Banning SM for under 16s

This is something my children (teens) say and their friends say. A lot of them don’t even really like their phones and wish they didn’t have them. But they know they can’t not have them as that is how the world works now

I have retained the parental controls I installed when my DC got their first phones aged 11, just before going to secondary school. It gives me some insight into their online activity, but the 'damage' occurred quickly: both DC were unhealthily attached to their phones within the first fortnight. I've stuck to the age recommendations for apps, but now they're permitted to use them, they're addictive AF, despite the DC being 'old enough'.

There was an interesting piece of research which basically found that most children and young people would quite like to not use social media if all their friends also refrained from using it. The same cohort also said they remain on SM as they fear missing out.

Australia have not done it. They've voted to do it but nothing has happened as yet and nobody really thinks anything much will actually change as its completely unenforceable.

@RedToothBrush I agree completely but I seem to find it impossible despite numerous attempts. Hence my view!!! If I find it impossible to stop using despite knowing it's negative effects why are we willing giving it to our children?!?

Anything is better than the current situation

Seems the obvious one to me.

Well that would be a better option

@Purplturpl so if an adult has to be the one to sign up (ie face scan) then they are happy for their child to use that account - then that's how it should be.
No need to ban it completely for under 16s.
Parents choice and their responsibility in my opinion 🙂

I think there are ways around children just lying about their dob. I had to approve my child to use fifa account the other day. It took a video of my face and did an age verification that way. The technology is there to do this

Given the correct and sensible uses my kids have for their smart phone in a large city, I can confidently say they would be less safe if they were confiscated.
Being about to program and edit routes for transportation does not work on a paper map.
They are developing their independence utilising something they will use regularly as an adult. Not all kids are watching illegal content.

Yes we absolutely should ban it. We know it’s damaging children. Nobody seems to be disputing that as fact. Just so many saying it’s too hard to do. Australia have done it and good for them. There will be a way. A few people will always break any law, but that’s not a reason not to have the law…

Best get off MN then!

😂

Except of course, the law is children CAN drink small amounts of alcohol at home from age 5. Parents CHOOSE not to play their kids with alcohol because a) it might trigger a referral from social services for broader issues b) because they suddenly have a backbone on this issue because of social pressure.

It's such bollocks to say 'oh well I don't want my child to be the one bullied for not being on social media', when a huge amount of the bullying is now done VIA social media! It makes no sense as an argument.

Parents find plenty of ways to absolve themselves of the responsibility on this, and pass the buck because they are too spineless to say no on their own accord. They absolutely can do something without following all the other leemings off a cliff if they want. They just don't want to be seen as 'the mean parent' because too many parents want to be their kid's friend not parent now.

We should bring back Zammo and restart a new 'Just say no' campaign for the Grange Hill generation...

Banning social media accounts, sure.

Banning smartphones is a daft idea, though.

I agree that it would be much better for kids if they did not have access to social media, or maybe even to smartphones. But it's naïve to think that a law against it would be enforceable.

What we need is a general move away from scrolling. We can't tell kids not to do what adults do the whole time.

It would be impossible to enforce. You don't even need a phone for social media, you could access it on another device. Under 16s would just lie about their dob like they do now.

Whilst it would be hard to officially enforce, it may more easily empower parents to be able to say no. And the more parents that say no, the less kids are on it, reducing that horrible feeling that your kid is the only one missing out on talking to their friends.

This. I get the argument that it would be hard to enforce but I can’t see it making anything but a positive change and a push in the right direction.

I would support a social media ban for under 16s wholeheartedly. It's a bloody scourge on society.

would have been a good idea some maybe 20 years ago. now that horse has bolted

@RedHelenB and not everyone died in car crashes before the seat belt was implemented, doesn't mean it wasn't needed and doesn't help.

You can't turn back time. Mine had smartphones from age 11, they've all grown up fine with an education, jobs, hobbies, friemds that they see.

But surely you could say that about lots of things which are already banned for under 16s/18s. Alcohol, gambling, smoking, could all be left for parents to manage without any actual “laws”. I think banning social media for under 16s would help to protect more children whose parents need more reason to say no to their children.

This isn’t about phones, it’s about parenting.

I think while it would be difficult to police, having an outright ban on smart phones for under 16s would give some parents the strength they need to refuse to give their children one. I think so many parents don't want their kids on social media but also don't want their kid to be bullied for being the only one not on social media or the only one without the latest phone. If everyone backed the bill and switched to giving "dumbphones" to teenagers, I think this would be a very welcome initiative.