Why would anyone think 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote?

[MsAmerica]

Be honest - think back to when you were 16. Did you have an understanding of a broad range of issues? Did you pay serious attention to national news? Okay, even many adults may lapse on the score, but still, it seems crazy to me.

In the U.S., voting age had been 21 and the only reason it was lowered to 18 was that teens were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and it was felt as unfair for them to have no say.

So, do I have this right. The online safety act is a devious plot from Labour to censor non Labour friendly news for under 18's? Just to get their votes?

And u18's never talk or discuss things with over 18's? They never watch telly, listen to the radio, read papers?

They also don't know what a VPN or false ID is?

Errr.... To track extremists? Given the demonstrations outside asylum hotels, the rioting last year and the escalating aggression from the far right, that seems a sensible thing to do. And of course it can and should be deployed abgainst extremists of all colours and creeds.

Also... re 2029, they and we know nothing of the sort. That election is a loooooong way away. You're definitely catastrophising and seeing things that aren't there - possibly because it fits your political ideology.

And as I have said, the analysis that is out there shows that 16 and 17 year olds will not have a noticeable impact on the outcome of an election, so I ask again: what is it that you are afraid of?

Unless anyone can demonstrate it to the contrary, I submit that the number of poorly informed 16 and 17 year olds voting will be far outweighed by the millions of over 18s who - despite having free and unfettered access to all the information they could want (which turns out to be not much) are also poorly informed.

The phrase "a drop in the ocean springs to mind".

I think you left out the chemtrails that prove the earth is flat.

I ran out of tinfoil, needed protection from 5G

The newspapers will get fined if they allow someone under the age of 18 to access restricted content.

How, when what they put online is a carbon copy of what they publish in print? Are you suggesting the new legislation will censor newspapers too?

I've got some extra strong you can have.

So, do I have this right.

Labour have decided to lower the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds and at the same time restricted what those 16 and 17 year olds can see online.

And the argument in defence is to suggest that the children can illegally use fake ID and VPNs to avoid the censorship so that they can see what they need to or want to see to feel properly informed about exercising their vote rather than just what the government deem appropriate.

You can lead a horse to water......

No, the “defence” is that legitimate news sites will be accessible to people of all ages, just like they are now, and information can be accessed from other sources than the internet.

It's the Online Safety Act. The clue is in the title.

And yes it's poorly drafted. I don't make the rules...

And yes the newspapers will be fined if they put restricted content online for kids.

As I suggested, read the legislation. We can't do anything to fight this censorship unfortunately but at least we won't be sheeple thinking things are OK.

Labour have decided to lower the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds and at the same time restricted what those 16 and 17 year olds can see online.

The voting age was a manifesto pledge.

The Online Safety Act was Conservative legislation.

No, you got that quite wrong.

16-17 year olds can still access news and see for themselves how political decisions affect their daily life.

And the 'censorship' applies to anyone who doesn't supply proof of age.

The newspapers will get fined if they allow someone under the age of 18 to access restricted content.

Then they won’t do it. It is possible to report news without restricted content.

So if they happened to put porn on the Telegraph website by mistake that breached the online safety act, that's the defence.

Who decides what is "legitimate " news? Because in a future Reform government they could argue showing 16 year olds scenes of violent protest against say, mass deportations, as restricted content that may upset 17 year olds. And so the 17 year olds vote Reform without being fully informed (obviously they may agree with that but that's not my point).

Who decides?

The "proof of age" is so that 16 and 17 year olds can be censored....

Who decides what is "legitimate " news?

I didn’t say that either. I said legitimate news sites. This is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Do you think under 18's live in a bubble with no interactions with the outside world?

How would Reform stop them seeing protests on tv?

I'd say the same about you.

I suspect you know exactly where I am coming from..

This is not a tribal issue. It's gerrymandering and it's dreadful.

The point is that 16 and 17 year olds aren't legally allowed to see everything that 18 year olds can. Now they might have ways round that. But that's not the point.

No, I don’t know where you’re coming from because your argument, such as it is, is completely illogical.

We know exactly where you're coming from, yes. You're right about that. You're wrong about everything else though - you don't know that this is going to happen. It's no more than a belief based on your own political loyalties.

Online

Their parents can use parental control

@Quirkswork I also note that you have not answered my question: What is it that you are so afraid of with regard to giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote, given that as a cohort they will have little to no influence on the outcome of an election?

How?

16.and 17.year olds aren't legally allowed to access restricted content online.

This may include scenes of violent protest or descriptions of rape gangs. These could be described as political issues.

What is "restricted content" is determined politically. By the government of the day.

16 and 17 year olds are given the vote. 16 and 17 year olds cannot legally see all that an 18 year old can online (which is where most teenagers get their information).

I can't be clearer and if you don't see the problem I can't help.you. I'm sorry for you and I mean that. The UK has gone very wrong.

Ps I'm not scared of 16 and 17 year olds being given the vote. I'm concerned that section of the electorate are being censored. We all should be.