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.

The free speech rights have already been eroded.

If that is indeed the case (which, considering the amount of quite divisive matter available on the internet, I would dispute), how does imposing a duty on social media companies to restrict accounts for under-16s make things worse?

If more parents actively parented and also demonstrated good behaviour then maybe the state wouldn't have to.

That said, a lot of this has been driven by parents finding that their children/young people are accessing material they shouldn't but also being approached by sleazy adults, being bullied by their peers and so on. With the best will in the world parents can't police their children 24/7.

I don't have children so might not get to have a view... but I'm not sure how well the bans are working elsewhere (mixed views of Australian parents). Children and young people seem to be fairly well-known for being able to bypass most restrictions, like the raptors in Jurassic Park ;) - "They were testing the fences for weakness..."

Yesterday evening I attended the online stream of danah boyd's talk and she mentioned that Google Docs wasn't included in the ban - which suggests the possibility that young people can chat freely there (just needs one person with a Gmail account to create a blank doc, share its link and make it editable (example - type something nice there)). Possibly not that many children or teens actually use Google Docs but perhaps that will change.

Here's an (actually rather lovely) example of a lockdown party in a Google Docs spreadsheet with different tabs for people to chat in. Dress code: Anonymous Animals. The kitchen tab has lots of clean mugs in cells for people to use :-) c() c()

Jo

Who the hell do they think they are banning anything? And from a corrupt incompetent government as well. I am the parent and will regulate my child’s uses. If they are really about keeping children and woman safe they know where to really start with this

I think you are right that it is unlikely to be scraped as a matter of course. But with no online privacy any more, it means that anyone publicly criticising the government or it's agencies (e.g. police) could potentially be identified. This might have implications for people's jobs, or make whistleblowing less likely. I just feel it's just a dangerous road to start down - the warning and end point being the situation as it is in China. I'm not saying this is the current government's intention, but control is rarely removed and only ever strengthened.

Why would they bother to use google docs? Why not WhatsApp or another messaging app? They’re not included in the proposed regulation, which is about social media companies, not messaging apps.

As per the text if Article 10,
1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The state prevents under-16s to exercise their freedom of expression (they can't post or communicate on SM).

That would be a theoretical discussion though, I'm not a lawyer to argue about nuances and it's not nearly my main concern about the ban.

About bloody time I say

Agree completely. Rn I don’t feel it’s the case. Mn is such a light weight incursion to privacy, just an email.

If the gov try to yield more control it’s a no thanks here.

“Who the hell do they think they are banning anything?”

…. the government.

Why don’t they ban porn? No they like it too much…

Because most people are inherently lazy and would rather let their children have unfettered access to social media rather than actually make an effort.

They wouldn’t need to use Google docs, they can just use WhatsApp, iMessage etc. Messaging isn’t banned.

Yesterday evening I attended the online stream of danah boyd's talk and she mentioned that Google Docs wasn't included in the ban - which suggests the possibility that young people can chat freely there (just needs one person with a Gmail account to create a blank doc, share its link and make it editable (example - type something nice there)). Possibly not that many children or teens actually use Google Docs but perhaps that will change.

DS and his mates found that out in primary school. School had previously introduced road blocks which we weren't keen on then decide chat feature wasn't as regulated as claimed and banned it - and DS and his mates used now to chatting did this - don't remember the specifics and there was no poor behavior from the boys but school was very bemused when they realised and even DH in field hadn't realised it was possible.

No it doesn't, how ridiculous. Asking companies to show two sides isn't impacting free speech it's allowing people to get a balanced view. If you are fed information without an opposing view you start to live in an echo chamber. Algorithms feed that divisive nonsense.

I also don't think banning porn or extreme violence to under 16s is impinging on anyone's autonomy either. Companies could do a lot more.

When DS and mates did it it was before they all got phones and more accesses - which tends here to be at secondary - and they managed to realised and do it for a while with no one realising.

They found the work round well before any adults realised.

UK already has a very bad track record of dealing with criminals when they actually catch them. Sleazy adults need to be put in prison, but instead they get "let out into the community", most likely to re-offend. A weak criminal system is also contributing to harmful online content. Improving this will be more effective than a ban on kids.

I may be unnecessarily concerned, and I may be being paranoid; but I think the actual reality of what the government (not this particular one then, granted) did during covid lockdown could be a potential harbinger of how we could end up if we just sleepwalk into it.

I was actually genuinely worried about whether I could fall foul of what was allowed and - maybe more to the point - tacitly 'approved'. Especially at first, when nobody knew how hardline the government was going to be, I left my phone at home in case it would be tracked (I know it is by default, but I mean actively) and the proof of my movements used against me. I wasn't going on a bank heist or to strike a county lines drug deal - I was going to Asda for groceries.

Self-appointed neighbourhood spies were watching people, shouting at them, disapproving stares, threatening to (and actually) reporting people for what they thought they might have done wrong. Key workers off to the hospital for the night shift (I heard of one who even had her tyres slashed); people out for a walk or run for more than an hour (which was arbitrarily decided by many as the 'limit'); anything that possibly 'looked suspicious' according to some busybody was criticised and the authorities informed.

This wasn't 1940s Germany; it wasn't even modern-day China; it was the English Midlands in 2020.

They should do this too!

Part of me feels using YouTube etc is part of the reason that children can’t self regulate! If flashy colourful videos are being used it’s not relaxing it’s raising adrenaline! How much more calming is a story book and time with a known adult, to co regulate with breathing techniques, cosy blankets soft toys a puzzle or colouring books!

I think the ban is a great start.

More needs to be done of course both in terms of educating people re the dangers, imprisoning dangerous criminals, etc but it’s a start.

Just banning it does raise parental awareness and starts to put a taboo around giving kids access to social media which is a good thing imo.

My 12 yo with ADHD is kept off YouTube and anything with reels, including tiktok, as well as other social media.

It makes a noticeable difference to behaviour when he’s got access to reels.

This too

This is interesting, I thought the guardian reported yesterday that WhatsApp was included in the ban? Certainly in our local schools bullying has happened in whastapp groups.