51–60 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are far from easy do handle for majority of parents. Banks keeps sending me warnings about some new ‘Nigerian prince’ level scams. They wouldn’t be doing it if grownups weren’t falling for them. General population doesn’t want to setup piholes.
You don’t need a pihole. iOS and android both have parental controls that are very simple to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Sorry to say that, but a few more steps in that direction from UK government - like blocking "non-compliant" platforms and/or banning VPN services and blocking VPN protocols entirely - and you will have a Western Russia here in terms of censorship. Maybe even worse... I'm feeling sorry for you; no irony or sarcasm intended, honestly.
How does it benefit the UK government to block social media for children?
Fewer voter from young people, though. The proposed curfew is even more stupid: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/how-uk-social-media-ban-wo...
Which would mean that a sixteen year old would be able to stand in a polling station and vote at 9pm but not then go on Tiktok once they'd left.
(yes, the same government which doesn't trust children with social media has also lowered the voting age. No, this makes no sense. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/representation-of... )
> “Children will be given back their childhoods,” As a parent, I completely agree. We need to protect children from the dangers of the completely uncontrolled "jungle" of social media. But above all, we need to give children back the right to experience a true, real childhood, made up of true friends, fresh air, friendships, and real relationships!
> As a parent, I completely agree. What's stopping you from doing this so far? Handing a child a smartphone is a decision parents can make, withholding access to a smartphone is also a decision parents can make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a parent, I completely agree. What's stopping you from doing this so far? Handing a child a smartphone is a decision parents can make, withholding access to a smartphone is also a decision parents can make.
Same argument goes for cigarette and alcohol. Withholding access to them is a decision a parent can make. Are you for allowing children to purchase them?
BTW, it's worth noting that, in the UK, parents are legally allowed to give their children alcohol, at home, from the age of 5.
If I was someone under the age of 16 in the UK I would absolutely attempt to circumvent this ban myself; and I'm happy to contribute to software that facilitates kids in the UK circumventing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One 'better option' would be to hold parents more responsible for crimes that their children commit. And to broaden the types of abuse that the state can respond to—if parents let their children habitually drink alcohol to excess or smoke tobacco underage, social services tend to get involved. Another 'better option' would be to prosecute tech companies that intentionally create addictive, harmful content. Banning so…
> hold parents more responsible for crimes that their children commit. Oh yeah, punishing children for mistakes they need to make to learn not to make them and moving responsibility from parents to the government sounds like a great idea.
(There's a bottom 5% of kids whose parents are basically completely negligent or actively abusive, and they end up causing basically all of the problems)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hold parents more responsible for crimes that their children commit. Oh yeah, punishing children for mistakes they need to make to learn not to make them and moving responsibility from parents to the government sounds like a great idea.
They were talking about actual serious crime, like the 13 year old knife murderer in Glasgow, who will undoubtedly have "previous". (There's a bottom 5% of kids whose parents are basically completely negligent or actively abusive, and they end up causing basically all of the problems)
I presume I'll be forced to dox myself for free to use those platforms?
Of course, that's the whole point. Gotta prevent another Belfast.
In many of the previous riot/anti-immigrant violence cases, those arrested have substantial criminal records, which tends to lead to the "why is this person not in prison already?" discourse.
(look at how long the court system queues are some time. It can be years from offence to conviction!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Sorry to say that, but a few more steps in that direction from UK government - like blocking "non-compliant" platforms and/or banning VPN services and blocking VPN protocols entirely - and you will have a Western Russia here in terms of censorship. Maybe even worse... I'm feeling sorry for you; no irony or sarcasm intended, honestly.
How does it benefit the UK government to block social media for children?
One common route that comes to my mind is this: block [something-dangerous] for children, then implement age verification for [something-dangerous], then use it as a tool of censorship. It's way easier to identify and track individuals based on their passport/ID/driving license than based on their email, IP address or even phone number. And then you're getting jailed for posts somewhere on BlueSky or X or on any other social platform because they were hate speech/disinformation/discrediting the armed forces (the last one is the real thing in Russia, and I just see the UK as the country which goes the same path) - while actually you was just criticizing the actions of people in power.
And you can also legally ban and block platforms, services and even software which doesn't satisfy the requirements of age verification.
That's how I see it; that is, I repeat, my assumptions and thoughts. I have never, never in my lifetime (which is rather short though) seen such proposals turn out to be good.