UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s • Hacker News Board

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#141

Post by monssooon » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #74

atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

There are very likely people who's work is to shill... Also here... If not influencing editors of entire sites even. But they are only needed until it becomes full though crime to even think outside of newspeak ;)

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#142

Post by jbvlkt » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #74

atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

Why do you think we lost free internet right now? In my opinion we lost it when all corporations switched to mass surveilance. Now we just stop pretending that social media corporations are not responsible for anything.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#143

Post by Aurornis » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #136

Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them. Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made. The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrel…

> I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them.

I couldn't tell if this post was satire at first read.First it complains about not weighting tradeoffs, then it follows up with a demand that we ignore the tradeoffs as noise and just push through with the regulations.

You see the irony, right? You're stunned that people can't weigh tradeoffs, then you switch to dismissing tradeoffs as noise:

> People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrelevant noise.

Considering the second order and higher order consequences of regulations is the entire point.

You're just waving them all away with an assumption that they will be solved in the future.

Trying to shut down discussion about the consequences of government action as noise is scary. We've reached levels of moral panic that people like you are happy to close your eyes to any consequences and insist we let the government take control and do whatever they want right now, without considering the consequences.

It's terrifying that people think this way.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#144

Post by gib444 » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

Our governments seem to have just two tools for big issues in society (because they're quick and cheap):

- Nudging, propaganda, posters and automated announcements

- New legislation to ban something

If something can't be fixed with either of those, nothing gets fixed. Shockingly this happens a lot!

Their mates will make some money and lobbyists appeased, then they'll get distracted about what to ban and clutch pearls over next, and the issues our children have will persist and get worse

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#145

Post by duped » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

raincole wrote: post #50

atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

> as drugs Because war on drugs has been such a successful policy...?

As a means of reducing incidence of drug use, prohibition does in fact work.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#146

Post by p-e-w » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #136

Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them. Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made. The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrel…

> Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made.

False. The whole point of fundamental rights is that they aren’t compromised on based on outcomes.

“Torture is bad, but not being able to get information out of criminals is also bad. Some compromise must be made.” That’s just not how it works, is it?

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#147

Post by hirako2000 » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #136

Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them. Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made. The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrel…

The monopoly on violence is trying to solve this problem, that's a bigger problem.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#148

Post by lokar » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #136

Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them. Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made. The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrel…

Assigning infinite weight to one factor or consideration is sort of the definition of fanaticism, yes?

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#149

Post by insurgent_dino » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

maccard wrote: post #68

peab wrote: post #60

Interesting that Canada is trying to do the same thing. Seems suspiciously similar. The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting. I think it's important we ask: could we invoke this ban without surveillance? - identity scan is one solution But surely there are other solutions? Can't you just make laws that get kids in trouble if they get caught on social media? Kids get in trouble for missing school..…

The solution is parental controls on devices.

This

The government shouldn't be parenting other parents kids

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#150

Post by phyzix5761 » Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

When you try to ban people from doing something they find ways to do it illegally. Humans have a need to socialize and kids are not going to stop using the internet for that just because of some law.

Aided by their parents, I'm sure, they will find seedier ways to do this. Ways that are not regulated at all, even by sensible laws that prevent direct exploitation. The parents obviously don't care that their kids use social media, otherwise they would take steps to stop it.

These laws are not going to bring back the days where we all were riding our bikes outside and reading physical books. That's not the way of life for these kids. But it's, very likely, going to put children in a more dangerous situation as they try to find some kind of solution to their social needs online.