Why do people want teens on social media??

I have an autistic 7 year old DS. He does find screens regulating, but I still think it’s my duty as a parent to ensure that he isn’t reliant on them and has other regulation strategies at his disposal. It’s also limited to ‘low stimulation’ viewing material, such as the old Disney films (he loves Lady and the Tramp!) rather than the quicker, short form stuff like Paw Patrol.

That’s a good point re age of account. I only use FB for a group for a club one of my DDs is in nowadays, but my account is around 20 years old so I wonder if they’ll ask for ID to prove I’m old enough to be on there!

Completely agree. My ADHD DS is now 17 and he is the one least addicted to his phone. I think he realised the impact it had on his mental health and it disregulated him.

To regulate ADHD - no screens especially in the morning, exercise, reading….

Yes I thought WhatsApp had been included but may have assumed or misread, or possibly the article I read mentioned it and then updated with a correction. The Gov's press release from yesterday specifically says "We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." - so fair enough :)

I use WhatsApp almost exclusively on my laptop but I had to connect it to a phone via QR code to do so, I've not used Signal - I don't know if that requires a phone number to work. (I also use TikTok in the same way as opening it on a phone anywhere public is a bit stressful if I've forgotten to zero the volume, I've bookmarked my own profile page so nothing autoplays).

AFAIK Google Docs doesn't require a phone number (though I'm sure they'd ask new sign-ups to share it) but my account is well over the age of 16 itself anyway!

Jo

No, WhatsApp isn’t included. Yes, lots of bullying and inappropriate behaviour happens over WhatsApp (hence my kids don’t have it). It’s just a messaging service however, and you can’t really ban people from communicating with each other.

That’s literally a function of government- to protect children and ban harmful behaviour.

Do you think it’s up to you if you child drinks alcohol in a pub for example? Or takes drugs?

100%

There really wasn’t this level of deregulation 20 years ago, the vast majority of children functioned typically in most environments, including school.

I honestly believe a huge contributing factor to the SEN crisis is the sheer number of parents taking the easy way out and justifying leaving their 7/8/9 year old alone with an iPad for hours because ‘they need to self regulate’.

You’re so right. As an adult I’ve started to limit my time on social media as I was finding it draining and was wasting hours of time doom scrolling! My mood has been much brighter since avoiding them! As an adult I have the capacity to make that decision whereas children just get drawn in and don’t realise the effect it has.
We have huge increases in child MH problems and I think social media plays its part in this! Back in the 80’s if you were being bullied it began and ended with the school day now bullies can keep going 24/7!! I’m all for keeping children off social media as long as possible!

This is interesting, I thought the guardian reported yesterday that WhatsApp was included in the ban? Certainly in our local schools bullying has happened in whastapp groups.

This too

My 12 yo with ADHD is kept off YouTube and anything with reels, including tiktok, as well as other social media.

It makes a noticeable difference to behaviour when he’s got access to reels.

I think the ban is a great start.

More needs to be done of course both in terms of educating people re the dangers, imprisoning dangerous criminals, etc but it’s a start.

Just banning it does raise parental awareness and starts to put a taboo around giving kids access to social media which is a good thing imo.

Part of me feels using YouTube etc is part of the reason that children can’t self regulate! If flashy colourful videos are being used it’s not relaxing it’s raising adrenaline! How much more calming is a story book and time with a known adult, to co regulate with breathing techniques, cosy blankets soft toys a puzzle or colouring books!

They should do this too!

I may be unnecessarily concerned, and I may be being paranoid; but I think the actual reality of what the government (not this particular one then, granted) did during covid lockdown could be a potential harbinger of how we could end up if we just sleepwalk into it.

I was actually genuinely worried about whether I could fall foul of what was allowed and - maybe more to the point - tacitly 'approved'. Especially at first, when nobody knew how hardline the government was going to be, I left my phone at home in case it would be tracked (I know it is by default, but I mean actively) and the proof of my movements used against me. I wasn't going on a bank heist or to strike a county lines drug deal - I was going to Asda for groceries.

Self-appointed neighbourhood spies were watching people, shouting at them, disapproving stares, threatening to (and actually) reporting people for what they thought they might have done wrong. Key workers off to the hospital for the night shift (I heard of one who even had her tyres slashed); people out for a walk or run for more than an hour (which was arbitrarily decided by many as the 'limit'); anything that possibly 'looked suspicious' according to some busybody was criticised and the authorities informed.

This wasn't 1940s Germany; it wasn't even modern-day China; it was the English Midlands in 2020.

UK already has a very bad track record of dealing with criminals when they actually catch them. Sleazy adults need to be put in prison, but instead they get "let out into the community", most likely to re-offend. A weak criminal system is also contributing to harmful online content. Improving this will be more effective than a ban on kids.

When DS and mates did it it was before they all got phones and more accesses - which tends here to be at secondary - and they managed to realised and do it for a while with no one realising.

They found the work round well before any adults realised.

No it doesn't, how ridiculous. Asking companies to show two sides isn't impacting free speech it's allowing people to get a balanced view. If you are fed information without an opposing view you start to live in an echo chamber. Algorithms feed that divisive nonsense.

I also don't think banning porn or extreme violence to under 16s is impinging on anyone's autonomy either. Companies could do a lot more.

Yesterday evening I attended the online stream of danah boyd's talk and she mentioned that Google Docs wasn't included in the ban - which suggests the possibility that young people can chat freely there (just needs one person with a Gmail account to create a blank doc, share its link and make it editable (example - type something nice there)). Possibly not that many children or teens actually use Google Docs but perhaps that will change.

DS and his mates found that out in primary school. School had previously introduced road blocks which we weren't keen on then decide chat feature wasn't as regulated as claimed and banned it - and DS and his mates used now to chatting did this - don't remember the specifics and there was no poor behavior from the boys but school was very bemused when they realised and even DH in field hadn't realised it was possible.

They wouldn’t need to use Google docs, they can just use WhatsApp, iMessage etc. Messaging isn’t banned.

Because most people are inherently lazy and would rather let their children have unfettered access to social media rather than actually make an effort.

Why don’t they ban porn? No they like it too much…

“Who the hell do they think they are banning anything?”

…. the government.

Agree completely. Rn I don’t feel it’s the case. Mn is such a light weight incursion to privacy, just an email.

If the gov try to yield more control it’s a no thanks here.

About bloody time I say