Il governo britannico “prenderebbe in considerazione” il divieto dei social media in stile australiano per i minori di 16 anni
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lisa-nandy-starmer-social-media-youth-plan-b2881684.html
di tylerthe-theatre
31 commenti
I mean of course they would, what wouldn’t this country ban at this point?
UK government ‘would consider’ making adults show their ID or scan their face in order to use social media.
Get in the bin, this kind of authoritarian bullshit needs to die. Australia’s ban is already a complete mess same as the OSA over here. It isn’t worth the billions in tax money that our govt would inevitably spend.
Labour speed running becoming as unpopular as possible
I don’t have children.
I think social media is one of the great curses of the modern age, and is harmful to children.
Implementing this wouldn’t affect me at all.
Nonetheless: Fuck. This. Shit.
This government can go to hell with their authoritarian bullshit
These laws are just as effective as the ‘war on drugs’….
I hate to agree with these clowns but a ban on social media for under 16s is a good idea.
How about fine the fuck out of social media platforms for even allowing dangerous content on their sites/apps?
While I agree kids should not be on these sites, equally this isnt a proper solution at all
Of course they would. They salivate at the idea of mass surveillance and the destruction of privacy.
They already take adults ID to access adult content, may as well take it from kids as well.
Throw in some digital ID and now they control every single aspect of your life.
You will have no privacy and be happy.
I mean, this is a good thing. Young people should 100% not be on social media.
So kids will use VPNs, fake ID, AI or underground/non-compliant sites to circumvent.
Social media can be shit, but banning it strikes me as an authoritarian government wanting to control the narrative and preventing any dissenting opinions or criticism.
It’s interesting that quite a few comments on here seem to be supporting this potential social media ban, but they hate the Online Safety Act and I fail to see how there’s much difference between the two?
I’ll say the same thing that I said about the OSA: The government have more important things to do than parent your kids for you; do you want Keir Starmer to pick your kids up from school or Rachel Reeves to help with their homework, too?
Whatever happened to liberalism? Really! Social media for under 16s is so dangerous that it needs to be compulsorily removed for each and every under 16? How ludicrous and immediately fascist is this automatic thinking? So, rather than do the harder requirements such as on-board greater levels of education and awareness just simply remove the privilege. This is abrogation of duty by the State.
Government: we’re going to let 16 year olds vote
Government: but they can’t use social media to come of age before they vote
Government: because they might get views on foreign and domestic policy that are different to our neolib consensus
Government: they can sign up to the army though
Government: just not question why they’re out there for
Government: or connect with anyone because there’s no third spaces IRL anymore
Government: the algorithm and porn made them depressed, not the lack of social options in their town and stressed environments from the precarious work their parents have.
Government: we’ll just keep telling Netflix to show them adolescence over and over again instead
Honestly, my only real qualms with this are that banning social media is truly a double edged sword. On the one hand, restricting access will help to improve mental health and wellbeing of not just young people, but also adults for whom the barrier to entry will cause to potentially not bother with the platforms, social media can be a very useful tool for those in marginalised/minority groups in being able to have an online community where in person may not be possible.
effectively this should already exist for under 13s. Unfortunately there are many parents who don’t control and monitor what their children do on the internet and for some reason they give them smart phones and tablets etc to keep them occupied rather than other activities. Equally parents can control what their children access on these devices easily if they could be bothered to set up their accounts properly and use their router settings. The government doesn’t need to do these things the parents should be.
How would this actually work though? As someone that’s over 16, does that mean I’m having to upload ID, or a pic of my face to reddit, etc?
How about just actually regulating the SM platforms properly with regard to bots / disinfo / impersonation… surely the fact they think they can say SM is a dangerous place for under 16s kinda highlights it’s actually unhealthy to society. Regulate the platforms rather than ban the most vulnerable from using them
The single biggest advertisement for this policy is the fact of the very founders of these platforms declaring they would not let their own children on Social Media.
Regardless of how shit Labour have handled many things, they absolutely should get this done once and for all.
The damage social media can do to young minds is staggering and, like other net-negative things such as smoking and alcohol, it should have an age gate.
—
What possible argument can their be against *trying* to give children their childhood back? To be outside of the toxic hellscape of social media?
Waiting for social media companies to act has been a dead end for years.
UK government would consider pre-approved mobile phones like NK
How long do we have to watch the sheer weight of overwhelming evidence about the intensity and scale of damage that social media is doing to the brain development of children before we finally act?
There’s already at least one generation of children essentially being made intellectually and emotionally disabled by this stuff, probably permanently.
The ‘freedom’ of adults to rot their own brains by making these sorts of choices for themselves is not a good enough reason to override the imperative to secure our children’s future.
That said: it’s incredibly inconsistent to argue they’re old enough to be trusted to vote responsibly at the age of 16 but also that they can’t smoke a cigarette or use Instagram. I’d argue they shouldn’t be allowed to do any of the above, but Labour aren’t consistent on this.
making 16 year olds be able to vote in the next election (3 years away) and then pissing off the current 13-15 year olds, who will be able to vote next election, is quite possibly the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard
I’m not against regulating social media but why not regulate the problematic parts of it in a targeted way? I remember when your feed was just posts from people you followed in chronological order, none of that algorithmic outrage bait nonsense from people you didn’t even know or followed. Let’s require social media to return to that instead
In theory, I’ve not got a problem with it. Social media is doing a lot of harm to young people, and I’d argue a lot of adults as well.
In practice, it’s too restrictive and effects many other areas, removes anonymity etc. It’s easy for governments to exploit.
Yeah do it. This is probably a smart move.
In fact get rid of it for everyone. It’s a cancer on the world
Well we’ve already banned porn so this is the next psychotic step
Good. Real ID social media access please.
Foreign influence. Bots. Etc. Are weapons used against us. We need to fight back.
At this rate they’ll make you inform GCHQ every time you go onto the internet.
Makes voting age 16
Does everything in there power to make 16 year olds hate them
What is this strategy called?
Also vpns exist
The U.K. government should just get in with it, and do it! To not do so is to sell out our youth of today and our society of tomorrow IMHO!
Don’t need age verification
“Is your profile picture mostly chin or forehead?”
Boomer, clearly old enough