AIBU to think the social media ban will be impossible to enforce?

[Viviennemary]

I'm not totally against this ban on social media for under 16's. but I don't see how it can be enforced. It's on BBC news now. One boy spent 14 hours a day. Another girl 9 hours. Crazy.

You do realise that there are many extremely vocal and influential people who believe that Mumsnet - particularly the Women's Rights board - is a 'paranoid far right media' site, don't you?

Because that’s what’s been all over the news today, the news we’re all commenting on on this thread, I kinda didn’t expect the basic facts to be a shock by this point.

Thing is, responsible parents already monitor their kids social media access. So the parents this is really aimed at will still parent irresponsibly by finding ways to enable their kids to use SM platforms. I agree with the ban, but absolutely unenforcible.

What shock? You seem more reactive.

just shut off the net, issue solved

They have specifically stated they haven’t given a full list, the headline TikTok/insta etc is a headline and not the full policy including all platforms or gaming sites that will come under it.

Do you have any relevant answers to my points

Fine, then, if you genuinely believe that teenagers would have neither the desire nor the ability to Google 'alternatives to X/Twitter' - and that they would cheerily accept losing a now-banned SM site without even contemplating the idea of finding a very similar one that wasn't banned.

Without even taking into account that people posting on TwiX very frequently move to/cross post on Bluesky, Mastodon and others and explicitly direct their followers there in their posts. No different from when a local shop moves to different premises, knowing that they soon won't be available where they are now: they never just close the original place down and leave people on their own, with no clues, to stumble across the new place without ever thinking to very clearly publicise it at length to all of their customers, whom they obviously hope to retain.

I am not sure there are any teenagers on Bluesky. The 6 music dad demographic is heavily represented.

But it does already have age verification I think.

This is what I’m confused about.

Responsible parents have, surely, already been monitoring phone use and limiting access to social media for under 16s. They haven’t needed a government to tell them to do this.

Parents who haven’t and who have been happy to let their children access lots of social media presumably aren’t the type of parent who are going to bother checking if their children are ignoring the ban.

Everyone knows the dangers of social media. Why are parents who have knowingly ignored the dangers suddenly going to listen to a ban and make sure their children abide by the rules?

I’m not sure there are many under 16s on Facebook, but that’s included in the ban.

I feel you misunderstood my tone.

Which ones? The suggestion that law-abiding citizens could have nothing to worry about big corporations and the government knowing ever more personal information about them - and that we either have to accept this with the (woeful, granted) mainstream parties, or otherwise vote for horrendous new populist parties?

My response is that I greatly value privacy by default. I don't launder money, but I don't give my bank details to anybody who asks me for them without a very good reason. I never do anything unnatural or that I'm ashamed of in public toilet cubicles, but I still always close and lock the door.

I don't see why we should be forced to choose between a 'standard' party choosing to massively overreach or otherwise have to swap them for an inherently nasty party.

Well, precisely.

But why not turn anything into a paranoid lefty authoritarian overreach narrative regardless of the realities of what kids actually look at..

Because that helps us protect kids from the clear damage that current SM is doing doesn’t it.

I think you vastly, and somewhat naively, with respect, misunderstand what companies (in all their shapes and forms), will already know about you as a person. Simply using a smart phone will divulge far more information about you than I think you realise.

I know my internet use will do tgat, even down to this post I’m posting.

I can't remember what it asked me for when I signed up for Bluesky. It quite probably did ask my birthdate, but it certainly didn't ask me for any actual proof - so I could very easily have lied if I'd been underage.

Very handy for teenagers who not only probably haven't used it before - and so they're coming along as 'adults' for brand new accounts, rather than suspiciously seeking to change their registered date of birth on existing accounts; plus they know that the government are (so far) apparently not bothered about policing it, so the coast sounds pretty much clear.

Whatever, the government haven't actually published the full list of banned platforms. That will be in the legislation. Maybe Bluesky will be on that list.

Oh, I know very well that everybody is seeking to take data wherever they can - and that it's a regrettable price to pay for using connected tech.

Nevertheless, I disable cookies and refuse permissions wherever possible - including the insidious 'legitimate interest' ones; I use search engines that aren't Google; and we deliberately chose a small ISP that is heavily privacy-focused wherever they have any say in it along the network.

I'm not stupid; I realise what they're up to and the power they have for anybody who wants to use the internet... which is probably why I don't want to just roll over and let them have everything their hearts desire without any question or resistance. If a thief mugs you for your phone, you don't usually go out of your way to hand over your jewellery as well, do you? That seems a strange and defeatist attitude to take to me.

Under 18s vaping and drinking isn't fully enforced, nor is illegal substance misuse or underage sex. I'm sure there is a lot less of it though because of legislation

This is quite interesting though as in a lot of other countries FB is very heavily used by a younger user base (often for businesses or organising stuff). In that context the ban makes sense as there is still the potential for online harms, especially in private groups (and you'd expect young people to move there if other platforms are closed). Internet is global etc etc.

It depends whether you believe the government is the thief as you put it. I don’t believe they’re capable tbh. Current govt couldn’t organise a dinking session in a brewery, nor could the last although that depends on if Johnson was in charge
And I highly suggest any govt led by reform would be anything less than a skip fire although I can see many liberties may well be stripped of us if they come into power…

Big tech is another story, and despite your attempts at stealth, I think they are far the bigger threat.

The narrative that the SM ban is somehow controlling for adults by govt is, imo self indulgent and adult politicking. It’s not helping the underlying aim of protecting our kids from the clear damage that has taken place.

It’s impossible to stop all sorts of things but we don’t just make them legal. Rape, underage drinking, drugs, abuse are all rampant… but the law remains to try and protect people.

i think the gov lost the argument with social media, when they allowed all the films and tv shows that glamourise violence etc

They didn't continue printing photos of topless 16 year old girls in newspapers on the basis it would make grot mags more appealing at 18.

I don't think the social media companies will go down without a massive fight though - they make billions out of children and they will not want to lose that; they're already claiming that a ban will make children go onto other sites.

Can't imagine that companies that have pitched a social media free bit of technology will be particularly happy about it, either - if SM is banned, there's no need for a special phone, after all.