Whats to stop them getting a VPN and getting on social media that way?
KeegsNW on
I agree with the ban personally. Unlike lots of other issues there’s no real ‘root cause’ in a general sense that can be addressed. It’s simply an addiction.
vriska1 on
Even big online safety groups are against a ban
> Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday: “There are strong arguments for banning under-16s from social media but there are also real concerns raised by the NSPCC and others about whether it pushes children to darker, less-regulated places on the internet.”
> Those arguments were reinforced over the weekend by Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, the teenager who took her own life after looking at suicide content online. Russell told the BBC’s Newscast he opposed what he called “sledgehammer-like techniques like bans”.
Throw323456 on
How are we justifying people who are too vulnerable to be exposed to social media one day being allowed to vote on the next?
Suitable408 on
These articles always fail to mention just how extreme this “social media ban” proposal in Lords actually is.
The Lords ban would apply to even the viewing of websites, while the Australia ban only applies to the creation of accounts.
Furthermore, the Lords ban even defines stuff like Wikipedia as social media. It also arguably might define websites where students turn in papers and do quizzes as social media.
JackStrawWitchita on
Remember when the US instigated the War on Drugs and completely eradicated illegal drug use? Or how the UK has made all drugs, including cannabis, illegal in the UK and now there’s not a scrap of cannabis use anywhere in the UK?
… oh wait…
MarvZealous on
Why are Labor so focused on online “safety”. Let parents mind their kids.
I want the government to try and fix structural issues in the country rather than these stupid things.
TheCharalampos on
The ruling is extreme. We’d bar 16 and under from being able to access… Well almost everything.
lsv-misophist on
Needs to apply to over 50s as well, they aren’t savvy enough to spot misinformation and bots
JudasShuffle on
They don’t need to ban them just give teachers the right to take and smash them if you’re live streaming from class.
limeflavoured on
The main issue I have with this is that it could end up actually making things worse later because you end up with people who have never used social media all using it at once when they turn 16, which could end up having unpredictable effects.
Gone_4_Tea on
This is not consistent with considering they have sufficient critical thinking skills to be able to vote. Or it is and the vote is unimportant because its just the same shit with a different label. Or The vote is important as is child safety and critical thinking is something we can generally expect the majority to be lacking in.
TheChaoticCrusader on
And people said this country was not going the way of North Korea? Locking the internet behind id sounds like a pretty good way of controlling your entire population and showing only what it wants you to see
Plus-Literature-7221 on
Soon labour will propose you will need to use their shiny new digital id to access the internet.
rollo_read on
How will they reach their target audience for the next election though, who are all currently 12 & 13?
ExoneratedPhoenix on
This is another “think of the children” to get everyone’s ID, as the only way to ensure under 16’s aren’t joining is to have passport/driving license etc proof of age.
Voila, you wanted ID gating, and you have it, via a law tackling underage social media, which is more popular.
Every time. The public gets fooled by this every time.
helpnxt on
Bet he wishes they timed things a bit better, not like he’s probably stressed and busy with a certain orange idiot
17 commenti
Whats to stop them getting a VPN and getting on social media that way?
I agree with the ban personally. Unlike lots of other issues there’s no real ‘root cause’ in a general sense that can be addressed. It’s simply an addiction.
Even big online safety groups are against a ban
> Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday: “There are strong arguments for banning under-16s from social media but there are also real concerns raised by the NSPCC and others about whether it pushes children to darker, less-regulated places on the internet.”
> Those arguments were reinforced over the weekend by Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, the teenager who took her own life after looking at suicide content online. Russell told the BBC’s Newscast he opposed what he called “sledgehammer-like techniques like bans”.
How are we justifying people who are too vulnerable to be exposed to social media one day being allowed to vote on the next?
These articles always fail to mention just how extreme this “social media ban” proposal in Lords actually is.
The Lords ban would apply to even the viewing of websites, while the Australia ban only applies to the creation of accounts.
Furthermore, the Lords ban even defines stuff like Wikipedia as social media. It also arguably might define websites where students turn in papers and do quizzes as social media.
Remember when the US instigated the War on Drugs and completely eradicated illegal drug use? Or how the UK has made all drugs, including cannabis, illegal in the UK and now there’s not a scrap of cannabis use anywhere in the UK?
… oh wait…
Why are Labor so focused on online “safety”. Let parents mind their kids.
I want the government to try and fix structural issues in the country rather than these stupid things.
The ruling is extreme. We’d bar 16 and under from being able to access… Well almost everything.
Needs to apply to over 50s as well, they aren’t savvy enough to spot misinformation and bots
They don’t need to ban them just give teachers the right to take and smash them if you’re live streaming from class.
The main issue I have with this is that it could end up actually making things worse later because you end up with people who have never used social media all using it at once when they turn 16, which could end up having unpredictable effects.
This is not consistent with considering they have sufficient critical thinking skills to be able to vote. Or it is and the vote is unimportant because its just the same shit with a different label. Or The vote is important as is child safety and critical thinking is something we can generally expect the majority to be lacking in.
And people said this country was not going the way of North Korea? Locking the internet behind id sounds like a pretty good way of controlling your entire population and showing only what it wants you to see
Soon labour will propose you will need to use their shiny new digital id to access the internet.
How will they reach their target audience for the next election though, who are all currently 12 & 13?
This is another “think of the children” to get everyone’s ID, as the only way to ensure under 16’s aren’t joining is to have passport/driving license etc proof of age.
Voila, you wanted ID gating, and you have it, via a law tackling underage social media, which is more popular.
Every time. The public gets fooled by this every time.
Bet he wishes they timed things a bit better, not like he’s probably stressed and busy with a certain orange idiot