Why do people want teens on social media??

I think internet access via ID is inevitable, looking at the direction it's all going.

Get the companies to actually do something about their algorithms, inappropriate content, perverts, radicalisation. It isn't going to be solved by banning teenagers.

I don't allow social media for my children so it isn't going to impact them but it's just putting a plaster over a deep wound. We need to hold these companies to account. We have the technology to do so they just don't want to.

Like in the lockdowns? 😷

Of course people won't stop using it, but I think many could use it more hesitantly and discriminatingly. Something that's convenient, familiar and accessible may be seen as less so and viewed as less of a central go-to facet of their lives.

If it's your bank or email, then of course people expect to have to ID and verify themselves to access; but if it's just a way of passing time or satisfying a random curiosity (e.g. you see somebody on TV and are trying to think what else you've seen her in), you may just not bother. I already do that with sites that demand you go through and individually decline hundreds of cookies: I either find an alternative site or just don't bother.

By way of analogy, presumably because of mass shoplifting, my local branch of Sainsbury's Local now puts much of the slightly more expensive products in massive transparent plastic boxes; and they have these other weird plastic barriers on the shelves, so you have to reach your hand in and around to try to grab stuff, rather than it being right there in front of of you to simply reach out and take. I've never shoplifted anything; but because of all the added security faff, even though the items are still there and available to buy as they were before, I just can't be bothered with it if it's an impulse-style buy and not something that I really need, so I ignore it. I realise they want to protect their profits, and they have every right to do so; but to me as a customer, their store is now much less attractive to me, so I spend considerably less there than I used to.

Similarly, the whole idea of speed bumps is to slow people down and discourage them from using certain roads. You can still use the roads (although you may end up having to prematurely replace your exhaust), but their very presence makes you stop and consider whether you actually want to bother. I lived in a flat for a year where I was 8 flights of stairs up, with no lift. The stairs were strong and perfectly functional - and I was young and wasn't even disabled back then - but that factor meant that I nipped out for a few minutes far less than I would have done had I been on the ground floor. To be honest, even if there had been a lift, I would have been less inclined to bother as much.

I agree with this, except I don't know much about things in China.

We don't have a say on the law anyway, and the crowds will be howling "protect our children!!!".

Can you link to the law?
I thought it was just at proposal stage at the moment?

No, I haven't read the 'law' - because it doesn't exist. The government proposes to introduce regulations by the end of the year. The regulations have not been drafted yet.

Thanks, I'll have a look at Australian regulations though ours may be different, they only say "model", not particular details.

If you are not logged in it is MUCH harder to access inappropriate and damaging content

It's exactly the opposite.

How social media companies age-verify their users will be up to them. The fact sheet says that OFCOM will come up with a list of acceptable methods, but the implementation will be down to the social media companies themselves.

Yes, it's authoritarian government control AND corporate harvesting. Our state is merging with techno bros, the state helps them do business, they help the state control the plebs. Isn't it nice.

How social media companies age-verify their users will be up to them. The fact sheet says that OFCOM will come up with a list of acceptable methods, but the implementation will be down to the social media companies themselves

If so, @SadiraOfTyr, then even leaving aside the issue of irresponsible parenting there won't be a hope in hell of this working - not least because the cost of any fines will be eclipsed by the ongoing profits to be made

As always the devil's in the detail, and while the push factor may be worthwhile it remains to be seen whether this will become more than a headline

Have you read the law? It means exactly what I said.

The ban will affect all sites where you can talk to other people. It includes mumsnet. This will be the start of mission creep. Next will be "look the ban isnt working. You will all need a digital I.D to use the Internet so your use can be monitored so we can stop kids using social media" and people like you will say "thays fine, think of the children"

You need to extrapolate - it starts with banning kids. Where does it end? Who has your data. Companies spend fortunes getting your data, now they get it for free.

Once the infrastructure is there, it's not going to magically disappear if you change your mind.

You missed the bit where the law says we will also have to submit weekly DNA samples and have RFID chips implanted in our arses before we are allowed to play Angry Birds.

Most people who are parents of teens now will not be old enough to have had access to social media when they themselves were under 16. This can lead in some cases to an ignorance of the dangers. (Though in other cases it probably leads people to see SM as more dangerous than it really is.)

And there have always been parents who think children should be treated just like adults. Showing 18 certificates to their 8-year-olds etc. Ironically such adults are probably themselves rather immature and childish.

The internet is a lot more than social media (which many adults do not use anyway). You think people are going to stop online banking or streaming netflix because they have to verify their age to access X? Give over.

Well, in that official fact sheet, they say "We plan to use the same model for a social media ban as Australia. Their model included platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X." It's not especially conclusive and easy to follow, when you begin with "We'll have what they're having".

And they call it 'social media', but then start talking about YouTube - which is television, not social media; so they're banning some social media (maybe all? They haven't mentioned whether certain currently-established less-popular platforms are included) but they're also banning some television - or will it be all of it, except things like iPlayer and ITVx (which also include some content that is very much adults only)?

So if we take them at their word that YouTube will indeed be banned for U16s, does that include Rumble, Vimeo, DailyMotion and all the other many platforms where you can upload and watch video content - or will the kids just have to move to one of those; or wait for somebody to set up a new one if those are all blocked too? What about other sites that can't just be categorised simply, but which allow multimedia and many different kinds of content?

What about Reddit? That's a cesspool too - and extremely mainstream and popular - but I haven't seen a single mention of it in any of the reports. Then what about Quora? There's loads of extremely inappropriate content on Wikipedia too - just because it's presented in a matter-of-fact style, it doesn't mean that it's suitable for minors. In fact, you only need to go on Google to find EVERYTHING - lots of great stuff, lots of neutral stuff and lots of extremely harmful stuff. We'd need to ban Google and every other search engine. Where does it end?

Will we end up with the whole internet banned for under 16s/18s - possibly with a few approved sandboxed sites, like they do in China? It reminds me of the time it went viral that a school in Sussex auto-blocked its own school website as unsuitable for their students, because of the last three letters of their county name.

This all just smacks of Fr Ted & Fr Dougal standing nervously in the street with their sign saying "Down with this sort of thing!"

From the fact sheet:

"We plan to use the same model for a social media ban as Australia. Their model included platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X. "

The Australian model imposes a duty on social media companies to only issue accounts to those 16 and over. It does NOT prevent those under 16 from accessing youtube (for example) as an un-logged in user. Or from accessing it via the family TV that is logged in using a parents account. If you are not logged in you cannot post content and it is MUCH harder to access inappropriate and damaging content - which at the end of the day is what the 'ban' is supposed to achieve.

How social media companies age-verify their users will be up to them. The fact sheet says that OFCOM will come up with a list of acceptable methods, but the implementation will be down to the social media companies themselves.

Over 6 billion people—roughly 73% of the global population—use the internet every day. Of course this new law isn't going to kill the internet. Absolute bollocks.

Perhaps not kill it, but I think a large proportion of adults will stop using the internet as they don't want to show ID. So older adults probably, and ones who are sceptical of these changes. In other words, how to create online "forums" that only have 1 viewpoint.

Kill the internet and return things to offline conversation though? That will be too much wishful thinking perhaps.

This law will mean every adult will.have to submit selfies on a daily basis to use the Internet. Every site where you can engage in communication with another person falls into the remit. Have you read the proposed law?

And I would never trust any of these verification companies to actually delete anything. Every selfie or I.D will.be stored and sold. You'd be an idiot to think your picture will be deleted. Selfie to log into mumsnet will mean your picture or I.D linked to your account.

Look, I just don't want (and I'm sure you don't either) 1984 to happen in this country. It does in others.

I don't believe you should control information for adults because of the very fact that someone needs to control it. And you can bet that someone who rises to the job is probably the very person you don't want for the job. Life is messy, you can't have freedom without loosing control.

Kill the internet? Most ridiculous thing I've read today. Yeah, I mean, no adults use the internet on a daily basis...

Your thinking is all over the place. Unfortunately there are far too many 'other parents' who do fuck all to protect their own children from social media, and it has had horrific consequences for some families who have tried to protect their children. That's why state intervention is now needed.

The world has changed in the ways you describe because too many people have stood back and done nothing to stop those harmful changes happening. So people decide to do something about it and all you can say is "there's no going back"? You'll be right if you just accept it all as inevitable. Well, you do you. There are a lot of extremely concerned parents and families who are willing to try something to make a better, safer world for their children.

And those companies? They get away with "lack of safety and accountability" because parents like you don't tell them 'no' loud enough.

I wont be either. This law will kill the internet. I wonder if mumsnet HQ will respond?