Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#111

Post by AlecSchueler »

snehk wrote: post #107
dagss wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Norwegian teen parent: Seeing all the issues cropping up which is /enabled/ (not saying caused) by social media, you don't need to look for ulterior motives. I believe these bans are honest attempts to fix real problems. Examples I know about include 12-year-olds selling nudes, teen experimentation with alcohol being replaced with cocaine because cocaine is so easily available (the issue is the scale and how wid…

I wonder why Poland doesn't have these problems even though everyone uses social media including teens.

Doesn't it?

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#112

Post by orwin »

mrob wrote: post #87
orwin wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your country has a digital ID, it is possible.

If it's possible to revoke then by definition it's not zero knowledge. Revocation status is knowledge.

Sorry, i wasn't clear. If you have digital ID, you can emit time-limited certificates.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#113

Post by 28304283409234 »

TitaRusell wrote: post #91
mytailorisrich wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent, too, this is a parental responsibility, schools can (and do) ban smartphones as well. For under 16 there are tools built in Android and iOS to control and limit usage that parents can use. And at home parents can obviously also take the device(s) away.

If there were drug dealers selling meth outside schools we would not leave it up to parental responsibility.

It's both, in my opinion. As a parent I find I need support from school/authority. And I expect vice versa.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#114

Post by veltas »

veltas wrote: post #85
gwd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "YouTube" because if you want to , you can be your own broadcaster. Calling YouTube "social media" because anyone can contribute (although the vast, vast majority are just consumers) is like calling Fiver or Upwork or DoorDash or Uber "social media", because anyone can join and contribute.

It's like Twitter basically but with vlogs instead of microblogs. And now there's micro-vlogs too. If "X" is social media then so is YouTube.

To add to this YouTube has just added a feature where if you share a link it tells the person who opens the link your profile name, which is doxxing people actively. And further attempt to make YouTube more like other social media.

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#116

Post by 28304283409234 »

orwin wrote: post #82
28304283409234 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't Obama as well?

2008? You mean Habbo, MySpace or Bebo?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19331681.2014.89... or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3719417/

"Barack Obama’s successful campaign for the presidency has been widely attributed to the use of social networking sites, mobile devices, and interactive websites to engage previously hard-to-reach populations in political activity. Campaign communication strategies may be applicable for youth health promotion efforts, particularly for the highly stigmatized issue of mental health. In this article, we examine elements of the 2008 Obama presidential campaign’s use of social media technologies and content designed to foster effective political participation among youth."

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#117

Post by DrScientist »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #96
DrScientist wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't whether there are harms - the questions is whether the approach - a ban based on age, and therefore some sort of ID, has a hidden agenda. After all many of those harms you listed don't suddenly stop at 16. Many campaigners see this approach as letting the tech companies off the hook - by removing children from the platforms is removes a key leverage point to get the tech companies to cleanup their…

There is also the possibility that this is not a well thought-out announcement (which they say will take effect by spring so things can change) by a PM with perhaps only a few weeks left in the job...

Of course.

One very odd thing about the ban is that discord is ignored ( both a cesspool and almost every adolescent male who plays online games is on it ), yet youtube is banned.

Youtube has to be one of the most policed platforms out there, and also has a lot of really good educational content.

Such choices can both be incompetance and a desire to force everyone ( as banning via ID means everyone has to ID to watch ) to ID to watch youtube......

Re: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

#118

Post by SiempreViernes »

IshKebab wrote: post #60
SiempreViernes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also educational content on other sites

Not even 1% as much as on Youtube.

Maybe not all concentrated into one single site, most educational content on youtube is repackaged content from other sites.
Post reply on HN