Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
151–160 of 302 posts
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#152Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#153I 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…
I grew up on that internet too (the freedom part). Do you really believe it is the same internet now?
Gone are the days when one could run their own mail server now because Apple or Google or Microsoft can suddenly deem it as "untrustworthy" or "suspicious" (based on some algorithm) and all your email will end up in spam. IRC and newsgroups have been hijacked by centralised Messengers and Social Media firms run by BigTech. They can ban you on these platforms for no reasons, without much recourse, holding your digital life hostage. Last year, I learnt that the much vaunted "free speech" no longer exists online - I have to fight and waste time with everyone - from the moderators to the platform "community managers" - to publish any factual pro-palestine or anti-Israli-right posts because these are being heavily censored on all western platforms (and unfortunately all English language communities are western platforms). Election manipulations by foreign platforms are also another danger every sovereign nations now faces.
> How did people become so naive to believe that this will benefit them?
So I wouldn't say that people are being "naive". We don't want to live in an "echo chamber" controlled by western or Chinese BigTech corporates and their ideas of techno-fascism. Not to mention that we really cannot ignore any more the societal and political impact of some of these platforms - Facebook / Whatsapp are responsible for causing many social unrest around the world and even genocide (How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... ).
The negative psychological impact of social media addiction is so obvious even in adults. So imagine how much worse it is on kids / teens - it truly would be irresponsible to not regulate it.
> That the regulations are only going to impact kids who use the “bad sites” and not start reaching for your group chat rooms and your social news sites, too?
Oh, very true! That is something to be very wary of. And the answer to that is to also fight for stronger privacy regulations and prevent government overreach. Not trust the government or the corporates to behave.
Here, you will have to understand and accept that unlike in America, where mistrust of government is inherent in the political structure (the US Presidential system favoured a weak central government because the makers were distrustful of a powerful Federal government) is very much in contrast to other parts of the world. Europeans expect and have more trust in their governments to regulate some aspects of their society, while the rest of the world prefers a "strong" Central government (and thus it is expected that the government will regulate many aspects of society). That is something fundamentally different vis American politics vs the rest of the world, that perhaps befuddles Americans.
In a democracy though, I don't see anything wrong in "trusting" your government more than local or foreign corporates (or even a foreign country - for all the talk about how America stood for "free speech", my experience with American / western owned platforms censoring my political ideas and beliefs has made me increasingly cynical if they ever truly believe in democratic values; so yeah - I guess you could also say that all this is also perhaps a backlash to current western politics).
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#154When 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 s…
It’s very possible that a policy like this could give everyone a new Schelling point to coordinate around, and thus change the default behavior.
We will see! I certainly agree this policy won’t prevent the kids that really want to use an app.
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#155Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#156Interesting 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.
IOW its a coordination problem. You need most of the other parents in your social group to also implement those controls.
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#157I 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…
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Sorry to break it out to you, but the internet was already destroyed by people like you in silicon valley, not the government
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some evidence that it didn’t work in Australia? Given the ban hasn’t been in place that long I’d like to see your sources about it not working.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/31/meta-... Limited success might be a better term. But if a supposedly blanket ban only stopped 30% of under-16s accounts from accessing social media, that does seem pretty failure-esque.
Presumably you wouldn't call laws against murder a failure because there are murders.
Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s
#160Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.
And yet the vast majority of parents are in favour of a ban.