AIBU to think parents will break the social media rules for summerborn children’s GCSE revision?

[SummerAutumnborn]

So as a parent of a September born child my child will be able to access YouTube educational videos before their GCSEs start. Some of these resources are excellent.

Their best friend (August born) will not be able to access any videos before the GCSEs start unless their parents break the rules.

At A-Level my child will have unlimited access their best friend won’t - a problem for kids who access sports clubs in the evening and want to revise before bed.

Summer borns have an educational disadvantage anyway - will this widen the gap further? Here is a BBC article from a few years ago.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23435439

Am I being unreasonable thinking parents who agree with the SM ban will break the rules if it disadvantages their summer born child?

Out of interest for those of you who do support the social media ban are you going to say to your child that they cannot access exam resources on YouTube and X even if they are better than school and BBC resources? Or when it comes to an educational advantage will you find it acceptable to break the rules and allow access?

I disagree with the ban btw so would have no issue if it affected my child.

It will be moved to other platforms, or if its genuinely just revision material, no reason it won’t be available on the kids version. Companies will have to think of ways to ensure children can access educational content in a safe way. Which is the whole point of the ban, and i’m definitely in favour of it. My daughter accessed all kinds of educational content for GCSE’s and A levels, many recommended by the school. Funnily enough, they didn’t recommend youtube.

Let’s face it, this ban is coming in because so many parents refuse to take responsibility and parent their kids. They think everything is someone else’s responsibility and that this mythical “someone” else should create and provide perfect opportunities tailored to their child so that they have competitive advantage. They want someone to ban phones, vapes, alcohol, bullying, etc etc so that they don’t have to.

Take responsibility, think beyond your own front door and lead/parent with integrity. It’s not even that hard tbh.

The ban is on children having a YouTube account. The ban isn’t on watching YouTube videos, which anyone can do without an account. I don’t have a YouTube account and I can watch videos on YouTube.
The reason for the ban on having an account is that is prevents children from engaging with strangers on YouTube and also stops them being fed content due to potentially harmful algorithms.
The ban isn’t there to stop people watching videos on YouTube.

But why have the government decided to deliberately obscure (some would say deceive) the people by claiming they are banning YouTube for U16s? Are they deliberately trying to mislead or are they just clueless?

Or will they force YT to start making everybody to sign in before they can view anything, to prevent children from being able to watch anything on it?

Does this mean that they aren't properly banning any of the others either - is it all just posturing?

Do you have a google account ?

This is very one sided. I learn better with someone talking me through things rather than just reading, lots of people have different learning styles.

No idea 🤷🏻‍♀️. I’ll guess we’ll see when the actual law is published.

Ah don’t be all sensible and practical.

Didn’t you know you’re meant to run around pointing out all the problems which could arise across all sorts of hypothetical scenarios

They make less money so creators will be reluctant to do that.

I agree with the ban. Social media can be a cesspit.
I would have no problem with helping my summer born to access revision content if they wanted to. If that is "breaking the law", I can't imagine the government would be too worried about it.

OP, how about they bring the rule in this time next year, that way everyone will be the same age in the school year - and you can rest easy about any potential law breaking.

WTF - TikTok for GCSEs? Are you being serious or taking the piss? Or just looking for loopholes for your teen?

Then it’s not a ban. Not sure why it’s framed as such. I have been hearing lots about having to use a ID in order to access these things but I’ve got the wrong end of the stick!

bit baffled that the government Would prefer parents not to able to monitor what their children are watching on YouTube via parent controls as they can now but would prefer them to view things the parents can’t easily track because it won’t be linked to the family account.

TikTok is short videos.
Someone could use them to show how to solve a maths equation or snippets of whatever Shakespeare play is being studied.
I don't know if anyone does...but they could.

The current trend in life is for something that can be explained in 5 seconds to be padded to take about 30 minutes.

You can't blame the internet though. The BBC were are this well over 20 years ago.

I find the more there is on YouTube, the less I watch.

Educational content will specifically be exempt from the ban.

This is just silly. No need to be so black and white about it. I largely support the ban… but if my child wants to watch a YouTube tutorial on how to play a song on the piano I’m not going to ban them from doing so! It’s like people don’t understand why the ban was brought in in the first place! Education content, played on the main TV while parents are probably in the same room/close by is world’s away from scrolling through shite on TikTok for hours and hours on their own, in their rooms when they should be sleeping

There is some surprisingly good exam content on there. I was also sceptical until I was shown. Just need to know where to look.
People have different learning styles and worked through video examples have been very useful in maths and physics.

.

I would be curious to read the (legal) definition of educational content ...

All will be revealed when they release the draft regulations. As ever the devil will be in the detail.

At the moment the press release says "Because we want to ensure the ban doesn’t include educational services, e-commerce platforms or music streaming, there will be a narrowly defined list of exemptions to the definitions which will be kept under review."

I’m a teacher, I would never recommend a resource on social media. You argument is irrelevant. I recommend resources on You Tube etc that I can check and verify.

So as long as you call your website "educational" it's exempt ?

Or (as I suspect) will we have to have "approved" educational websites ?

So who approves ?

"Quis custodiet custodes ?" as I learned from an educational site.

I mean what about sites that teach human sex is biological from birth ? Can't have our kids exposed to such poison, surely ?

(This post has been ranked "moderate" on the humour scale for anyone who wants to report it).

Literally no one is trying to stop you showing your GD kitten videos in a supervised manner

In the same way as parents can show their child 18 films, or let them have a glass of wine. Their isn't going to be police swooping in because you show your child YouTube on occasion

What will be hopefully stopped or at least reduced is unrestricted access to social media, which is undoubtedly harmful to children. As a teen who grew up in the early days of social media I watched ED content on YouTube, me and my friends used Facebook to message and meet older men. Things like tiktok algorithm promote incredibly harm/misogynistic views to young boys. No one gives a shiny shit about an animal video which will probably be on YouTube kids anyway

tbf when I first saw TikTok I thought it would be great for revision- catchy little videos that you could use in a similar way to flash cards to practise key concepts, vocab etc.
I thought about creating something but I’m glad I didn’t now 😆

The rules will be broken all over!