A lot of issues require holding two ideas in your head at once. Age verification chips away at privacy and internet freedom. It likely also reduces harm to some/many/whatever children, even if it’s imperfect and won’t stop everyone. The interesting question is where the right trade off sits. People often end up arguing only one side.
The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
61–70 of 156 posts
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that’s a tech meme. If you’ve ever been near a PTA, you’ll understand that there is terrific civic potential in appealing to parents’ fears. The true think of the children has always been national security.
except in food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, or general well-being. The cuts to education were the last thing that disengaged kids from the world, of course they are going to self soothe
Then suddenly it becomes performative posturing with maybe a little extra spending here and there.
I'm not a fan of social media. I'm also not a fan of authoritarian governments.
From my POV those two things are more similar than they are different.
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#63Article mostly cites self-reported studies ie the kids think that the kids are doing alright, which is a different statement from the kids are actually doing alright. Most teachers seeing generational changes are raising five alarm fires around how badly the kids are doing. Actually testing kids is showing a startling reverse Flynn effect [1]. I’m curious what the author has in terms of actual evidence here? [1] http…
There is growing acknowledgement that this is related to laptop usage in classroom. Countries are recognizing this and rolling back policies, citing PISA rankings. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly0vk77vdko https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jun/15/educa...
“Later this year a ban on mobiles in schools – even for educational use – comes into force.”
It’s obvious to most that taking away the laptop while leaving the TikTok will not have the intended effect.
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same was true of food safety. Aunt Tracey might not be able to sell cupcakes from her home any more (made in the oven next to where the cat likes to sleep because of the heat), but we centralised things enough that when BSE and Salmonella outbreaks happen, which nowadays is extremely rare, we know how and why almost immediately. If the cost of ridding ourselves of animal torture, terrorism and child pornography i…
what a wild comparison, millions (billions?) of humans have died from food-borne disease, and yet we do in fact still let people very casually sell food to the public (even unpasteurized milk in the US)
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#65A lot of issues require holding two ideas in your head at once. Age verification chips away at privacy and internet freedom. It likely also reduces harm to some/many/whatever children, even if it’s imperfect and won’t stop everyone. The interesting question is where the right trade off sits. People often end up arguing only one side.
Massively downplaying it to say "chips away" this takes a sledgehammer to the core of internet privacy. In all cases in the world where this has been done before like China or Russia, freedom is also lost shortly after. Of course people only argue one side, the stakes are losing internet privacy and freedom in the entire world if the west also succumbs to these authoritarian policies. It isn't the government's job to…
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright covers a broad spectrum of properties. Most teachers have been asking for more resources for decades, warning of the consequences of not doing so. It seems a little on the nose to ignore their warnings and when the consequences manifest opt to blame something else entirely.
This is not about resources anymore. What’s especially interesting is that a lot of teachers take a paycut [1] to go teach in private school partly because the kids are better adjusted, rich kids have more comprehensive childcare and don’t need to rely on screens/social media for the gaps in parenting. For a taste of all these details, go on r/Teachers [1]: https://www.ccu.edu/blogs/cags/2011/12/teaching-in-private-s…
There is correlation between socioeconomic status and academic performance, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all. Schools serving lower socioeconomic populations should have vastly higher resources to address the additional challenges. One of those resources, is the number of teachers.
A teacher taking a paycut for a different job is not because they want less money, it is because the ratio of what they are paid to the work that is asked of them is better in the lower paid job. That is exactly a resource issue. If you pay a teacher 20% more and ask them to do a job that takes two teachers, then it is unsurprising that they will go for a job that more reasonably asks of them proportional to what they are paid.
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#67A lot of issues require holding two ideas in your head at once. Age verification chips away at privacy and internet freedom. It likely also reduces harm to some/many/whatever children, even if it’s imperfect and won’t stop everyone. The interesting question is where the right trade off sits. People often end up arguing only one side.
Wealthier people who can afford to have one parent stay home or have babysitters or nannies who will actually supervise the kid can do a much better job monitoring and redirecting than when both parents work long hours and have no money.
So poorer kids are going to spend more time scrolling brain rot, which may lead to worse academic performance and concentration problems. They’re also more likely to get sucked into any number of garbage social media propagated cults, wacko ideologies, and dumb fads.
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting to see UK-based influencers all citing these weak studies (internet surveys) about how social media is not so bad for children, or bemoaning the huge loss for children whose access to educational videos will be cut. While the financial motive is clear, they must all believe it to an extent, because social media made their careers and changed their lives. The reality is that the vast majority of kids…
The point is. I’ve heard all of this before. Does anyone else remember being 15 and having every adult nearby tell you that staring at a screen for 6 hours a day is going to destroy my eyes and my life? I can tell you it’s worked out pretty well for me. Of course I agree the pointless AI generated shit is a massive waste of time, but it doesn’t really matter what it actually is as long as it allows them to connect ov…
It's too easy to look back and think "I survived online", but what adults today experienced online as kids is very different from what exists online for kids today. It's not just parents who are saying so. The social media platform's own research shows that it's harmful.
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Psychologists call this black or white thinking - in this case, either something works perfectly or it's useless. Next to impossible to get a person who believes this that they're engaging in a cognitive distortion though. I tried the same thing you're doing, once. I gave up. They will die on this hill and then wonder why they lost long after everyone else had moved on. It's possible to make effective arguments in li…
> Psychologists call this black or white thinking The same can be told for your thinking. You (and several other posters) lumped several arguments into the same Nirvana fallacy [1]: 1. It's not 100% effective 2. It's only 50% effective 3. It is not even 10% effective These are very different from each other. The first one may actually mean what you described (either something works perfectly or it's useless) but the…
Re: The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Psychologists call this black or white thinking The same can be told for your thinking. You (and several other posters) lumped several arguments into the same Nirvana fallacy [1]: 1. It's not 100% effective 2. It's only 50% effective 3. It is not even 10% effective These are very different from each other. The first one may actually mean what you described (either something works perfectly or it's useless) but the…
ok, then what's the minimum efficacy such that you'll consider it viable?