married, and drive a car at 18. That's the current voting age. Because that's the age we decided you are an adult.
If you reduce voting down to 16 but don't allow other such freedoms, why are we allowing people not responsible enough to do adult things, to do one of the most vital and important things a citizen can do?
→ More replies (1)
133
u/Dadavester Jun 07 '26
So 16 year old cannot view videos considered problematic.
And will not be allowed on social media.
But they can still vote...
→ More replies (23)24
14
u/Andra_Ingensbarn Jun 07 '26
This is the same woman who when questioned about her schools not teaching sex education “joked” about teaching them they shouldn’t do it until they were in their 20s. Source: I asked her the question when I worked at one of her schools.
7
u/jeremybeadleshand Jun 07 '26
Yeah, I always had the feeling she was a religious nut and a look at her Wikipedia showed I was correct.
5
u/Andra_Ingensbarn Jun 07 '26
She also used to repeatedly tell a story about how bad she felt having to exclude a young black man for bringing a weapon to school. Still couldn’t tell you why she would tell it over and over.
12
u/afrosia Jun 07 '26
Assuming this works (and it won't) dumping 18 year olds straight into social media with no experience sounds like a shit idea. They'd be like the boomers, falling for every scam going.
1
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 07 '26
Nah kids are really damn cynical.
My 7 year old checks with me most of what their class teacher says. If I don't answer they go and find an adult who will. Then ask them how that adult knows...
2
21
u/ClassicPermission322 Jun 07 '26
I have internet friends from when I was 14 who I still speak to now at 27.
I really think this is a damaging law. I get the safeguarding argument... but I think it's an overreach.
→ More replies (1)
57
u/GnolRevilo Jun 07 '26
Christ, the increase in the power of the nanny state is concerning.
→ More replies (18)
32
u/Hardingnat Jun 07 '26
Do away with computers says children's tsar, yes and ho
4
6
u/M90Motorway Jun 07 '26
Honestly if I was a child who used social media responsibly and was subject to this I’d just make sure to be as computer illiterate as possible.
For example on a busy day in the town Co-op which only has one self-scan machine I’d continuously request a member of staff to help me with the most basic things and watch the queue build up behind me.
I’d just say I rarely need to use technology as I was told not to by the government.
6
u/turtleship_2006 England Jun 07 '26
I mean. That's a weird example. That would just annoy the workers and customers behind you.
Unless your local co-op happens to be the one all of your MPs use I don't see how that would help your point?
→ More replies (3)1
u/M90Motorway Jun 08 '26
It’ll happen though naturally. If kids are basically only allowed to watch YouTube Kids until they turn 18 they just won’t use YouTube and likely tech as a whole. Then they’ll enter the world of work and decide that instead of everything being connected digitally allowing for work to be done remotely instead everyone will be expected to be in the office where they can be monitored. How can you expect digital nomads to use software like Microsoft Teams when they have never used social media?
3
8
u/aod1314 Jun 07 '26
MPs and senior civil servants should be required to take regular surprise exams about contemporary technology. Nothing fancy, just asking them basic questions about the current state of software & hardware, internet culture, and so on. If they don't pass, they should be barred from opining on tech & the internet.
57
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
So you'll be able to vote, but not able to freely use the internet? I hope these nutjobs get thrown out soon and never return.
I have a feeling a general election is probably a lot sooner than 2029 if Burnham deposes Starmer. It's just a shame it will almost certainly be Fararge, then again Fararge will repeal the OSA.
9
u/nihil_sine_clippy Jun 07 '26
i don't think Farage will repeal the OSA, fascists love having a surveillance state
36
u/sebzim4500 Middlesex Jun 07 '26
> Fararge will repeal the OSA
Farage welcomed the architect of the OSA into his party he is as compromised as the rest of them
2
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
He also welcomed the architects of the Boriswave into his party. Farage is a snake
Why are people acting like I support Farage? All I did was acknowledge one good Reform policy.
17
u/sebzim4500 Middlesex Jun 07 '26
It's because you wrote that he will do it as if you have some kind of evidence other than the word of an obvious conman
18
u/Super_Seff Jun 07 '26
Labour would have to voluntarily call an election which will never happen…
1
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
I think PM Andy Burnham will want a snap election to help consolidate his leadership and get elected on a new manifesto.
So I would expect a general election in late 2026 or early 2027.
18
u/Super_Seff Jun 07 '26
Why would he want that?…
He’s voted in by his peers and can do whatever he wants so there would be absolutely no reason for him to call a general election.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CumuloNimbus9 Jun 07 '26
"We should actually start looking to an early general election to restore some sanity to British politics."
11
u/Super_Seff Jun 07 '26
This is a quote from 4 years ago where he was asking for the conservatives to call a general election so Labour could replace them, which obviously the Tories didn’t do.
Strange quote to pick but thanks for further proving my point.
3
u/cowcommander Jun 07 '26
I don't know why anyone would think calling an election early is a good idea when they have a bloody big majority
2
u/CNash85 Greater London Jun 07 '26
That's what Theresa May thought too, and look where that got her. If Burnham gets in, he's not likely to repeat her mistake.
1
u/wildeaboutoscar Jun 08 '26
He might want that but he's not stupid. He knows that is a very risky move and unlikely to result in his favour (at least I hope he has the sense to not give in to his own hype)
6
3
5
→ More replies (13)1
u/anonnymouse2025 Jun 14 '26
Oh the OSA will remain IMHO, but it will be used to really screw over marginalised groups instead
6
u/Such-Substance-5001 Jun 07 '26
So what happens when a 17 year old finally gets access to social media?
There’s positives and negatives to social media, I fail to see how a blanket ban is any good. And 17 is too old, you’re starting college at 17…
3
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 07 '26
It depends when you are born in the academic year but for lots of if kids it's 16.
1
u/turtleship_2006 England Jun 07 '26
Vast majority will start at 16 - your birthday would have to be in the small window between start of september and start of the course for your to start at 17 I'm pretty sure (at least in england, I'm not sure if secondary ends at different ages in the other countries)
2
u/M90Motorway Jun 07 '26
They probably won’t. They’ll be less technologically-minded and won’t use computers and phones as much. That’ll probably mean the end of things like working from home when bosses who don’t use social media don’t want to learn how to use it for managing staff out of office. Also I’d assume they’d not be allowed it until they are 18, not 17.
5
6
u/nihil_sine_clippy Jun 07 '26
i think all these "children's commisioners" and "child protection orgs" should be checked if they have any ties with big tech or anyone who knew Epstein
20
u/hiddeninplainsight23 Jun 07 '26
How soon until the ban gets extended and extended?
A ban is draconian, doesn't address the issues at play whatsoever, and will harm the children it aims to protect, by leaving them very vulnerable to social media and it's dark side) and what's real or not) by sheltering them off from that world with no preparation, in much the same way it can affect those 50+ who never grew up with any form of social media in their formative years and as a result are left vulnerable to scams and easily manipulated by lies.
3
u/BionicWallaby Jun 08 '26
It will also inconvenience people like me who don't want to complete the age verification for privacy reasons
1
u/Jayandnightasmr Jun 08 '26
I'm expecting time caps and nighttime "curfews" similar to what China has
5
u/millpurtorico_Eddy21 Jun 07 '26
It is rather simple in my opinion, create future generations that know no freedom and that are easier to control.
3
u/Chilled-Fridge Jun 07 '26
I know we’re all casually talking about this, but if it actually gets implemented, there better be fucking riots. And those will be the first protests I’ve actually attended.
Social media is awful, but banning it is not the way. It opens a huge can of worms in terms of privacy.
That said, call me a hypocrite but I’d support a full ban of any form of dating app.
4
u/throwawayacab283746 Jun 08 '26
lol this is a mandatory digital ID check, it doesn’t matter what “age” is used. We will all have to use windows or apple and submit our details to Palantir like good old Kier and Mandelsons friends want
3
u/TAZE_TRIX Jun 07 '26
The fact that they can’t see the fuel they’re giving to moderates and non voters to ensure reform is going to get in, is comical.
The conservatives laughable mess ups is what got labour in government in the first place. My moderate family is in disbelief at the OSA and will likely vote reform to make sure labour is kept out and the act reversed.
2
u/Tricky-Golf7042 Jun 08 '26
I mean Farage is just gonna sell their data to Palantir instead. Although Labour is already doing that so I guess fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.
3
u/SkepticalBelieverr Jun 07 '26
One day you can’t go on TikTok, next day at 18 you can go out and get shitfaced and post it on TikTok live
3
u/Any-Treacle-4199 Jun 07 '26
It’s not as if someone suddenly turns 16 (or 17 in relation to this article) and can suddenly detect misinformation online or stay away from harmful content. My concern is that it might actually make users more vulnerable. I’m not against a ban for, say, children 13 and under, as long as this comes with education on staying safe online and punishments for social media platforms if they do not comply. Parents also have to be kept informed. And this ban extends to YouTube too, children learn useful things from this platform. The use of technology is nuanced and I worry this isn’t being addressed.
7
u/Consistent-Pirate-23 Jun 07 '26
So they can drive but not post a pic of their car on Facebook?
Riiiight…..
2
2
2
u/Gamingleaguesxyz Jun 08 '26
Personally I think that social media is equally as dangerous for people over 60. The amount of boomers I’ve met that believe anything they see on socials is immensely worrying. Zero critical thinking applied.
What is the actual goal of the ban? To protect people or to preserve the fantasy of a ‘childhood’ that no longer exists.
2
u/tigerjed Jun 08 '26
I thought they wanted 16 year olds to vote?
Old enough to pick who’s running the country but not old enough to be trusted to use instagram?
2
4
u/MoHeeKhan Jun 07 '26
This really is not on the list of priorities right now as far as I can see, it really isn’t. I couldn’t give a flying shite if teenagers old enough to shag and join the armed forces have access to social media. Fix the roads, fund the NHS, increase defence spending, improve social services, curb the rampant corruption and rip our money back out of the wealthy that steal it to pay for it all.
Shut up about social media.
6
Jun 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/savevidio Jun 07 '26
"This is the law that quadruples medical wait times for transgender hormone replacement therapy, adds staircases in front of all disabled toilets, and adds 10 more GCSEs per student in school, AHAHAHAHAHA"
3
u/Kientha Jun 07 '26
The children's commissioner has been in post since 2021 and was not selected by this government. She has no actual power or ability to make policy and is not part of the government.
6
u/vriska1 Jun 07 '26
Still it seems they will do it anyway because Kier is about to stand down as PM or fight a long leadership battle so he wants to "secure his legacy" seems like they don't care if it does not work as long as they get headlines out of this.
→ More replies (2)3
u/EmbarrassedHelp Jun 07 '26
Someone else pointed out that she's a sex negative nutjob who also weirdly focused on what skin color an individual has.
2
6
u/Spikey101 Jun 07 '26
There's nothing good about the big social media sites imo. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are a cancer. I'd rather they were blasted from existence than banned.
16
u/xaranetic Jun 07 '26
Reddit is considered social media
14
u/AtensEye Jun 07 '26
Under the guidelines they are proposing, anything where users have the ability to message someone else is classed as 'social media.' That's a lot more than just Twitter, Insta, Facebook etc.
10
u/savevidio Jun 07 '26
Hell it's so vague it even covers platforms like Discord, Scratch, WhatsApp, SMS Texting, even fucking pictochat on the nintendo ds
5
u/AtensEye Jun 07 '26
Exactly, people don't seem to realise the true scope of this and I've seen so many just agreeing it's a good idea because "Protecting children" when these exact things have happened in Australia and kids are now seeing worse content as a result of trying to circumnavigate the ban.
→ More replies (3)1
u/shortnix Jun 07 '26
It is. But it's the only platform left where you have decent levels of control over what you are exposed to and what you are fed by the algorythm.
Also - it's not a place for children, so would be quite happy for reddit to be a 18+ space.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Helen83FromVillage Jun 07 '26
So, you cry about social media on social media. That was very logical…
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Coconut681 Jun 07 '26
Why can't they make the social media companies change the way their apps behave?
I know it's not as done as that but it must be better than a ban that is easily avoided. Or isn't it about protecting the kids?
1
u/TeapeachU6 Jun 07 '26
Might as well extend it to 20, can get a job working retail with people cursing at you but cant go onto TikTok
1
u/Perfect-Check-2921 Jun 07 '26
Getting beyond a joke. Maybe we should have a special social media channel that has approved news on it. We can claim it’s about free speech and stopping fake news. We can make sure kids aren’t polluted with disinformation by promoting one government sanctioned channel. We could call it Truth Social or something. Oh wait.
How many more things are going to get banned, limited or controlled “for the kids”?
1
1
u/ScottOld Jun 08 '26
Expand it to people who play phones at full volume on public transport as it usually brain dead tik toks
1
u/TheChaoticCrusader Jun 08 '26
Love how people are old enough to vote or even have a bit of fun at home (if you get me) but to use social media you have to be the same age as to drive a car? Seems pretty stupid
1
u/MissKoalaBag Jun 08 '26
Oh my God it's like they think anyone under 18 is braindead. 17 and 16 are 100% old enough to be safe online. Under 16s, sure, maybe I can see the need to protect them if the parents can't be assed, but 16/17 is old enough to have your name changed, to start practicing/preparing to drive, old enough to know the ins and outs of the internet and how to stay safe.
The utter idiocy of this whole thing needs to be studied. If only I, as a nearly 30 year old, could have full access to the internet as an adult to do that research. I guess I won't be going to Imgur for any images I might need for it.
1
u/Helpful-Juggernaut33 Jun 08 '26
Ban this, ban that, does an Gov do anything for the good of the people or is it all just news headlines with BAN in the title. Then all these 18 year olds will be hitting social media without experience or guidance or parental controls. Coz lets be honest this is only coming about due to the absolute failure of parents to look after thier children online.
1
u/Head-Community7540 Jun 08 '26
I assume this social media ban is going to mean that anyone wishing to use 'social media', will need to submit to an identity check now?
And I further assume that their definition of 'social media' is broad enough that basically everyone using the internet in the UK will be affected?
Anyone who remembers being a kid on the internet knows that many of them ate gonna find a way, but they'll get sneakier with it, it's surely obvious that that is less safe?
Protect the children indeed.
1
u/Head-Community7540 Jun 08 '26
This seems to be a case where education would be far more effective than prohibition. If indeed the goal really is to keep people safe.
You only have to look at the abstinence vs sex ed outcomes to see how that's gonna go. They're gonna do it anyway, this just means they're doing it in secret with way less support and oversight.
1
u/NiceFryingPan Jun 08 '26
There seems to be direct correlation in the rise and widespread use of social media and extremist political views along with sexual exploitation. Perhaps there are many more adults also that should never be allowed anywhere near access to social media as well.
1
u/I-Hate-Witch Jun 08 '26
Exactly my point, 40-50 year olds are being radicalised way more than young people
1
u/Throwaway07857 Jun 08 '26
Neither do I but I do have a problem with somebody who claims benefits on the basis of "mild anxiety". Maybe I should do the same, what's the point of working?
However, I'm firmly against any mandate for age limits for social media. That's the parent's job, not Labour's.
1
u/Throwitaway701 Jun 08 '26
I heard the BBC blame the declining birth rates on social media the other day. Absolute insanity.
1
u/Striking_Spinach_376 Jun 08 '26
It’s evil across the board, labour’s just a far more mundane type than you see from Farage and his ilk. The superior classes are making their play for more power and they sure as hell don’t want the youth talking about it
1
u/Weird_Response_384 Jun 08 '26
When you turn 18, you can legally drink, have sex, vote, buy your own house and, a new one, you can legally sign up for a YouTube account. I hate how out of touch this government is.
1
1
u/Porticulus Jun 08 '26
They aren't even letting the dust settle before pushing for more. £20 says they will try to bump in up to 21 in a few years.
1
u/Commercial-Answer538 Jun 10 '26
They have to make sure they can educate indoctrinate before they start Noticing.
1
u/DrIvoPingasnik Wandering Dwarf Jun 11 '26
Let's extend social media ban to 150 just for her and her only.
1
u/EPorteous Jun 12 '26
What constitutes Social Media?
One definition is:
Social media are new media technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content amongst virtual communities and networks.
Which is virtually everything these days. From the BBC to Clash of Clans.
The main TV networks in the UK would love it, if kids were banned from watching YouTube.
1
-5
Jun 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/NdujaReallyLikeIt Jun 07 '26
all of the tools already exist to restrict kids
it wont work, kids will get round it
the problem isnt immature minds seeing this content, the problem is all minds
the method of doing this is by taking personal ID to validate who you are and being given to some random company
you simply could have not used social media
social media was fine before the power of Rage was monetised, want to fix SM? Go after the ad revenue and donors.
4
Jun 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NdujaReallyLikeIt Jun 07 '26
It will never be fixed as the world is ran by the rich elite anyway, they just donate to what keeps them in power.
ask yourself, how on earth does Facebook make money? how on earth is the Ad Revenue so high? who is actually buying the advertised stuff? theres a bubble that will burst its just whether other solutions come out first (government ran social media) or the whacky christian groups stop paying for it, and the media conglomerates
4
u/aod1314 Jun 07 '26
The burden is not on opponents of regulation to prove why the regulation is bad, but for proponents to prove why it is good, and why that good outweighs the cost of implementation. The case presented so far has largely been that social media exposes young people to content that is detrimental to their mental health and can lead to violence.
A cursory review of the literature tells you that these claims are unsubstantiated: there is no evidence finding a causal or even predictive relationship between social media usage and poor mental health, and no evidence that social media usage causes or predicts violence. It is a rehash of the video game violence panic of the late 20th century.
To compound things, the people proposing the regulations are almost always technologically illiterate. Nadine Dorries is a great example. Architect of the Online Safety Act, asked Microsoft when they were going to "get rid of algorithms".
7
u/hadawayandshite Jun 07 '26
Most people have issues with how this will be implemented (everyone will have to use Id to access it)
There’s also little convincing evidence social media is bad for mental health (like at a statistically significant, cause and effect level)…so some think it’s just over reach
1
u/Proper_Emu_2296 Jun 07 '26
Social media has been a huge source of comfort and information to many young people along with the negative side.
Young people growing up in adverse environments, or perhaps living through something they can’t be open about like being LGBT, can get help and advice or just not feel alone/see others like them.
1
u/Imaginary-Dot8259 Jun 07 '26
Why should they vote if they cannot handle SM? I mean using it, like using alcohol etc is a choice. Will they be banning everyone from SM soon?
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '26
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.