Parliament considers ban on social media use for under 16s

[Errors]

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/uk-government-considering-banning-under-16s-from-social-media-464318

Australia have already announced a ban that should come in to effect around 12 months after the legislation goes through:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzd62g1r3o.amp

I for one think this is a great idea. I know there are many that will disagree with me. It seems to be well documented at this stage just how damaging social media can be on young children and drastic measures are needed

Yep, it’s as ludicrous as the Australian governments coming across

I would be very uncomfortable about that. Who's to say which comments are and are not appropriate? People re already being reported, harassed and fired for making very innocuous comments online.

I really hope they ban it. Having listened to the Anxious Generation, the evidence is undisputable that is screws up kids lives and this impact continues into adulthood with increased mental health issues especially for girls.

I agree with banning it but as others have said, probably difficult to enforce.

I think that SM can be very damaging to young people who lack maturity and experience (eg teens) and the damage that it can impliment is lasting.

Surely that’s a parents responsibility to though. Don’t punish everyone just because some parents aren’t responsible enough to monitor their usage. I speak as a mum of 3 who all grew up just as social media was starting and we all love technology and all 3 have grown up to have good relationships and good jobs. Never done them any harm and in fact like I said my youngest was basically saved by social media. It gave her access to people who were just like her and left her feeling less isolated. In fact she actually met her partner online and she’s now happier than she’s ever been. There’s nothing more my daughters love than family time. We spend a lot of time socialise with each other so it definitely didn’t stop them with other activities or family time

I think even putting out the debate will raise awareness of the dangers for young people on social media.
Agree it would be too hard to plenary unfortunately.

The fact that these bills target the internet and not the hardware is the problem, honestly. You can't region lock the internet. It's global, distributed and anonymous by design. You end up in a great firewall of China situation trying to control this end of the matter. It is the road to tyranny.

But you can region lock hardware because you need to be physically near your phone to use it. And given almost all (~85%) people already have contracts for their data and biometrics for their phones, there's already an identity system available.

We could break the network effect for children by drastically limiting access. Let me tell you, when almost no kids were online, it wasn't cool to be online. I was there, I was terminally online, and you will need no persuading to accept that I was not cool. 😂😭

Anyway, this is just to say when the UK government comes with these bills, this is how you can tell what their objectives actually are: what area they target. I think it's important to protect children from social media, just like I think it's important to protect children from driving cars. I also think this is actually possible in most cases, if we actually try to find a practicable solution.

They’re often not innocuous though are they? Anyway that wasn’t the point of the license really, that was a side note in that people may change their behaviour online for the greater good. They would be used for accessing content to check it is age appropriate for you.

I know, and I said I think a ban is a good idea in principle, but if everyone has to have photo I.D. linked to their profiles, then we're just going to get even more women being persecuted for calling a man a man, and other ridiculous stuff like that. Anonymity online is both one of the best and worst things about the internet, so I'm not really sure what I think, but I'm uncomfortable about accounts being linked with passports, for example!

Obviously I’m not or else I wouldn’t ask. Year 13? Weird.

Very slippery. Way too slippery.

I do understand why it would make people feel uncomfortable. I just don’t see how any of these laws can be enforced without making people have online ID.

Don’t agree with this at all. Apart from the obvious data privacy concerns:

1. Banning social media is an easy solution that avoids dealing with the real issue. Like it or not, we’re not in 2004 and it is here to stay. DC need to be taught how to use it safely and responsibly, and teachers and parents need resources and support to do this.
2. Social media as a tool in itself is not dangerous- the issue comes with how and what it is used to do. It can be a place for teens to discover communities that align with their interests and mine (now mid 20s) used it to stay in touch with friends and relatives abroad. It would make no sense to ban TVs for under 16s because it can be used to view porn, but that’s what’s being proposed with social media/
3. For me the idea of not allowing DC near social media for 16 years and then giving them free rein at a time when they are all gaining independence and freedom in other areas is a recipe for disaster.

By making it so the phones can't access the sites, I guess? Some more knowledgeable posters above seem to think it's possible.

If you're interested in this subject I highly recommend reading The Anxious Generstion by Jonathan Haidt. It's really interesting and well thought out.

Basic premise is that we're creating millions of highly anxious children because at the same time they are overprotected in real life (not allowed to play out unsupervised, always in clubs, lots of rules in the playground, not allowed to travel alone etc) they are seriously underprotected online. Social media is DESIGNED to hook you in and make you spend as much time as possible. These companies spend billions researching neuroscience to give them more od your attention.

I admit that I read it and was thinking that I'm pretty happy with the screen usage of my own DC and the controls Ive put around it. But we need to see the bigger picture. Yes, you might limit your own DC but millions of DC do have hours and hours of unsupervised time online and it does have an impact on society in general.

Social media is stealing our attention and our ability to focus. There have been many studies done showing that just having a mobile phone in your pocket (but never touching it) leads to worse concentration and worse results in a test than the participants who left their phones outside the test room.

I would welcome an under 16 ban, having read the book and seen the studies about the effect of SM on us.

I'd agree with this but no idea how they'd enforce it. The parents I know who have social media-addicted kids have either got no idea how to regulate or restrict the technology and find it really stressful to learn, or they're not bothered as the screen addiction keeps the kids out from under their feet.

I've left some social media sites now as I've noticed increasing numbers of minors producing content - on tiktok, it was kids as young as 7 or 8 year old "influencers" promoting skincare. I don't want to share social media space with children, it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I think it’s a great idea, and as someone pointed out, is similar to alcohol and smoking laws. You don’t catch everyone but it deters many.

It will provide a platform to conversations with young people on the subject. I would also hope it would go hand in hand with a national campaign informing parents how to use the tech controls available to them to support in limiting their child’s access

I highly recommend reading The Anxious Generstion by Jonathan Haidt.

And also watching the documentary The Social Dilemma. And if you can, get your kids to watch it too… (I have not succeeded so far)

I'm UK and still confused by the whole college conversation. People go to college from 16, 17, 18 ?

Mature student?

The current law is 13, so what 7 and 8 yos are doing on there is beyond me.

It's one thing saying kids shouldn't be on SM. But it's another making it stop.

It's up there with the kids playing 18 rated video games.

Completely pointless. What a waste of time. The horse has bolted.

Problems with bullying etc need to be approached in another way.

I don't think it's a waste of time trying to protect kids but I'm not sure how you get something that works.

Brilliant idea

I also think it should be classed as Child Neglect not to have effective safe search on children's devices thus knowingly exposing them to hardcore pornography.

I totally disagree that its a waste of time. I do agree that it will be hard. However if several populations (parents, teachers, government, tech companies) work together we can make a difference.

The book I mentioned earlier came up with some solutions already. Having a zero phone policy in schools makes a huge difference (not just a zero phone policy in class). As does allowing more free play during school and after school.

So because it already exists and children already have access and are already being damaged by it, we may as well leave it?

Did you think the same about banning smoking in cars where children are present because ‘the horse has already bolted’?