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.

Saying parents need to parent their kids is like saying dog owners should not leave dog shit on the pavement.

Yes many dog owners do clean up their dog shit, but plenty don't and there's always someone affected who will step in this/wheel their pushchair through it.

It's all fine and dandy saying what parents should do, but they don't... and the rest of us suffer.

You can get married and vote in Scotland age 16 but you can’t watch Youtube and facebook until then? It is mad. 14 would have been a more sensible age.

I personally agree with a ban and think it should have happened a lot earlier. Parents don't want to parent and too many of them are a bit thick. As long as the kids are out of their hair, they don't care.

There's only a bit outcry because it's Keir starmer. He will never win no matter what he does.

I have many discussions with parents who want me to read the riot act to the child who told theirs to fuck off, but won't remove Snapchat from their child's phone, or block them from being added to GCs. If parents can not parent, someone needs to help them do that.

This sounds to me, though, like it's the innocent person being blamed for having access to a facility that others seek to abuse. If scammers phone me, am I to blame for their actions for having a phone on which they can contact me in the first place? Even going old-school, if I receive a poison pen letter in the post, is it my fault for having a letterbox?

I do take the point if they're all demonstrably at it and giving as good (or bad) as they get. In that case, they should indeed lose a privilege if they have proven that they can't be trusted with it; but it's grossly unfair for innocent people to lose it too. If somebody is given an ASBO and ordered to wear an ankle tag, we don't just do the same to everybody of the same age/sex/race in their neighbourhood.

Phones and social media aren't going to go away, so maybe we desperately need a generation or two whereby young people growing up with them need to be specifically taught about proper, respectful use of them and what is and isn't acceptable. Surely it's the perfect opportunity to do this whilst they're still being educated and subject to parents and teachers, rather than just sweeping it under the carpet until they're 16 or 18 and then leaving the fallout for society in general to deal with, once they no longer have those protections.

Children aren't allowed to take out mortgages or loans, or commit to most other financial products and services... but we still teach them about money management in schools, in anticipation of when they soon will be adults in the big wide world. If we let them wait until they're 18 before teaching them about it, and then they're suddenly predated on by banks ands loan companies without that background knowledge empowering them to make wise decisions, we've kind of missed the boat quite spectacularly. If we believe that we can rely on people to suddenly know everything that they need to know in their lives once they reach 18, what's the point of school anyway?

Is that definitely known?

Starmer's vision is "someday we can dream of a society where all information can be regulated".

Banning YouTube for kids is nuts. There's amazing stuff on there, and safe supervised.

16yr old shouldn't vote either, how would they know anything especially without access to SM?

They’ll have the nicely packaged newsround at school.

An under 16 can’t buy an energy drink or go to the cinema to see an 18 rated horror film either, what’s your point?
I’m sure you didn’t take great issue with either of those last week.

But we don't prosecute dog owners who faithfully pick up after their dog every single time; or indeed people who don't have a dog, but could theoretically get one.

It's a dangerous precedent to set whereby we arrange everybody in society according to the same broad criteria and then automatically punish them all for what many of them never have and never would do. Apart from the unfairness, what actual incentive is there for people to make good, responsible choices if they're going to be treated from the outset with the assumption that they won't/can't anyway?

The blunderbuss approach helps nobody: we need to trust people to act acceptably and then swiftly help/punish those who show that they can't/won't.

Banning YouTube for kids is nuts. There's amazing stuff on there, and safe supervised.

@shinypen Yes. The problem is too many parents don't do the supervised bit.

I think this is pretty much the crux of it. In many cases the arguments against it are get-outs for parents who feel guilty, who are worried about losing social capital, or are themselves heavily invested in (and addicted to) social media. Screens are now the default for kids in every situation that might be a bit boring, or stressful, or tricky to navigate.

I also think that, as is so often the case, we are coming at things the wrong angle. Yes, social media can be harmful in itself and there is a huge amount of horrible content online, but almost the bigger issue for me is the sheer amount of screen time these kids are getting, the cynical built-in addictiveness of every aspect of these devices and the way their overuse detracts so much from young people developing vital skills in the real, offline world. I drove past several secondary schools at going home time the other day and virtually every single child I saw was glued to their phone. Some were walking in gaggles of two or three but none were interacting - there was barely any conversation or horse play or eye contact across several different schools, just kids staring at screens as they trudged along (narrowly missing being hit by cars in several cases). We can’t normalise this way of being or society as we recognise it will crumble entirely.

I don’t like Keir Starmer, but I’m delighted that my 8-year-old and her friends may enjoy a bit more protection against the relentlessness of the online world that the generation of kids before her.

You can't get married aged 16 in Scotland. And of course under-16s will be allowed to watch Youtube - they just won't be able to set up accounts in their own name.

You can get married at 16 in Scotland.

So how do we respond to this? Do we just shut down the internet or ban people from going or seeing anything online until they're 18? Then will they be suddenly fully knowledgeable of the many benefits and dangers of the internet once they first use it on their 18th birthdays? CBeebies on iPlayer will see a dramatic downturn in viewership if only adults are allowed to watch it!

Do we scrap all motorways and dual carriageways, because some parents don't/won't/can't stop their kids running into them?

You've been told multiple times that youtube will not be banned for under-16s but you still insist on repeating this completely unfounded allegation - why is that?

All that will happen is that social media companies will not be permitted to offer accounts to under-16s. As you know, you do not need an account access youtube - it just means that the most potentially harmful features: chat, and algorithmic suggestions, are disabled.

Ah, I thought the law to increase it to 18 had already been passed but seems it is still in the consultation phase - apologies.

And of course under-16s will be allowed to watch Youtube - they just won't be able to set up accounts in their own name.

Indeed. Which just goes to show what an absolute binfire this policy and its announcement is, when the government firmly announce that it is going to be 'banned', when they seem not to actually understand what that word means.

It's schrödinger's ban: it's definitely going to be banned, but it pretty much won't be banned at all.

Yes, I'm happy it's coming.
My kids are 11 and 6, they are not on SM, but I know lots of their friends are.
We are older parents, so SM didn't excite us. It's just not our thing, maybe we were simply too old to get sucked in when it's become a thing. So we're trying to shelter our kids.
Lots of bad thing are happening with regards to SM where I come from, just last month a 14-year old threw himself under the train due to online abuse. They're now banning completely mobiles at school till 14 y.o. and SM until 15 y.o. EU is working on a central age-verifying app that will be used in all EU countries, so big changes are coming.
To those who say to put responsibility on tech companies - they simply don't care. They have always prioritised money and they will continue doing so and nobody can make them change. That's why increasing numbers of countries are introducing bans, because begging and pleading with tech sector for the last 10 years hasn't worked.

You hope people don't need laws to not commit crimes, but unfortunately they do. Saying "they should know better" is a useless argument.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the feckless tech bros who want to make ££££ at any cost. They want all the profits and admit no responsibility. They made their products addictive and targeted our children. Be mad at them, not the government for trying to stop this.

Yup, this is it, It's not just social media, but that at least is a start to recognising the massive, permanent harms being done to kids. Maybe we will also start to see screens in schools being controlled for children.

A good friend of mine recently returned from many years teaching in an country where kids live in serious poverty and there are real social problems due to poverty in the homes, including substance abuse. She is now teaching here. She is shocked, seriously shocked and alarmed at the behaviour she sees from the children, the lack of involvement by the parents who are addicts themselves, and also the fact that the kids academics have tanked. The kids in the poverty striken 3rd world were better behaved and achiving more academically.

I think the problem is in the reporting.

Government: "We will investigate banning social media companies from offering individual accounts to under-16s, following the successfully introduced Australian model."

Media: "Government to ban under-16s from watching youtube!"

If it's not a real ban, what are you griping about?

They dont. This ban will.affect adults more than children. You will have to spend your life sending your selfie or I.d to companies you have never heard of and trust they are legitimate and wont get hacked. When this ban comes in you will have to submit a selfie or your I.d to use mumsnet as its considered to be social media under the act. They dont want teens online, they want to protect their identity online and not have to take a selfie to search the Internet.

I'm hearing a fair bit of "this is an outrage" from some quarters but what I'm not hearing is what they would do instead.

I've heard "parents need to parent" which is obvious, but it's also obvious far too many parents don't.

So what should be done instead? Practical suggestions from the outraged please...

I'm not sure anyone does - more worried about the details of what and how TBH.

I do think tech companies could have headed this off with action on their end.

Also the impact will vary - some teens will live in areas with little to do and may not find the wholesome activies many MN seem to predict others will get round and maybe find worse stuff - it really does depend on implementation.

I do think there an authoritarian bent with this government - which is worrying so can can see why there are concerns here as well - but again depends on what banned and how enforced.

I also find it worrying number of parents who seem to think policing on-line stuff is not their role - sure government can and look like it's trying to help - but ultimately it is on parents to say no.