Why do people want teens on social media??

The whole sen argument for smartphones is such a red herring. My dd is autistic and they hadn’t been invented, but we went to restaurants, did activities, lived and she self regulated by other non screen based activities

Yes but it involves effort, @hahabahbag, and it's so much easier to just plonk them down with a device and produce some psychobabble about how it's doing them good

FWIW I'm another who dislikes state intervention in what should be private, but with the damage being caused it's got beyond that and "guidance" around parenting is never going to reach those who simply can't be bothered

That said, and with the difficulties of policing, I'm not convinced it'll ever amount to much more than a grabby headline, so in the end it may come down to the gradual realisation - already happening in many cases - that lobotomising kids with screens really isn't the answer

In some cases they regulated by self harming

in other words, it will not be effective. There's numbers that indicate most kids in Australia still have access to SM.

Societies only function when they believe in the same things - even if they are fictional like the rule of law, limited companies, countries, religion (and these are all made up by people).
You need to regulate, of course. Stupid people doing stupid shit all over the world, from the Taliban to the pedophiles - people are not innately good.
You’re either believing in different things and fighting or believing in similar and cooperating.

Banning YouTube for kids will bring on two things - YouTube improving and cleaning the content for children, or a child friendly video platform will replace it. We cannot just say oh the occasional disgusting video on there is fine as long as we get the educational ones. You have to ask for better to get it.

It doesn't stop anyone from hacking. Also facial recognition doesn't always work. Adults may look younger, kids older. They're going to end up with digital ID.

Agree. I think we will all look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking. And I think in future years there will be even more stricter laws and age limits.

I wonder what Mumsnet are thinking about this? They can't come out and say they are against the ban (can they?) but having to ID to use Mumsnet would massively affect their audience.
It would cut down on bad faith actors and trolls of course, but I wouldn't be here to see that myself either.

Sorry I didn't rtft but where is this info from? The regulations are not published yet.

I cannot see any mention of "ban on setting up SM accounts" in the official fact sheet
The wording is "From Spring 2027, under‑16s will no longer be able to use certain social media."
"Use" is a general term that may include pretty much any access.
The fact sheet also reads that adults will have to provide their data.

I'm not sure anyone does - more worried about the details of what and how TBH.

I do think tech companies could have headed this off with action on their end.

Also the impact will vary - some teens will live in areas with little to do and may not find the wholesome activies many MN seem to predict others will get round and maybe find worse stuff - it really does depend on implementation.

I do think there an authoritarian bent with this government - which is worrying so can can see why there are concerns here as well - but again depends on what banned and how enforced.

I also find it worrying number of parents who seem to think policing on-line stuff is not their role - sure government can and look like it's trying to help - but ultimately it is on parents to say no.

I'm hearing a fair bit of "this is an outrage" from some quarters but what I'm not hearing is what they would do instead.

I've heard "parents need to parent" which is obvious, but it's also obvious far too many parents don't.

So what should be done instead? Practical suggestions from the outraged please...

They dont. This ban will.affect adults more than children. You will have to spend your life sending your selfie or I.d to companies you have never heard of and trust they are legitimate and wont get hacked. When this ban comes in you will have to submit a selfie or your I.d to use mumsnet as its considered to be social media under the act. They dont want teens online, they want to protect their identity online and not have to take a selfie to search the Internet.

If it's not a real ban, what are you griping about?

I think the problem is in the reporting.

Government: "We will investigate banning social media companies from offering individual accounts to under-16s, following the successfully introduced Australian model."

Media: "Government to ban under-16s from watching youtube!"

Yup, this is it, It's not just social media, but that at least is a start to recognising the massive, permanent harms being done to kids. Maybe we will also start to see screens in schools being controlled for children.

A good friend of mine recently returned from many years teaching in an country where kids live in serious poverty and there are real social problems due to poverty in the homes, including substance abuse. She is now teaching here. She is shocked, seriously shocked and alarmed at the behaviour she sees from the children, the lack of involvement by the parents who are addicts themselves, and also the fact that the kids academics have tanked. The kids in the poverty striken 3rd world were better behaved and achiving more academically.

You hope people don't need laws to not commit crimes, but unfortunately they do. Saying "they should know better" is a useless argument.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the feckless tech bros who want to make ££££ at any cost. They want all the profits and admit no responsibility. They made their products addictive and targeted our children. Be mad at them, not the government for trying to stop this.

Yes, I'm happy it's coming.
My kids are 11 and 6, they are not on SM, but I know lots of their friends are.
We are older parents, so SM didn't excite us. It's just not our thing, maybe we were simply too old to get sucked in when it's become a thing. So we're trying to shelter our kids.
Lots of bad thing are happening with regards to SM where I come from, just last month a 14-year old threw himself under the train due to online abuse. They're now banning completely mobiles at school till 14 y.o. and SM until 15 y.o. EU is working on a central age-verifying app that will be used in all EU countries, so big changes are coming.
To those who say to put responsibility on tech companies - they simply don't care. They have always prioritised money and they will continue doing so and nobody can make them change. That's why increasing numbers of countries are introducing bans, because begging and pleading with tech sector for the last 10 years hasn't worked.

And of course under-16s will be allowed to watch Youtube - they just won't be able to set up accounts in their own name.

Indeed. Which just goes to show what an absolute binfire this policy and its announcement is, when the government firmly announce that it is going to be 'banned', when they seem not to actually understand what that word means.

It's schrödinger's ban: it's definitely going to be banned, but it pretty much won't be banned at all.

Ah, I thought the law to increase it to 18 had already been passed but seems it is still in the consultation phase - apologies.

You've been told multiple times that youtube will not be banned for under-16s but you still insist on repeating this completely unfounded allegation - why is that?

All that will happen is that social media companies will not be permitted to offer accounts to under-16s. As you know, you do not need an account access youtube - it just means that the most potentially harmful features: chat, and algorithmic suggestions, are disabled.

So how do we respond to this? Do we just shut down the internet or ban people from going or seeing anything online until they're 18? Then will they be suddenly fully knowledgeable of the many benefits and dangers of the internet once they first use it on their 18th birthdays? CBeebies on iPlayer will see a dramatic downturn in viewership if only adults are allowed to watch it!

Do we scrap all motorways and dual carriageways, because some parents don't/won't/can't stop their kids running into them?

You can get married at 16 in Scotland.

You can't get married aged 16 in Scotland. And of course under-16s will be allowed to watch Youtube - they just won't be able to set up accounts in their own name.

I think this is pretty much the crux of it. In many cases the arguments against it are get-outs for parents who feel guilty, who are worried about losing social capital, or are themselves heavily invested in (and addicted to) social media. Screens are now the default for kids in every situation that might be a bit boring, or stressful, or tricky to navigate.

I also think that, as is so often the case, we are coming at things the wrong angle. Yes, social media can be harmful in itself and there is a huge amount of horrible content online, but almost the bigger issue for me is the sheer amount of screen time these kids are getting, the cynical built-in addictiveness of every aspect of these devices and the way their overuse detracts so much from young people developing vital skills in the real, offline world. I drove past several secondary schools at going home time the other day and virtually every single child I saw was glued to their phone. Some were walking in gaggles of two or three but none were interacting - there was barely any conversation or horse play or eye contact across several different schools, just kids staring at screens as they trudged along (narrowly missing being hit by cars in several cases). We can’t normalise this way of being or society as we recognise it will crumble entirely.

I don’t like Keir Starmer, but I’m delighted that my 8-year-old and her friends may enjoy a bit more protection against the relentlessness of the online world that the generation of kids before her.

Banning YouTube for kids is nuts. There's amazing stuff on there, and safe supervised.

@shinypen Yes. The problem is too many parents don't do the supervised bit.

But we don't prosecute dog owners who faithfully pick up after their dog every single time; or indeed people who don't have a dog, but could theoretically get one.

It's a dangerous precedent to set whereby we arrange everybody in society according to the same broad criteria and then automatically punish them all for what many of them never have and never would do. Apart from the unfairness, what actual incentive is there for people to make good, responsible choices if they're going to be treated from the outset with the assumption that they won't/can't anyway?

The blunderbuss approach helps nobody: we need to trust people to act acceptably and then swiftly help/punish those who show that they can't/won't.