Why do people want teens on social media??

[theprincessthepea]

I have a teen.

Today I told her that by the time the ban comes into affect when she is 16, it won’t make a difference to her life. But it will affect my toddler, and I’m happy that he will be growing up during a time where social media will be banned for children and young teens.

What I realised is that there are so many parents against the ban.

I see it every day. I was the last parent (out of my DDs friendship group of 6 girls) to give her a smart phone and allow her on social media - mainly because I was aware of what it’s like, and I witnessed my friend abuse MSN and Bebo back in the day and end up with older guys and pervs - that’s another story. But I remember a parent (DDs friends mum) telling me “I’ve set up a Snapchat for my daughter” (there were in year 5).
I asked her “why”
she said “I was told it’s good for them to socialise”

WTF!? AIBU for thinking that a lot of the work will go into convincing the public and parents that social media is bad. Just like we had to convince the public that smoking is bad.

If the amount of exploitation, low self esteem, online bullying, literally having an online account that is borderline only fans when you are a minor, whilst mum and dad think you study and love school (me and my daughter are super open about socials, she might have an account I don’t know about - but this is the point - us parents don’t get to protect our kids when they are in a virtual world that could be harmful).

Anyways that’s my rant. I’m all for the ban. Good luck with them implementing it. But I think we will be in a better place 10 years later (if the multiple crisis don’t get to us first).

Im also all for educational videos - but I don’t think this falls under this. As I do tell my DD to find an appropriate video when she’s stuck for revision.

Also don’t get me started on YouTube. YouTube is a phenomenal educational resource. My eldest used it for GCSE revision, he also loves watching Map Men, Tom Scott, Hannah Fry… They will still be accessing YouTube whatever the law states.

I think the parents of kids who are young enough that they'll just grow up knowing that 16 is the age at which they can legally get access to a bunch of social media apps are pretty supportive.

I think there are a whole bunch of parents of 9-15 year olds who've given their kids access to social media and can see it wasn't a good idea, maybe they felt pressured into it because everyone else is on it... and maybe they're hoping that it's not such a bad thing for their child. Perhaps they feel a bit affronted that there's now a clear statement of intent that kids won't be allowed to access SM until they are 16, due to the harms that it causes at a societal level.

I'm in favour, generally, though like many new laws, there will be some people that it doesn't suit, and that's fine and normal with new legislation - sometimes blunt tool legislation is better than no legislation, and I think this is one of those cases.

Duplicate

Another primary teacher here and I agree.

Honestly what is it about this Bluesky conspiracy theory that seems to tickle posters to much?
So, so much parroting of a comment on X. It’s embarrassing to see so many people unable to engage their brain.

And the reported list of banned sites appears pretty arbitrary. X but not BlueSky,

It’s not a reported list, it’s a headline. The press release makes it clear they haven’t released a list of the banned apps so to constantly post that a particular app is not being banned is disingenuous at best and purposely spreading misinformation at worst.
The user base of Bluesky is absolutely minimal compared to the number of users on other platforms which is why it’s not being listed in the same category as TikTok and Instagram in terms of a headline description.

And yet given its tiny user base a certain type of posted on mumsnet seem utterly obsessed with it.

My kids use WhatsApp to communicate with our family abroad without every contact having to be mediated by us parents. Youtube and Instagram reels / videos in their second language have been brilliant for their language skills - again they can communicate with our family abroad so well, you can see their grammar, speech, understanding, vocab improving in real time. Apart from that my kids have made good real life friends via social media.

So there are positive and negatives, these apps are just tools.

I think overall the ban will be positive because kids are just too immature to use these tools sensibly, parents can't policy every minute, and the potential for harm is too big without providers taking serious action. Which we know they could take, but they won't.

But some good things will be lost.

They can still watch YouTube videos though, they just can’t have their own accounts. You don’t need an account to watch a YouTube video.
I agree with you OP, I’m shocked at home many people are anti this. Insisting their kid needs Tik Tok for ‘socialising’ etc. I’m not sure if they realise their child can still use WhatsApp, FaceTime etc. What socialising is done over TikTok?
I have a 13 year old who doesn’t have any social media. She couldn’t care less about the ban, she doesn’t have it anyway so won’t miss it, and has plenty of other things to occupy her time. She said it’ll be nice to spend time with her friends without some of them constantly staring at TikTok videos!

I don't think people 'want' teens on social media. The concern is we are becoming a nanny state.

And yet before this proposal where were all the people petitioning to get rid of film ratings because it created a nanny state?

I'm not pro social media but I am anti the ban, my reason is simply that my husband and I should parent our children not the Government.

I want my children to grow up being taught how to use social media safely, how to moderate themselves and how to know when to raise alarms. The Government stepping in creates a cliff edge at 16 that makes getting access really exciting in the same way driving lessons are. I want it to feel mundane and just part of life.

This isn’t about children and social media and safety. This is digital id by the back door.

Or to get rid of the age limit on buying alcohol.

I'm happy about it. We have age restrictions on games and films as well as a TV watershed.

For too long the internet has been a wild west with limited restrictions. I'd actually prefer it if social media didn't exist all for all the damage it's done. Not withstanding the political interference from bot farms, there's the scrolling habit that I hate myself for.

Numerous studies have been done about the psychological harm of social media and device addiction. I think this is a sensible step and should have come sooner.

Tech companies take all of the money yet accept none of the responsibility. They will not regulate themselves, their only aim is to maximise profits. This is where regulation has to step in. They can't be allowed to continue as they are, unfettered

what's your solution then? I've seen a few people say this but I don't know what the answer is.

People parent their own children!! Properly

You’re not being unreasonable. I don’t see it as the state overreaching more than tech companies have already done - it’s the tech companies that have worked on these addictive apps for years and can push through them any agenda they may have. They can literally shape and control young minds and the parents are out of the their debt.
I see it in the same category as alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and sex- it is not for children and it shouldn’t be left up to parents’ discretion.

But so far many of them aren’t. So how do you make them?

The only people I've heard complaining about it in real life are people who's parenting seems to consist of throwing screens at them and not knowing how to say no.

A great idea, unfortunately that hasn't worked thus far.

100%!

I'd go as far as saying most don't. Most children are allowed access to apps such as Tiktok and Snapchat before they're they're supposed to..

So far almost the entirety of MN who is anti the ban is saying ‘my child is sensible, we have limits on it, they only use SM for around half an hour a day’… fine, I guess that means that all those children who are on it for 8-9 hours a day to the exclusion of all other activities, who walk home from school in groups of friends all staring at their phones, who sit in groups at the park all staring at their phones etc don’t have parents on MN. Those kids still exist though. And their parents aren’t parenting them properly, so what’s going to suddenly start making them do so?
We already have age limits on films/TV programmes/games etc. An age limit on certain social media sites is just an extension of that.
Equally there has always been an age limit on these sites (13). Parents ignored it. So I imagine they’ll try and find ways round this one too.

Why should my light come on at a supermarket self check out when it’s clear I am over 16/18/25? Depends what I’m buying, but if I want the product then I need to agree to that check. If those extra couple of minutes which take forever in certain places, Boots I’m looking at you means a layer of check which supports the health and safety of people much younger than me, why kick up a fuss if I’m a legitimate consumer of the product?

Yes, I picked my 11 year old up from a party the other day and all the other kids there (aged 10-11) were sat on their phones on TikTok. My daughter said she was the only one there who didn’t have it.

Because this government have introduced it? If Keir Starmer was handing out the keys to paradise and the secret of everlasting life you'd have people bleating about it being a leftie conspiracy to silence opposition by giving them nothing to oppose. Or something.