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.
Why not both? Social media has had a negative effect on the youth, it sucks.
FTFY. Algorithmic social media owned by American big tech is a net negative for anyone involved, save the billionaire owners of these platforms. If you feel like banning something, ban algorithmic social media in its entirety. Deny these networks to operate in your country, full stop.
Just don’t give me that crap about “social media bans only for under-16s”, which is just a pretext for introducing identity verification and killing anonymity on the net.
Exactly, we have people against people because of this situation when the actual focus should be corpos. There are agruments which support such bans; however, the one thing they forget is who is the victim and who is the abuser. Because last time I looked, the abusers should be banned not the victims.
But even with that in mind, age has no place here, because the induced ageism is the entire drive of this entire law and movement.
Fascists are experts in dividing people and diverting the blame.
Alcohol has a negative effect. Historically it has not gone well when countries have tried to ban alcohol.
Adults can make their own decisions. They can consume things that are bad for themselves. They can smoke, they can drink, they can gamble. Kids, including teens, do not have brain developed enough to comprehend the consequences for their decisions. They might understand the words you’re saying if you try to explain the consequences, but they wouldn’t fully grasp the magnitude.
Not to mention there is 100% more damage done to a developing brain. It changes the way their brains function that does not happen when someone starts using social media only as an adult. The same goes for drinking, gambling, and smoking is just bad for everyone.
https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-media-children-teens
You want the government to define an algorithm? Sorting by newest first is an algorithm… It would just be a ban on social media, which I can guarantee nearly everyone on this site would call absurd as well.
Classic example of an strawman. Blame it all on the booze.
If anything, it would be an example of false equivalence. I don’t think it is, to be clear. But definitely not a “classic” example of strawman.
Well, I can definitively agree on that.
Yeah I agree with all of that. There is more appetite for the youth ban is all. I dont want verification and believe there are huge risks for government over reach here, but I think the goal of getting kids off social media is brilliant.
Same reason smoking bans are generational, its easier to pass.
Plutocracies with total informational control of it’s citizens produces far more harm than kids having freedom online as per their parent’s direction.
But no, surrender to the government to protect the kids, I’m sure the plutocracy will keep them as safe as they plan on keeping your investments.
Social media has fueled and enabled the authoritarian power grabs across the globe.
I am not surrendering to the government by supporting the idea that children should not be accessible to everyone all the time. I do thinkparents should be more involver in their childs life online ad offline but there are reasons why governments say you can beat your kids, withold food, allow them alcohol, etc.
There are reasons the government wants to force everyone to link their id and likeness to their ip address and accounts online, and it’s not the kids.
How fucking dense are we taking the government at their word while they bring the trojan horse inside the walls of liberal democracy. In the UK at that, a country that has in fact fallen farther than the US in many respects. But it’s cool because it’s “our” guy doing it! Cancelling the right to protest, jury trials, surrendering citizens to tech and instituting a dystopian hellscape where peter thiel and his ilk craft secret social scores that will determine everything about your life, what jobs you will get, loans, prices charged, police and court treatment.
Fucking sheep.
You made a lot of assumptions there and im not interested in explaining myself to someone who lacks the capacity to converse
Those are presumptions, correct ones. Get your head out of the asses of the suits on tv telling you how things are, it’s not that way, it’s the other way. You might already know that and are playing us on here though. Either way, you are the problem, trusting the wrong people, or worse.
Presumptions imply evidence, of which you have none to support your claims. But the confidence speaks volumes.
GTfO.