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

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

Indeed. This has been a massive social experiment, we are making new discoveries all the time about the impact of the internet (and SM especially) on our brains, particularly young developing brains. Also the use of smartphones is changing all the time, with kids being given phones younger and younger and new apps being invented or becoming fashionable or being used in new more harmful ways.

As per the famous quote: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

This - so well said!!

I'm pro technology. Always will be. I don't deny there are serious issues but they need dealing with by parents.

The world has changed and we can't turn the clock back. We need to work with how things are now.

Making phones more illicit is just going to make everything more enticing for children. Just accept it's part of life and establish limits and boundaries. I managed it with my kids.

I agree with this.

I also think the world has moved on so far that smart phones are almost essential these days. Travel tickets, rail cards, loyalty cards, concert tickets etc are frequently only digital. Stations no longer display timetables. For knowing DCs who use public transport either for school or socially, smart phones are an important tool that they need to learn to use appropriately.

No one is banning smart phones. They're suggesting limiting access to social media. Not limiting access to apps with your travel card on etc.

Social media is not being banned because of access to porn either its the addictive nature of it stealing our attention. It has been proven in numerous studies to seriously affect our teens and their rates of anxiety and depression. Their ability to communicate in real life. Their feelings of self worth and usefulness in life.

Plenty of free vpns around that they will use to circumvent the restrictions.

Basically Australians will face punishment for saying anything negative about anyone online. We won’t be allowed to call our politicians a bunch of dickheads. That’s bloody unAustralian.

@FeralWoman would the negative comments ban also include mumsnet?

They would only get around geoblocks though.

Also, never underestimate the power of a government to ban VPNs - or just tell the public that only terrorists and paedoes use them.

Shame there isn't any real honesty here about the main factor against these moves, and that is the amount of money these platforms make from allowing under 18s/16s to use them.

Many years ago, I noted that there was no law that required telecom operators (originally just BT) to block premium rate numbers as standard and require the subscriber to opt-in to them (and the services they provided). When I got involved in trying to change that, I met a couple of executives who were quite open about how much their "business model" relied on children dialling 0898 numbers and racking up bills for the parent to pay.

So be aware of who and what you are fighting here. All these platforms will lose revenue if restrictions are put in place.

Where has it been proven that anxiety in teens is completely down to social media?

There are tons of other things affecting teens too, drugs, sexual identity, exam pressure, financial pressure, uni isn't cheap. Low income kids with little hope of uni can't really see themselves being able to get beyond a minimum wage job.

A generation ago had more options for avoiding uni, even if it was a peanuts paying YTS, and there was hope for buying a house on the average wage.

I'll also add to that list the pandemic and kids getting self isolated / locked up in bedrooms for 2 weeks at a time for being near someone with covid.
That must have had an affect on teens, particularly teens who were 1st / 2nd year of secondary, who are now 5th / 6th year.

But putting the blame of anxiety onto phones and SM is an easy get out and look we've done something.

The people I know with SM-addicted kids are all parents of kids under 10 - they won't all be producing content, of course, but they're accessing it.

The fact that it's illegal and happening already kind of proves the point, really - this is unenforceable.

There is no law preventing under 13 year olds from accessing social media, these are policies by the social media provider whatsapp is 16.

The law that exists is a data protection one that sites shouldn't store information from under 13 year olds, however the user will confirm that they over 13 when signing up.

what is it that's confusing you? Sorry if I've misunderstood, but hopefully the following explains!

'College' is the alternative to Sixth Form.. Sixth Form's are usually attached to schools who also run the secondary years from 7-11, so would class as yr 12/13.

Colleges are separate institutions that usually offer post secondary education as students must stay in education until 18, but quite often will also offer further education for adults alongside.

University is from age 18+ as you can't usually attend until you have achieved A levels or equivalent at Sixth Form/College level.

Each of the things you have listed obviously need to be addressed, too. But there is plenty of research out there showing the uptick in MH issues in young teens coinciding with the rise of the smart phone and social media use.

Im on my phone so can't access the studies immediately.
But the book I mentioned earlier (the Anxious Generation) lists all the studies which showed a sharp decline in mental health between 2010 and 2015. When smartphones became widely used. It also cites the studies they did around phones and social media and saw the results.

Honestly, the book is a great read and well researched.

A very quick summary of the Anxious Generatio :
Our connections in the real world share 4 distinct properties:

1. They rely on body language.
2. They happen in sync with others.
3. Communication happens in sequence and with a few individuals max.
4. They happen in communities with high barriers to entry.

None of this is true about our online activities. That’s why they are often detrimental to human flourishing. Therefore, Haidt sees a phone-based childhood leading to 4 “foundational harms:”

1. Social deprivation. Since 2012, the time adolescents spend with friends in face-to-face settings has dropped 50% — and the pandemic only made it worse.
2. Sleep deprivation. A lack of sleep leads to “depression, anxiety, irritability, cognitive deficits, poor learning, and lower grades” — and long-term studies have proven smartphones are making us sleep worse.
3. Attention fragmentation. Since our phones are constantly interrupting us, our ability to focus is severely impaired.
4. Addiction. Many kids are using their phones like dopamine slot machines, always in search of the next hit — and big tech has desig ed their apps to encourage this behavior.

https://fourminutebooks.com/the-anxious-generation-summary/

Of course we should ban it. Kids spending hours on social media is not good for them. Just like smoking, alcohol and drugs are not good for us. People who say restricting it won’t stop kids using it, I agree! I illegally drank alcohol when I was a teen but I didn’t constantly have a bottle of hooch attached to me, it was occasional and opportunistic. That’s what social media use would become if it was restricted. It’s not going to cause the ongoing mental damage it currently causes from kids being permanently attached to their phones.

Yes? But your over 16 then we are talking about under 16 age check

This is what worries me - the apps have the timetables and increasingly the tickets on them. Increasingly there is little choice but to use the apps - with out a phone you are quickly at a disadvantage.

Also we did second hand smart phone so special phones would be an issue.

I'm not completely against it though - I just think it need nuanced thought through proposals and the whole debate tends to go black and white pretty quick.

It is going to put a huge amount of ID information in the hands of the tech companies.

Because everyone will need to hand over verifiable information to prove they're over 16.

Unless verification can be done on a smoke&mirrors basis, in which case teens will easily get round it. Though if they're caught for any reason, then they will have committed an offence.

Parents need to do more. SM platforms are meant to be for over 13s only. If we could actually get that properly respected, it would be a huge step forward

Probably.

I’m hoping that won’t be the case although I can’t see how they would do it any other way… especially as it’ll need to be worth their while for them to actually enact it. My personal stance is that I would rather give up SM altogether so that children can be protected from it but I appreciate that’s not workable for everyone and other people may feel very differently. I don’t use it much so wouldn’t miss it.

I also agree parents need to do more but many wont unless forced or advised to do so. There’s where having something like this legislation passed through would help. Even if it stops the majority from accessing it, it would be a good step forward IMO.

Hi OP,

Hope you don't mind us popping our head round the door to let you know that Josh MacAlister MP has written for us about his Bill on safer smart phone use for kids - and he's keen to hear from Mumsnetters about the measures he's proposed. You can read his piece and share feedback here.

Thanks,
MNHQ