Why do people want teens on social media??

It depends what is imposed on adults to achieve it. As people will push back on that if it’s too onerous.

A few posts saying it’s only in app facial recognition and others that it’s passport linked or digital ID.

I dont agree the ban is a state overreach. It's a public health issue. The state has for a very long time imposed bans for things that are unsafe for our physical health, so what's the difference here? I am so grateful for the ban. People requesting that it should be a safer place online rather than an outright ban can't possibly see how that can actually be a acheived?! A ban is the easiest, most effective way of handling what is a crisis.

Well they have in this case!

Yes because the government always listens to what the people want.

Given the UK model is going to be based on the Aus model which is currently enforced and does not require a digital ID, nor do the current porn age verification requirements which are in place in the UK there’s literally nothing to suggest it’s about bringing in a digital ID.
These same age checks are currently in place for other platforms, it’s just being expanded to social media.

9/10 adults who responded to the survey said they wanted a full ban. Surely it would have been remiss off the government to ignore that and not implement one?

The government are not doing this because they care about our children. If you think that I suggest you read the rape gang enquiry report and see how the children who were being cared for by the authorities were treated. It’s a way to implement digital ID, nothing else matters to this government and certainly not your children’s welfare.

I don't think it's state over reach. The goverment did actually consult the public - every single one of us was free to fill that consultation with our responses and thoughts.

Labour collected the data and then implemented what the majority of people wanted from that data.

9 in 10 people who responded to the survey wanted a full ban. The survey ran for 2 months and took about 15 mins to complete.

14,000 respondants were children themselves aged 10-21yrs and they wanted tighter controls.

news.sky.com/story/majority-of-young-people-want-better-online-protections-according-to-results-of-major-government-consultation-13553641

I can't really see how the government could have done it any fairer or more transparently

Although this is aimed at teens I know many adults who are mentally screwed because of their relationship with social media. And I hear even crazier stories of adults that are lured into doing dumb things abroad.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. I don’t want have to provide ID because some people are dumb. They’ll still be dumb.

While I agree that it’s a state over reach, I wish this could have been done earlier. As it stands my DD will be 15 when it kicks in. If we could have avoided the severe bullying she received for two years daily in secondary school, multiple girls telling her to kill herself daily then much trauma could have been avoided. But that was via WhatsApp, which isn’t going to be affected. I do really hope this saves many kids who would be faced with the same. Some kids just join the class or year WhatsApp and are ruined by the things that are said. They’ve done nothing wrong. These vile teens just want a target. It’s too late for us but I hope it won’t be with this now for kids in future.

Social media are known to increase all sorts of mental health issues in teenagers (and probably afults too tbh!). It has killed teenagers too ( some commiting suicide after being bullied or traumatised online. some being murdered). It makes sexual exploitation way too easy. In short, there's nothing good about it. Like there's nothing good in cigarettes either. The government is phasing out the sale of cigarettes so my children won't ever be able to poison their lungs with them. I'm very happy about it. It's much bigger than just "parenting ". It's an epidemic in our society. I'm actually very shocked at reading how people think it's a 'nanny state" sort of issue. It's our kids' well being and happiness at play. All of our kids.

Agreed

They don't want to say no to their kids when their kids say "all my friends use it".

So if the government says no, they can blame the government.

It's like allowing kids to play 18 rated games when they are much younger - or letting them have a console at all because they will allegedly be left out if they don't have one. Gaming is a massive problem as well as social media.

As I said yesterday on another thread, I generally think it's a good thing but I think more needs to be done about addictive technologies and the way the platforms recommend posts. The advent of AI is creating a whole new ballgame as well. The government has mentioned AI bots in the press release but only in the context of "romantic" ones (I think).

I also don't think it's going to solve the online bullying as the kids will just send each other nasty messages instead.

Absolutely. It's what happened in COVID that has made me extremely wary of state interference. People and authorities behaved exactly as you say - either genuinely mistaken as to what the rules were, or interpreting the rules far too harshly. But it was the government attempting to silence prominent people who disagreed with their approach that has me most concerned about this proposed new law. Even if you think the current government is fairly benign and is introducing this with honest intentions, future, currently unknown governments might not be.

Surely I can't be the only one wondering why, if 90% of parents recognise the potential dangers of SM for teens to the extent that they support a givernment ban, there's a need for a ban in the first place?

I mean, 10% of teens being harmed by SM is still a very considerable and concerning number; but all of the rhetoric around this ban has been predicated on SM being pretty much endemic in harming teenagers... so does this mean that most of these parents who are fiercely in favour of a ban are only bothered insofar as the government do it all for them and it doesn't trouble them at all as parents?

Some (a minority, given 90% parents support the ban) could try and circumnavigate the ban. Many will be relieved that the peer pressure is over and enforce it.

Some parents buy their kids booze to circumnavigate the law but doesn't mean we should not bother with it.

Yes - this is what I was trying to say. It’s not regulation it’s distraction,

ADHD is a disregulation of dopamine - screens steal dopamine. Other things such as nature, books, exercise boost dopamine and are therefore more regulating.

I’m not sure screens are regulating for children with ADHD. Even if we think they are. There are other things that are better for regulating them.

Exactly that!! It's a stimulating distraction not a calming coping mechanism.

My autistic DC used to get really emotional and angry whenever we told him to come off YouTube or we blocked it on his phone or the timer ran out. Even he said recently that he was a ruder child when he was allowed YouTube.

So how is the ban going to change that? Do you think the same parents who do not parent are going to suddenly follow this restriction? No they will carry on as they were slightly inconvenienced initially by needing to pretend a device is the parents rather than the child.

There are more important things for the government to focus on and spend money on.