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.

All over mumsnet said too, they’re relentless.

Yes, I’m wondering if people know that there are already age limits on these apps?

It really isn't a minute number, but I suspect you already know this. How brave of you to make these kind of flippant remarks whilst posting anonymously behind a screen name, on social media.

The age limit for TikTok is 13. So if all those children were using TikTok they were clearly enabled to do so by their feckless parents.

I don’t agree with the ban, simply from a control perspective. I should be able to parent my child and make decisions, same applies for taking them on holiday during term time.

I’ve been very strict with my children and social media. Eldest DD behaved shockingly on Snapchat, both participating in horrible group chats and sending pictures of herself in bikinis. It was banned, her phone had parental controls, and she wasn’t allowed it again until she was 16 (she was 13 when I banned it). Her phone was also regularly checked so I could be confident she had learned from past mistakes.

Youngest DD has always been different. Never no issue in friendship groups, wouldn’t dream of anyone outside our family seeing her in a bikini let alone sending a picture, and doesn’t particularly spend hours and hours on her phone. When she turned 13, the inevitable Snapchat conversation came up and it was a no. But after a while I realised she was being left out of party invites, social events and was generally starting to be a little excluded. So for her, I relaxed things. Always checked her phone, never been any issues.

Youngest will have just turned 15 when the ban will come into force and I do think it’ll have a negative effect socially for her. If she spent hours in her room on her phone perhaps I’d feel differently, but due to organising things she’s often out and about. Yes, they will be able to do the organising via WhatsApp but it’ll be an adjustment for them.

So whilst I see the pros and cons, I do think it should be down to us parents to decide how we raise and safeguard our children.

No. It gets the legal principle right. I’m glad you point to it as a model.

Under-13s can’t consent to use of their own data (because GDPR) so their parents must consent on their behalf.

The state is reinforcing the parent not substituting them.

Oh yes, I agree. But that was the point really. There are people on here saying ‘parents just need to parent properly’, but they clearly aren’t.

Which is in line with how that law works. No idea what TikTok T&Cs say but that’s a commercial matter.

We recognise that some parents will be feckless and we intervene in the most serious cases. Teen use of social media has nothing like the evidence base for harm needed to justify a ban. We could also ban children from cycling because it can also be dangerous, but we should not for the same reason.

Weak-willed parents who can't say No have forced this on all of us.

What you need to understand - it is NOT a ban on social media for kids (which sounds great doesn't it? someone else can do my job of parenting for me!) - it is actually digital ID enforced on the whole population.

But I don’t want MY life infringed upon to mitigate this. It’s nothing to do with me. The children of the feckless will still grow up disadvantaged; this will change nothing.

I think it’s probably for the best tbh.

No it isn’t. There is absolutely no indication, other than in the fever dreams of overly-online conspiracy theory nuts, that the government intends to use this to bring in compulsory digital ID.

And I say that as a supporter of ID cards in general.

9 out 10 parents wanted a ban in the government consultation. I haven’t actually seen anyone in my sphere say they don’t want it, I’ve seen some people say they think it’s a parent’s job and they wish the government didn’t need to, but concede parenting isn’t working.

Haha, please do tell me, how does a social media ban on teens bring in digital ID?

Everyone can't hand feed you information. You need to educate yourself about civil liberties and governments. Coming to MN and being 'happy' about this isn't going to give you answers you're allegedly seeking. It seems like another thread asking why seals aren't clapping with you.

It is though compared to smoking. Would you rather your DC smoked a packet of Marlboros a day or chatted to their mates on Snapchat? If you think that’s flippant, so is the constant comparison between smoking and SM. Also yes I’m anonymous, as are you bitching back at me.

It does if they ask everyone to prove they’re over 16 by inserting their passport/driving licence.

I have no interest in making anyone, do anything. I don’t want my life affected to make up for other people’s lacking.

I agree with the ban in principle, but I am sad the ruling means my 10 year old son will likely lose facebook messenger. He doesn't have a phone number so other messaging solutions I found are out. I set him up on there with a shell of a 13 year olds account (no facebook installed on his tablet so the account is just a placeholder) and I control the log in and added people. It is only his close family members. But i is a nice way for him to talk to his grandparents.

Youtube I am also a bit worried about going. I have him set up with a safe kids version that links through to channels I have approved/ added only. We have a really good list of positive content creators my son can watch on science, history, engineering, insightful commentary. I want to find a way to maintain this for him as I feel like its a positive resource (all shorts are banned through this platform) and it would be sad for it to go also.

I do think facebook and youtube are not good places for kids to be without controls. I am glad he'll possibly never use tiktok. I guess I was just content with what we had in place for him currently but who knows what we would have been able to control as he gets older.

Yeah that’s a tough one. TBH are loads of things in life I don’t want to do, but have to for the sake of other people and their inadequacies/failings. If only other people were as perfect as me, my life would be much happier 😁.

Can’t he use WhatsApp?

my ten year old is only allowed WhatsApp which she uses to chat to friends (heavily regulated by me)

The online gaming sector has had to prove age for over a year now. Third party providers are able to demonstrate age, without ID.

Why is it a conspiracy? The government have included YouTube in their list of supposed social media and they have already given a list of sites that will be banned. I've not seen any reports stating that it includes the big names. Would it not be very remiss of them to announce a new policy and not even make it clear what they're banning? Or how about they go 'China Plus' instead and ban the whole internet except for a handful of approved sites?

They're usually very, very specific when they bring in most other laws - such as new taxes (that they did or didn't promise not to introduce). Even if they do include BlueSky, Mastodon and every other platform, they can't include new sites that are established the week after the law comes in... and all of the subsequent new ones once the first new lot are banned.

But the damage has been done surely? She’s behaved horribly in group chats at 13 and sent pictures of herself in a bikini. The horse has bolted.

That horrible group chat behaviour will have had an impact on the other 13 year olds involved.

Flame me all you like but I’d welcome a smart phone ban on under 14s. They can all have a brick phone until then.

We all managed to have a social life (and a very good one) without phones and most certainly without social media.