UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces
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.
Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces
Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X will be among the platforms banned by spring 2027, the government says.BBC News
like this
reshared this
HexesofVexes
in reply to Tarambor • • •I'm not entirely sure how that's panning out in Aus (a quick search suggests it's a flop, but the sources aren't great). I think the general consensus is that it's not as enforceable as they hoped.
We are moving towards an era of a more locked down web in the UK. The main flag here is "robust age verification" - i.e. we're moving from "you must provide ID to view adult material on social media" to "you must provide ID to use social media".
One can quickly see "your id must be retained and linked to your account to reduce crime" and "any officer of the law may view this ID to better support crime reduction" slipping in over the next 20 years or so.
Overall, this feels like another Trojan horse to move towards a China-style de-anonymised web. Bad move all around really.
like this
Maeve, fonix232 and palordrolap like this.
Technology reshared this.
DFX4509B
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •And then from there to
you must provide ID to use your deviceand eventuallyyou can only run (state-approved OS) on your device, assuming thin clients tied to rented servers, which would be then tied to your ID, don't take over and kill off personal computing first.minorkeys
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •kurikai
in reply to minorkeys • • •you mean we have privacy now? you know these social media companies already gave info on you even if you dont sign up.
its good if social media companies cant get kids into doomscrolling
edwardbear
in reply to kurikai • • •kurikai
in reply to edwardbear • • •minorkeys
in reply to edwardbear • • •WolfmanEightySix
in reply to kurikai • • •minorkeys
in reply to WolfmanEightySix • • •WolfmanEightySix
in reply to minorkeys • • •Noja
in reply to kurikai • • •kurikai
in reply to Noja • • •Noja
in reply to kurikai • • •AzuranAurora
in reply to Noja • • •kurikai
in reply to AzuranAurora • • •AzuranAurora
in reply to kurikai • • •kurikai
in reply to AzuranAurora • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to kurikai • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to kurikai • • •Goodeye8
in reply to kurikai • • •If only I could be this naive. First of all this isn't going to do much to prevent kids from getting online unless the measures to prevent it become absolutely oppressive. And secondly the bare minimum check requires you to give even me information to the social media companies. And I guarantee they won't be held accountable if kids find a way to bypass whatever measures get put in place. And of course adults are just as addicted to it as kids but I guess they don't matter.
If the goal was to reduce the amount of people addicted to social media the solution would be to regulate how social media functions not regulate access to social media. What is being suggested is stupid. You can't ban things on the internet.
kurikai
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •Goodeye8
in reply to kurikai • • •minorkeys
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •minorkeys
in reply to kurikai • • •WolfmanEightySix
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •birdwing
in reply to WolfmanEightySix • • •StillAlive
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •fodor
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •kurikai
in reply to fodor • • •Walk_blesseD
in reply to kurikai • • •kurikai
in reply to Walk_blesseD • • •pHr34kY
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •I'm in Australia and it's shit for everyone. The whole thing was basically conceived by SportsBet so they could advertise on social media with impunity.
My kids are on more social media platforms than I am. So are all their friends. It hasn't slowed anything in that regard.
I can say, none of the shady bootleg porn sites have implemented blocking. So there's always that.
I've survived so far without doing a face scan or ID check. Most of my social media accounts are over 16 years old anyway.
teyrnon
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •HexesofVexes
in reply to teyrnon • • •Already a member of the EFF, and I teach privacy to my students and coworkers already.
It's more a rearguard than a fight at this point - most Brits are too distracted to care.
teyrnon
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •birdwing
in reply to HexesofVexes • • •YappyMonotheist
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
𝓜𝓲𝓪
in reply to YappyMonotheist • • •Children should only learn about the world through verified BBC state propaganda content.
TikTok, Insta, and all these forms have enabled kids to see the reality of life. Instead of banning social media, ban advertising and targeting children.
toebert
in reply to Tarambor • • •I just wonder who the hell is asking for this from the population? Out of all the things that are being brought up as issues on either side (like immigrants, trans rights, energy, housing crisis, the wars etc) I've never seen this being brought up as the thing anyone has wanted.
How have we reached this level of "democracy" where even protesting is banned..
like this
fonix232 likes this.
myrmidex
in reply to toebert • • •like this
Maeve and warm like this.
Zombie
in reply to myrmidex • • •en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tommy_Do…
Tommy Douglas - Wikiquote
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)yucandu
in reply to Zombie • • •TrackinDaKraken
in reply to myrmidex • • •myrmidex
in reply to TrackinDaKraken • • •notabot
in reply to toebert • • •This is quite popular amongst parents where I am. There's also a big local push to avoid kids having smartphones before they're 13. Hopefully by that point they're mature enough to have a better understanding of what they're being exposed to, and are better equiped to know when to turn to an adult if something is upsetting or worrying them online.
Notably this isn't about restricting access to the internet, as kids have many other ways to get online at home, school, a friend's house, or even the library. Instead it's about ensuring they aren't exposing themselves to things they aren't ready for without an adult to guide them.
ETA: A lot of kids are pretty keen on this too, especially if they have had a bad experience online. The idea that none of their peers has a smartphone or social media means there's less peer pressure too.
toebert
in reply to notabot • • •Thank you for the perspective.
I'm surprised parents think this is helping the issue though. I remember being bullied in school and going home after being beaten by other kids, before the time the internet became broadly available or smartphones existing.
Not that I don't think bullying is a problem, rather that this is duct tape with a side of privacy violation for everyone with barely a thought about how to even do the age verification well.
We are not seeing anything about funding the educational system, trying to attract more teachers, aiming for smaller class sizes, funding activities and clubs or more support for parents to spend time with their kids.
notabot
in reply to toebert • • •Now imagine that that beating carries on when you get home, albiet on a different form. Kids gang up on each other online at least as brutally as in the playground. Limiting access to social media removes the peer pressure to put yourself in harms way, and removes the bullies' ability to access their victim. It is absolutely not a perfect solution, as you, say bullying happened before the internet, but it does go sone way to ensuring kids have some form of sanctuary without being pressured into leaving it.
The second, and, if anything, more horrific, issue is the amount of grooming that goes on online. There is an Ofsted report Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges that talks about this is more
... Show more...Now imagine that that beating carries on when you get home, albiet on a different form. Kids gang up on each other online at least as brutally as in the playground. Limiting access to social media removes the peer pressure to put yourself in harms way, and removes the bullies' ability to access their victim. It is absolutely not a perfect solution, as you, say bullying happened before the internet, but it does go sone way to ensuring kids have some form of sanctuary without being pressured into leaving it.
The second, and, if anything, more horrific, issue is the amount of grooming that goes on online. There is an Ofsted report Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges that talks about this is more detail. Ideally this is the sort of problem that would be dealt with by social media companies, but unless, and until, it is, it is safer to avoid children accessing these networks unaccompanied.
Age verification is a thorny question, and I'm certain there is no perfect answer. No smartphones for under 13s is a fairly easy first step. Children that young can't enter into a contract anyway, so the parents, or another adult have to be involved. Smartphone free childhood is a voluntary pledge, but multiple schools in the area are encouraging their parents to sign up.
Age verification for social media is trickier, but I actually quite liked the bill that was moving forward in California, which just had your device send a flag saying you were either; under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or 18+. That way, services have no excuse for serving up inappropriate content. As always, it's not perfect. In particular, there are questions about who is responsible for ensuring the flag is set correctly. I think they went astray here, and it should be the owner of the device who controls it, unless it is explicitly made for children, in which case the 18+ flag should not be available.
Absolutely, this is a huge problem. The VAT imposed on private school fees is supposed to be ringfenced for this sort of thing, but it's not enough. We should be putting much more into educating and safeguarding our next generation.
The Evidence
Smartphone Free Childhoodbirdwing
in reply to notabot • • •I had the opposite problem. I had very few friends IRL, and wasn't happy. I made a lot more online. Had social media been banned for children, I'm not sure how my life would have gone.
I think the issue is not so much social media inasmuch it's abilities for parental and user controls lacking (or being unbalanced), or algorithms promoting severe polarisation and radicalisation towards fascism.
That and the cost of living as well the ginormous malevolent oligarch class, which affect all the above. Those are the root issues.
It'd be better to addres those.
abbiistabbii
in reply to toebert • • •like this
warm likes this.
a4ng3l
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •TheFrirish
in reply to Tarambor • • •Noja
in reply to TheFrirish • • •like this
warm and Lippy like this.
LordDaveTheKind
in reply to Noja • • •Noja
in reply to LordDaveTheKind • • •You will see for yourself soon enough that you will have to upload your ID or 3D scan your face if you live in one of those garbage countries. Those ID verification companies admit that they are only 95% accurate at estimating user age, which means that 5% of your population is now barred from accessing websites that they should have access to, which should be completely unacceptable in a normal world.
Have a tech question as a teenager? Good fucking luck trying to beat the reddit age verification. Want to refresh your knowledge of how to give first aid? Guess what, fuck you.
Need help with school work? Guess what, it's all on YouTube. Researching a sensitive topic? Age gated, restricted, banned.
If you give your little kids smartphones that's your fucking problem, not mine!
LordDaveTheKind
in reply to Noja • • •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.
... Show more...That's a seller prob
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?
birdwing
in reply to LordDaveTheKind • • •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.
LordDaveTheKind
in reply to birdwing • • •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.
... Show more...And having a good rigorous way to restrict adult-only content at account master data level could be a good technical solution.
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.
Virtvirt588
in reply to LordDaveTheKind • • •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.
TheFrirish
in reply to Noja • • •Noja
in reply to TheFrirish • • •LordDaveTheKind
in reply to TheFrirish • • •Agree. And any professional working or dealing with children would agree.
And, for anyone who is telling: "lEt ThE pArEnTs dO tHaT!!11|!!", please put yourself in that situation. Would your parents have been able to set rigorous and effective checks on the media you accessed in your youth? And even if so, the conditions in which a teenager lives today are different than the ones you experienced: average time spent with families is decreasing, the average time that teenagers spend in touch with their peers (not necessarily in person, but also via IM) is increasing, and therefore also the peer pressure. Also, what about those kids with absent parents? What about those kids with toxic or incompetent parents?
Sure, 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.
Virtvirt588
in reply to LordDaveTheKind • • •birdwing
in reply to LordDaveTheKind • • •Fuck that shit. I'm not a kid and don't want people spying on me.
Just make the parental controls much easier to set up, have media literacy lessons instead, and that would help far more.
You can quite literally set up screentime for your children easily. So why not do that? Why not mandate that a children's phone must have a limited amount of screentime?
People with absent parents still require a caretaker, so then those. And those that have toxic/abusive parents... well, how is it going to improve for them if they can't find help online? If they're prohibited from going outside?
No, I think we should address it by the root; the polarisation and fascist radicalisation, caused by algorithms promoting hateful content, caused by billionnaires' growing exploitation of the proletariat, by which they steer social media to their own whims.
That needs to be kicked out.
LordDaveTheKind
in reply to birdwing • • •I don't want the gOhVehRnMEeNt spying on me when I drive!111! Why should I show a valid Driving Licence when I'm in my car! My car my choice of driving!
... Show more...They would definitely need more guided help. But if professionals who offer this kind of guided help are the first ones on supporting these initiatives, why it's so tough to understand their opinion on the matter?
I don't want the gOhVehRnMEeNt spying on me when I drive!111! Why should I show a valid Driving Licence when I'm in my car! My car my choice of driving!
They would definitely need more guided help. But if professionals who offer this kind of guided help are the first ones on supporting these initiatives, why it's so tough to understand their opinion on the matter?
Oh, finally a solution I could 100% sign for! I would definitely approve that, but how would you explain it to the same people that now are yapping about freedom of expression? Wouldn't they complain about censorship also in that case? And trust me, I agree with you, but I'm already foreseeing people on Shitter (or any other right-wing most favourite Social Network) rallying against it.
ajoebyanyothername
in reply to Tarambor • • •gian
in reply to ajoebyanyothername • • •On the other hand everyone think that social media are dangerous for the children so something need to be done.
I am afraid that you cannot have children protection without some sort of control
ParadoxSeahorse
in reply to gian • • •gian
in reply to ParadoxSeahorse • • •ajoebyanyothername
in reply to gian • • •gian
in reply to ajoebyanyothername • • •Government already has your informations, problem are the companies. But in the end I think that the only viable option to have some sort of decent check is that the company try to verify the age with the government, which only answer yes|no.
Parental control failed time and again. In the end the problem are not the kids who follow what the parents say, but the others. And nowadays it seems that parents, first and foremost, are more than happy to let social media to keep their kid occupied.
ajoebyanyothername
in reply to gian • • •As you say, the government already has that information, so while people might not be happy about that, it does seem a semi-reasonable way of confirming age. But the current plan is the reverse of that, with the government asking companies to conform age using a third party, which not only will definitely be using it for advertising purposes, but is more likely to get hacked, and all the information make it into even worse hands.
The problem with a ban in response to poor parenting is that it just disincentivises both the parents and children who have been doing it right until now, because if they'll lose access all the same then what was the point of doing otherwise until now. And what would be the point of doing it right in future.
gian
in reply to ajoebyanyothername • • •I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.
In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don't give a damn will continue to don't give a damn about it.
IPeaceInYourFace
in reply to Tarambor • • •I'm all for it. The internet is unregulated, and it has a direct impact on people's consciousness, it dictates what they think about.
Therefore, our minds, our emotions, our impulses and intentions are also unregulated.
My only concern is that this is a rather lazy approach when all it took was good digital literacy.
Edit: reading that back I'm putting over the wrong message. Our minds shouldn't be regulated directly, what should be regulated is those who have the power to influence them. Otherwise, we're no more free than if our minds were regulated.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
AeronMelon
in reply to Tarambor • • •notsosure
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
Azathoth likes this.
warm
in reply to notsosure • • •like this
warm, Australis13 and Lippy like this.
notsosure
in reply to warm • • •Virtvirt588
in reply to notsosure • • •notsosure
in reply to Virtvirt588 • • •a4ng3l
in reply to notsosure • • •And when they break out of those controls it also means that they are smart enough to take on the internet anyway.
notsosure
in reply to a4ng3l • • •a4ng3l
in reply to notsosure • • •a4ng3l
in reply to notsosure • • •birdwing
in reply to notsosure • • •notsosure
in reply to birdwing • • •tabular
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
Lippy likes this.
A Good Hunter
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
Lippy likes this.
teyrnon
in reply to A Good Hunter • • •It's not just advertisers by a long shot, they aren't even the main customers in most respects now. Governments want all of that information and buy it, as do other commercial interests, including security consultants and contractors like Palantir.
Governments can use go betweens to buy the information too, China for instance, is likely getting every single piece of information sold by data brokers. The entire thing is a joke, on us, because it's not about the kids, it's about locking down the internet and crafting social scores based on everything we have said or done online and off run through half baked ai threat detection.
Starmer is a fascist cunt that will hand the government to openly fascist cunts, but yay, go team! /s
Marshezezz
in reply to A Good Hunter • • •qwerty
in reply to Tarambor • • •Squizzy
in reply to qwerty • • •like this
Azathoth likes this.
IratePirate
in reply to Squizzy • • •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.
Squizzy
in reply to IratePirate • • •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.
Virtvirt588
in reply to IratePirate • • •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.
Bazoogle
in reply to IratePirate • • •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.
... Show more...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.
apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-m…
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.
social-media-children-teens
www.apa.orgAzathoth likes this.
Virtvirt588
in reply to Bazoogle • • •Bazoogle
in reply to Virtvirt588 • • •Virtvirt588
in reply to Bazoogle • • •teyrnon
in reply to Squizzy • • •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.
Squizzy
in reply to teyrnon • • •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.
Azathoth likes this.
teyrnon
in reply to Squizzy • • •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.
Squizzy
in reply to teyrnon • • •teyrnon
in reply to Squizzy • • •𝓜𝓲𝓪
in reply to Tarambor • • •TheLeadenSea
in reply to 𝓜𝓲𝓪 • • •No see you ban puberty blockers and then ban social media so they don't find out that diy exists before it's too late!!!
It's perfect!
.
.
....Ahahahagagahahhabab 😭😭😭
Virtvirt588
in reply to 𝓜𝓲𝓪 • • •abbiistabbii
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
SolacefromSilence and Lippy like this.
IratePirate
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •Virtvirt588
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •zikzak025
in reply to Tarambor • • •I am in favor of keeping kids off of social media, but I think the method of ID verification as default is entirely wrong.
Parents should ultimately be responsible for the activity of their child. If you can't trust your child to use the internet/social media responsibly, they simply should not be given access to smart devices.
If a kid gets onto social media and does stupid things there, go after the parents for neglect. The same would happen if I wasn't supervising my 8-year-old and they sneak off to vandalize someone else's property.
At most, maybe conversations could happen with ISPs to standardize an optional whitelist system for home consumers with children to block access to key social media domains for unapproved devices, but that's as far as I'd go. Empower parents with better supervisory tools to be more involved, no need to violate the rights of everyone else.
like this
Australis13 likes this.
Bazoogle
in reply to zikzak025 • • •When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it's the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn't have to ID people. Except most people don't make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you'd be consistent.
The stupid thing is using it. It's bad for kids development. It's not dissimilar to drinking. You could blame the parents if the kids got into the alcohol in their own home, but the same would also go for kids using their parents social media accounts.
... Show more...I
When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it's the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn't have to ID people. Except most people don't make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you'd be consistent.
The stupid thing is using it. It's bad for kids development. It's not dissimilar to drinking. You could blame the parents if the kids got into the alcohol in their own home, but the same would also go for kids using their parents social media accounts.
I know I have been playing devil's advocate for online ID, but I think it will be implemented in a way that is a privacy nightmare and am not in favor of the way it's being done. However, is anonymity a right? Before 1980, nobody really got anonymity unless you authored something under a pseudonym, which we can still do. When people were outspoken about civil rights violation, they were often just out there in the public as themselves. Sure they could wear masks, but you couldn't hide like you can on the internet.
The internet has allowed both for more anonymity than ever and also more tracking of people than ever. I do think it's coincidental that this is coming at the same time as the birth/growth of AI, but it does kind of serve a convenient second purpose of validating humans (or at least you know that a person is using an AI to post on their account). It's unfortunate that it's a benefit, but we live in an age where people using social media/the internet now have to constantly question their reality and if people are even real. I don't see a good solution to that without violating our previous expectations of privacy.
If age/human verification going to be done, I think it should be done correctly. Age verification could be done through Zero Knowledge Proofs where it only verifies your age and nothing else. I think one day our ID's will have rotating security keys built into them that will be used both for in person and online verification. You'd be able to decide what information is provided to the website, so that if they only wanted to know "Are you 21+" it would only provide a YES or NO, and that's it. I'm sure there will be some online method for doing the same thing before then, but it'd need to be tied to some form of biometric verification like a fingerprint or else it could be used maliciously. The most likely scenario is we start off by using phones to tie the ID to the person, and have the phones require some form of biometric lock.
All that to say, we are realistically headed towards a future where the the anonymity we were used to will be no more. At least for any website that doesn't want AI spam. While just uploading pictures of our ID's to websites is a terrible idea, it's what the idiots in charge will likely have us do as this new process starts. If they'd let the smart people take their time to do it right, the whole thing wouldn't be nearly as bad.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
gian
in reply to Bazoogle • • •One could argue that kids can go to shops that sell also alcohol, but I can get the logic.
Problem is that a parent cannot check on their kids 24/7, so maybe having a check other than the parent could be a good idea.
Stores should absolutely check for ID since there is no way for them to verify that the parents did their job.
brucethemoose
in reply to Bazoogle • • •But scientific studies suggest alcohol physically toxic to kids! Social media is…
Well…
Also shown to be toxic. Like, measurably dangerous to your health.
(And I agree about the IDs. Honestly this should be done for alcohol too).
zikzak025
in reply to Bazoogle • • •You only get ID'd for alcohol if you look like a kid. I haven't been carded in years. And when you do get carded, they look at your license, check the date, and hand it right back. No copies are saved to a database that could get leaked who-knows-where.
If a social media site is concerned that a user may be underage, I'm fine with them asking for some sort of verification. But a blanket request on everyone to ID themselves by default is just not the way.
like this
Australis13 likes this.
Bazoogle
in reply to zikzak025 • • •Depends on the place
This is true for most places. There's nothing stopping a creep from memorizing more than they should, but that's of course an edge case.
While uncommon, there are places such as casinos that take everyones ID and use an ID scanner to add them to a local, or not local, database. Places that do that really are no different from websites that want to ID. Except with a website you'd provide it once, and at those facilities you have to have it scanned each time you go in.
... Show more...I couldn't agree more. It's a terrible idea and is going to spell disaster for many people. I am not arguing we should have websites collect IDs, my argument is about whether age verification on websites should exist in any form, even if it's securely setup
Depends on the place
This is true for most places. There's nothing stopping a creep from memorizing more than they should, but that's of course an edge case.
While uncommon, there are places such as casinos that take everyones ID and use an ID scanner to add them to a local, or not local, database. Places that do that really are no different from websites that want to ID. Except with a website you'd provide it once, and at those facilities you have to have it scanned each time you go in.
I couldn't agree more. It's a terrible idea and is going to spell disaster for many people. I am not arguing we should have websites collect IDs, my argument is about whether age verification on websites should exist in any form, even if it's securely setup. Many people here think age verification is strictly a problem of parenting, and I think that's an absurd argument.
sunbeam60
in reply to zikzak025 • • •teyrnon
in reply to zikzak025 • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to teyrnon • • •Telodzrum
in reply to Tarambor • • •Optional
in reply to Tarambor • • •Noel_Skum
in reply to Tarambor • • •Blackmist
in reply to Tarambor • • •like this
OfCourseNot likes this.
sunbeam60
in reply to Blackmist • • •TrackinDaKraken
in reply to Tarambor • • •some pirate
in reply to Tarambor • • •Kyden Fumofly
in reply to Tarambor • • •StarryPhoenix97
in reply to Kyden Fumofly • • •They are coming for VPNs too. The pillars of your privacy are under attack on all fronts.
If you think VPNs will save you then I suggest you look at China and see how well VPNs saved them.
logicslayer
in reply to Tarambor • • •kent_eh
in reply to logicslayer • • •Domi
in reply to Tarambor • • •So can trans kids access puberty blockers now or nah?
Kuma
in reply to Tarambor • • •I think this is a very interesting topic. How can you verify that someone is of age without the problem with privacy?
Would you go to a kiosk or something and buy a code that is not bound to you as a person but the person who works there have verified that you are over 16? So it will kinda be like a steam code except they need to check your actual age with a valid identification (that is only shown to the person) and that code will be bound to an account when claimed.
If it is per account then that could also make it annoying for kids to create multiple accounts if they aren't of age.
How else could you do it without needing to trust someone to keep your identity safe?
Throw your ideas at me!
And we do not need perfect, look at alcohol consumptions, that is illegal for kids but some find their ways anyway. It just needs to be annoying so most don't do it or do it less
wpb
in reply to Kuma • • •That's the neat part!
Kuma
in reply to wpb • • •Awww come on. Come up with some fun ideas!
There are no bad ideas, this is a safe space.
It is when we put them in action they could be bad (we have seen some versions already).
Buckshot
in reply to Kuma • • •A better example for me is driving, we don't let children drive, millions of children have access to cars, there's no age gate on the ignition.
Ultimately its the parents that stop kids driving.
Ban kids from using it. Then treat it like a public health problem and educate everybody on the problems, how to identify misinformation, keep themselves safe etc. And require the companies to provide the tools parents can use to protect their own kids. Parental controls exist but i feel they aren't widely used because it's difficult and complicated.
I'd go further and start regulating the use of algorithmic feeds for everybody but that's probably harder to achieve.
Kuma
in reply to Buckshot • • •that was a good example.
So the police do checks when something seems off, they get a tip or just random checks (which could just be them looking at feeds) so everyone follows the law and parents has the biggest responsibility to make sure the kids follow the law/rules/ban/stay safe.
I like your solution, I would add that we should also add education about internet security (the things you wrote) in the curriculum. And also educate/inform parents at the school yearly or something like that as part of it.
Wouldn't the last one (algorithm) be what they kinda try to do now (like Discord blocks you from 18+ stuff) and that is why they need to know your age so kids won't se some stuff that adults can?
godsammitdam
in reply to Tarambor • • •Social media is absolutely addictive and making people unhappy.
But how do you enforce this without removing anonymity?
Once again, they're going the corporate/government friendly route of surveillance. Ban VPNs, age vefification, soon we'll be required to use biometric checks to access the internet.
These chucklefucks will do anything other than attempt to solve the problem. Which is more education and help for parents while holding parents and the corporations accountable. But that would cost money rather than having lobbyists and donors fund them even more so 🤷♂️
It all comes back to capitalism.
isleepinahammock
in reply to godsammitdam • • •Maybe ban algorithmically-delivered content? So, for example, consider YouTube. The only way to get content would be to search for videos or to subscribe to individual channels. You can still have a user-curated experience, but that curation must be actively done by the user. This would at least prevent feed algorithms selecting for engagement and rage.
I would rather target the worst practices of social media companies in general, rather than try and keep kids from them. It's not like adults aren't harmed by this stuff either.
youmaynotknow
in reply to godsammitdam • • •aceshigh
in reply to Tarambor • • •wpb
in reply to Tarambor • • •This has nothing to do whatsoever with protecting children. That is not the goal. This is anti-privacy, plain and simple. Discussing the merits of this plan as a child protection measure is agreeing to their framing of the discussion, it's agreeing to discuss it on their terms, and then you've already lost.
Here's a real counterargument: suppose we pass this, and the fascists win the election (I know, completely and utterly unimaginable, but bear with me). Now, organizing protests via social media (as it went in Tunisia, Egypt, Brazil, and so on) becomes impossible, because your actual identity is tied to your social media accounts. In the current climate the fascists will probably go after muslims first, so I hope you haven't said scary things like insh'allah on facebook, because the government has your name now. Are you gay? Better hope you haven't left a thirsty comment on the insta of someone of your gender, because the government will know.
Of course, we don't need to imagine some hypothetical fascist government. I hope you don't object to genocide and post about
... Show more...This has nothing to do whatsoever with protecting children. That is not the goal. This is anti-privacy, plain and simple. Discussing the merits of this plan as a child protection measure is agreeing to their framing of the discussion, it's agreeing to discuss it on their terms, and then you've already lost.
Here's a real counterargument: suppose we pass this, and the fascists win the election (I know, completely and utterly unimaginable, but bear with me). Now, organizing protests via social media (as it went in Tunisia, Egypt, Brazil, and so on) becomes impossible, because your actual identity is tied to your social media accounts. In the current climate the fascists will probably go after muslims first, so I hope you haven't said scary things like insh'allah on facebook, because the government has your name now. Are you gay? Better hope you haven't left a thirsty comment on the insta of someone of your gender, because the government will know.
Of course, we don't need to imagine some hypothetical fascist government. I hope you don't object to genocide and post about it online, because that can be declared support of terrorism at the drop of a hat, and that's illegal.
GoatSynagogue
in reply to wpb • • •Mate….the fascists won the election. How can they push these laws and you still can’t see that?
The people who been calling everyone else fascists are the same people who have been begging every social media site, forum, and company for MORE CENSORSHIP for the last 5+ years. You wanted this because you thought it would only harm people you disagree with. You thought wrong.
RufusDaStuntbum
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •wpb
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •Don't talk to me like I'm some liberal.
SnarkoPolo
in reply to Tarambor • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to SnarkoPolo • • •lavaparrot
in reply to Tarambor • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to lavaparrot • • •melfie
in reply to Tarambor • • •timochka
in reply to melfie • • •melfie
in reply to timochka • • •I’ve seen various articles stating 30 arrests a day over social media posts. Here are a few:
thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/…
forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2…
nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-ne…
UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses such as retweets and cartoons
Chadwick Moore (New York Post)timochka
in reply to melfie • • •Except the number cited isn't for social media posts. It's all arrests under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which covers far more than social media (as you can probably guess, given social media didn't even exist in 1988.)
That includes arrests for threatening phonecalls, sharing indecent images (child porn and the like - you lot who bang on about Epstein all the time are meant to be against that, right?) - and not only on social media - stalking and harrasment adjacent offenses like nuisance calling, and a whole host of other offences completely unrelated to social media.
In other words, it's complete bollocks. And all from one woeful newspaper 'story'. Congratulations for providing an excellent example of how one right-wing rag with an agenda can confect a story, then have it cited by a load of other 'sources' that don't do anything beyond cutting and pasting the original lie, and then suddenly you've made a whole new fact.
melfie
in reply to timochka • • •timochka
in reply to melfie • • •Unfortunately, the data doesn't appear to be collected in a systematic way across the whole country, but one police force - West Yorkshire Police - does have data going back long enough for a trend, at least for the arrests on the Communications Act.
For West Yorkshire Police, the arrests under the Communications Act are pretty much constant from 2008 (around 200) to 2024 (actually a little lower, 152).
Given the changes in social media penetration over that time (things like the iPhone and Twitter barely even existed in 2008,) for the rate of arrests to have remained constant throughout I would suggest strongly indicates that there is a very strong element of "absolutely nothing to do with social media" in those numbers The Times quoted.
The numbers for the Malicious Communications Act are less easy to parse, because they don't go back far enough, and also they show a massive drop in the last 6 years.
All of this of course could be slightly moot - because in 2023, a new act (the Online Safety Act) was passed which specifically relates to
... Show more...Unfortunately, the data doesn't appear to be collected in a systematic way across the whole country, but one police force - West Yorkshire Police - does have data going back long enough for a trend, at least for the arrests on the Communications Act.
For West Yorkshire Police, the arrests under the Communications Act are pretty much constant from 2008 (around 200) to 2024 (actually a little lower, 152).
Given the changes in social media penetration over that time (things like the iPhone and Twitter barely even existed in 2008,) for the rate of arrests to have remained constant throughout I would suggest strongly indicates that there is a very strong element of "absolutely nothing to do with social media" in those numbers The Times quoted.
The numbers for the Malicious Communications Act are less easy to parse, because they don't go back far enough, and also they show a massive drop in the last 6 years.
All of this of course could be slightly moot - because in 2023, a new act (the Online Safety Act) was passed which specifically relates to "arresting people for their social media posts" [TM Musk et al].
In 2024, West Yorkshire Police made 5 (five! Count them! Hell, you could invite them all round to your house for dinner) arrests under the OSA.
"Thousands" of people are categorically not being arrested for their social media posts in the UK every year. Or even every decade.
SaraTonin
in reply to melfie • • •“Thousands”…
Don’t do Musk’s propaganda job for him. The far-right are doing well enough in the UK without people like you amplifying their lies for them
dektep
in reply to melfie • • •Paddy66
in reply to Tarambor • • •Banning Social Media based on age: why that's a bad idea
Patrick Leavy (The Rebel Blog)bumbling_bee
in reply to Tarambor • • •Tryenjer
in reply to bumbling_bee • • •bumbling_bee
in reply to Tryenjer • • •Rekorse
in reply to bumbling_bee • • •If parents dont care or approve of their kids using social media then the kids will keep doing it. Its still important that the top officials in government are warning adults that its not safe for children there, because some people dont know or won't trust anyone else.
The problem was thinking it was okay for kids to be on social media, and this fixes that. People on here keep saying the problem being fixed is how to prevent every child from getting on social media, but thats not what's happening.
This also allows us as a society to punish parents who break these laws or allow their children too. We have to be able to signal to each other in society when something is harmful, whether it affects autonomy or not.
bumbling_bee
in reply to Rekorse • • •Rekorse
in reply to bumbling_bee • • •If we actually cared about society in general, we would behave differently. This is a result of the fuck-you-get-mine mentality that thrives in America. There are plenty of people here that don't care about their neighbors, at all.
You only see outrage come from people affected firsthand, because everyone else thinks they are too smart/rich/successful to possibly fall victim to the same systems as the stupid/poor/lazy people.
You bring up a great point about focusing on youtube and letting roblox slide right by. Plenty of parents made that mistake, but the truth is that almost no online platform is safe for children to meet strangers in.
I'm not sure what the best way to restrict access to adults only is though, but it does seem the current attempt is the best we've come up with so far. Its incredibly invasive, and I simply won't use products that require age verification, so I'm hoping this leads to a better solution. Perhaps another country will figure out an idea and we can copy it.
youmaynotknow
in reply to Rekorse • • •Wao, you really believe this too, don't you? Kids are smart enough to circumvent most barriers you put around them. No amount of government bullshit is going to keep them from doing something they are laser focused on doing. Now, parenting does have a chance to keep them from harm (a CHANCE) if the parents put on the effort and are raising their kids with values.
You have to be a special type of moron to believe tour own post, honestly.
Rekorse
in reply to youmaynotknow • • •Even the parents that have degrees and jobs in tech have trouble keeping ahead of all this stuff, because there is far more money and manpower put behind making these products as abusive as possible. Sure, I'd like everyone to be as knowledgeable as us on the subject, but that's not practical. Social signaling has a place for broader society even if it ends up hitting people it won't affect.
Parents are only one side of the equation, with the other being the social media companies themselves. These laws make it so they have to stop offering their services to children, just like I would expect laws to prevent a corner store from selling tobacco or alcohol to minors.
youmaynotknow
in reply to Rekorse • • •I get that, and it would be a fair assessment if it wasn't because the real problem here is that parents are not parenting, plain and simple. This is yet another part of this that the social media and tech companies are using to their advantage. They get people hooked, that we agree on. Then they lobby for all this surveillance and forced identifications that uses... (Drumroll) companies owned by the same tech giants, in partnership with the other giants. Now they have made it illegal to not provide them with your data and identity, while removing many underage individuals from the equation. Win-win for them, as their liability drops, and now they can serve more ads directed at each individual, effectively increasing the price advertisers are willing to pay, increasing their revenue. There is absolutely no way to keep children out of any platform without full identification, its that simple. Then the same governments that are pushing this have access to all this data as well, which makes them basically all-knowing about every single person in the population.
There is no univ
... Show more...I get that, and it would be a fair assessment if it wasn't because the real problem here is that parents are not parenting, plain and simple. This is yet another part of this that the social media and tech companies are using to their advantage. They get people hooked, that we agree on. Then they lobby for all this surveillance and forced identifications that uses... (Drumroll) companies owned by the same tech giants, in partnership with the other giants. Now they have made it illegal to not provide them with your data and identity, while removing many underage individuals from the equation. Win-win for them, as their liability drops, and now they can serve more ads directed at each individual, effectively increasing the price advertisers are willing to pay, increasing their revenue. There is absolutely no way to keep children out of any platform without full identification, its that simple. Then the same governments that are pushing this have access to all this data as well, which makes them basically all-knowing about every single person in the population.
There is no universe in which any of this is a good thing. Look at the whole picture, and it's not the UL, it's every country in the world doing this, at different levels, with varying level of success and oppression.
These are only some of the many reasons why I will never agree with something like this.
Rekorse
in reply to youmaynotknow • • •The answer is convincing people that the major social media services available now are bad for everyone regardless of age. For some reason this type of understanding tends to start with the most vulnerable people affected, until we finally admit its bad for everyone. These laws only punish those who use social media and those who provide it as a service, which should reduce social media use in general to a degree, so I'm for it.
Ideally for me, social media wouldn't exist in the way it does today. If we did have it at all, it would be extremely localized as a means to connect neighbors to one another. Something that would benefit society in some way.
Evotech
in reply to Tarambor • • •cuntlava
in reply to Tarambor • • •StenSaksTapir
in reply to cuntlava • • •GoatSynagogue
in reply to Tarambor • • •ExLisper
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •Siegfried
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to Siegfried • • •Siegfried
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to Siegfried • • •Siegfried
in reply to ExLisper • • •Yes, but i dont use it to open up an online forum. The problem isn't the identification itself but when and why do i need to be identified. I thought this was clear.
This conversation is becoming silly. If you dont value your privacy online, thats your thing. I would drop internet usage to the minimum if i ever need to identify myself to use trivial shit like gaming or accessing social media.
ExLisper
in reply to Siegfried • • •Siegfried
in reply to ExLisper • • •Sorry, i edited my comment on the way and didnt thought you would see it so quickly.
But we arent debating the existance of IDs but their implementation for accessing social media. Nobody would argue the usefulness of credit cards identifying who is doing the purchase, or as you said, using it to validate a signature.
The problem is the usage not the IDs themselves
ExLisper
in reply to Siegfried • • •I agree but the general attitude seems to be "digital ID bad!", without ever going into any details. People on lemmy are simply scared of digital IDs without understanding what those do.
GoatSynagogue
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •Avicenna
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to Avicenna • • •Avicenna
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to Avicenna • • •GoatSynagogue
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •pressanykeynow
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to pressanykeynow • • •SkunkWorkz
in reply to GoatSynagogue • • •GoatSynagogue
in reply to SkunkWorkz • • •GreenKnight23
in reply to Tarambor • • •if the goal was to actually protect kids, it wouldn't be a problem.
however, this isn't supposed to protect kids, it's supposed to protect corpofascists.
mecen
in reply to Tarambor • • •sunbeam60
in reply to mecen • • •I think there’s a rational argument for saying anonymous social media is what Russia, China and other dictatorships use to undermine and affect public opinion, to be fair.
I’m not saying therefore anonymity shouldn’t be allowed. I’m just saying there’s a nuance here…
Babalugats
in reply to Tarambor • • •Stop Killing the Internet
Stop Killing the Internetarararagi
in reply to Tarambor • • •berno
in reply to Tarambor • • •AdolfSchmitler
in reply to Tarambor • • •sunbeam60
in reply to AdolfSchmitler • • •And guns! Making them illegal did nothing for people using guns to murder each other!
… oh wait.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to AdolfSchmitler • • •youmaynotknow
in reply to Tarambor • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to youmaynotknow • • •Because they're all over 16?
Lady Butterfly she/her
in reply to Tarambor • • •mfed1122
in reply to Lady Butterfly she/her • • •I mean not entirely. Kids who are tech savvy or dedicated or even just kids who are fine with "borrowing" their parents' laptops and using social media on that. Etc.
But I do think that for a lot of kids it'll put up enough of a barrier to reduce their usage and access to it immensely.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to mfed1122 • • •The biggest barrier to Internet access is simply having a device with an Internet connection. Everything after that is a question of configuration.
What I'd consider the bigger fallout from this decision is the need to check the identity of people over 16. This is a backdoor method of imposing Internet ID on the entire population.
mfed1122
in reply to Tarambor • • •sunbeam60
in reply to mfed1122 • • •lastlybutfirstly
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •lastlybutfirstly
in reply to mfed1122 • • •I think it's insane because social media is addictive because being social and communicating with fellow human beings is addictive. That's what you and me are doing here and why we find it so pleasurable. That is not a bad thing.
It's a bizarre lesson to drill into our children's brains that this is a negative thing. I assume they don't really know what social media is and see it as distinct, more like the one way communication of comic books, rock n roll, and other media moral panics, and they assume children will too. But what will happen to the next generation is that they will see all forms of human interaction as horribly addictive, amoral, and unhealthy.
UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to Tarambor • • •sunbeam60
in reply to UltraGiGaGigantic • • •MartianRecon
in reply to Tarambor • • •DFX4509B (Joshua Mason)
in reply to MartianRecon • •MartianRecon
in reply to DFX4509B (Joshua Mason) • • •pressanykeynow
in reply to MartianRecon • • •MartianRecon
in reply to pressanykeynow • • •abc
in reply to Tarambor • • •Lovable Sidekick
in reply to Tarambor • • •A_Random_Idiot
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •No it wouldnt. It'd be a .001% reduction in users.
If you want social media to become a ghost town, ban bots/AI
pressanykeynow
in reply to A_Random_Idiot • • •abc
in reply to pressanykeynow • • •Full digital ID. Then the only for AI to get in is to steal a real human's identification.
Many civilized countries already have some system like this in place for critical stuff like banking, online healthcare, etc.
Auth
in reply to Tarambor • • •bigmamoth
in reply to Tarambor • • •Trully disgusting.
Really hope they get prosecuted by the next gouvernement