AIBU to think banning social media for under-16s is a good idea?

The differences being?

All I’m saying is it shouldn’t be the government telling us what to do, they are our kids. my daughter is almost 14, she has some of the SM platforms which are very well policed by me, she has spot checks, she’s not allowed to be on her phone in her room after 9.30. Tbh 90% of the time when it kicks off on one of her what’s app groups she comes to tell me the gossip anyway, and her best friend always gives me the low down too. Thankfully my daughter has a good group of friends and they are always bigging each other up on any posts, not tearing each other down. Shes never behind on homework. And she has a better social life than me, she’s off out on about 10 different trips/parties and gatherings in the next month. Not everyone’s kids are addicted to social media or the phones.

That won’t work.
Let’s say your child is revising for maths mocks. Videos tend to be 2 minutes snippets. depending on how you are doing, you watch the next ones. easily 15-20 videos in a revision session . Unless you literally stand next to your teen, they won’t be able to access
The only solution is something like a “school section” that gives blanket access to things like Corbett Maths eyc

Or one of them!

Hopefully it will make those irresponsible parents think again. My children are too young for me to have to do anything yet. My eldest is 8 and does not have access to YouTube, will never have Roblox and I’m glad now that I won’t be the only parent not getting him a smart phone. Parents can put all the ‘protections’ on platforms like Roblox but they don’t actually stop the harmful material getting through.

I can’t say I’ve seen any computers apart from laptops sold with webcams these days I actually like the fact we don’t have any another safer thing for children online no webcams.

I do agree that everytime would likely be required but I don’t see platforms wanting to be bothered so will likely give a flash us your face once and be done with it to fit gov rules.

And yes, I think checking each time might be viable.

I've only just started thinking about this so the idea isn't fully fledged. But off the top of my head it seems plausible that this is actually a very powerful solution.

Eg an adult could allow a child access for an individual video they wanted to watch... and then when the session expires the child no longer has access until the next time the adult allows the child.

Every computer I've had for the last 10+ years has had a webcam.

And this is to access social media accounts, not make a doctor's appointment. If you want certain restricted social media apps, use the piece of tech with a camera. They're hard enough to avoid!

Usually I'm very hot on digital exclusion issues, but at first glance I don't think this is one.

I am broadly in favour but I think the bigger issue is about how the platforms work - the addictive nature of them and the way they suggest content. Hopefully the government's full response to the consultation in July will address that and the EU is also looking at it for its proposed Digital Fairness Act which will be published in the autumn.

In the olden days you used to follow people and organisations and you saw their posts on your feed. I don't want to get irrelevant or offensive content suggested to me. Neither do I want to see a million videos of guinea pigs because I looked at one video, cute though they are.

That wouldn’t work for people on computers though unless they had a webcam.

Also are we proving our selfs once to create an account or are we proving everytime we log in?

Because just once will see a lot of people let’s face it just scan a face for their child and be done with it thinking not much more of it. Child with a sibling that’s over 16 scanning their face or tbh even their ID for little siblings mates and so on.

If you don’t store the data to prove it’s that person it’s pointless proof. Just that Joan looked at her phone one day 6 months ago to sign up to Mumsnet. Doesn’t mean Joan’s the one using that account.

The UK is proposing much harsher legislation than Australia enacted.

I was concerned about age bans because of the issues around digital ID, as described by many PP.

But a potential fix has occurred to me. I've no idea if it's likely to work well – if it has possibilities I'm sure the tech companies have also thought of it.

The age-verification model we're discussing on this thread is to identify the user of the website by name (or pseudonym) and then compare that name to a database somewhere containing their DoB.

But that's not the only way to do it.

Smartphones typically use facial ID to unlock, and the data never leaves the machine. It's not stored anywhere else.

Surely it would be possible to build facial-age-recognition software which keeps the data on the machine and then sends a token to the website, to state the current user is of permitted age?

Only approved software would be able to give the token, and there would always be people for whom it didn't work well. But I think this has possibilities to identify someone to a website as of permitted age, without needing to identify them as an individual to the website or to the government.

Digital ID plummeted in support after Starmer announced it.

The truth is no one knows which sites will or will not be restricted, but I would have thought there's a good chance MN would be considered SM and may be included.

Yes a VPN would allow a user to "appear" to be in another country that may not require age verification, of course MN could decide to make age verification mandatory for all users.

Judging by the reactions so far today, this isn't going to be a vote winner like KS thought it would be. (insert U-turn here)

The one parent I know who wants to "protect" her child by not letting her have a phone tries to insist all her child's friends have the parents phone number in their phone and message the parent to arrange social events. I have made it clear how unacceptable this is and banned DD from having non family member adults as phone contacts. But it tells me what a weird and distorted view the "phone ban" parents have.

What my 13 year old did with his smartphone on friday:

• we are rural- no phone reception at school, at the station, on the train
• tree on the rail, his normal train didn’t run. no direct trains for the rest of the day. There is no phone reception at the station.
• took his smartphone, logged onto station wifi, figured out he could take a train to a different town and catch another train from there
• went on the train, which promptly broke down between two tiny stations. Finally made it into a tiny station. Still no phone reception.
• Figured out that there was a bus leaving a 10 min walk from that station. used the train wifi to get a map and walk to the bus stop.
• Kept me up to date the whole time.
• Got on the bus home, walked the last 15 min. he had phone reception for the last 20 minutes.

Can anybody answer these questions for me please

1. Does this ID requirement apply to bog standard web forums for example mumsnet?
2. Can the requirement to verify age be avoided with a VPN?

I have no interest in releasing any more personal data than I absolutely have to.

The ban helps support parents that want to protect their children.

Parents can easily protect their children without government legislation. It’s very straightforward. Monitor their phone use, set up phones etc with a good level of protection, and say no to certain apps and gaming sites. It requires a bit of effort, but is nothing that any parent shouldn’t be doing already. If parents are unhappy with certain social media sites, why haven’t they already stopped their children from accessing them? Why haven’t they waited for the government to tell them what to do?

The ban will not stop children being able to look at others’ phones because the more irresponsible parents and children will bypass any age restriction anyway.

I have a very grumpy 13 year old who rightly points out he’s just making animations and wants to share them with the world.

Also that he has mates who look physically 17 and so would pass a visual test.

(poor lad looks still like some 10 yr olds do!)

yes probably.

city based schools.

Actually they’ve all apparently clamped right down on phones. One is trialling an absolute ban on any sort of smartphone coming near school at all from y7. They’re all encouraging brick phones. (I know both teachers and parents with kids at a few of the different schools)

But then your daughter could show her friends harmful content. The ban helps support parents that want to protect their children.

I’m happy about it. Hopefully more parents will have a backbone now and not buy smartphones for their children.

Says someone living in a city, with a school in walking distance.
For rural schools (read: no mobile phone signal, public transport to school), a smartphone is absolutely necessary. Your brickphone is useless to let your parents know the train stopped unexpectedly (again) at a tiny station in the middle of nowhere and you need picking up. There is no mobile phone signal anywhere between school and your home train station.
There is however free wifi on the train, so you can actually message your parents and drop a pin to show where you are (as the station you are currently stuck at and will be for the next hours is not one your train was even supposed to stop).

I'm actually pro Digital ID, provided it's well considered and implemented.

But I don't think the Government are being honest about its real purpose or benefits.

I think the ban is good but I also think that a ban on smart phones for under 16’s should also rolled out. A simple dumb phone is all children need.