Live data from Hacker News

UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

bbc.com

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#24
post #4
post #3

Porn block ineffective at capturing enough personal data. UK considers how it can build its own great firewall.

The UK has had a great firewall for decades - try going to a kiddie porn site or a torrent site and you will be unable to connect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...

What amused me is shortly after cutting the UK off from pornhub etc, the UK then tried to ban porn sites from porn with strangling -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk3qzq7k7o

If they had instead gone on a "porn sites that would obey the ID law need to flag themselves via this system and ISPs/phone providers should block them by default and only the account holder can enable it", then they would actually have some leverage over mindgeek (or whoever), and would be able to remove that subset.

But instead people in the UK now either use a vpn to bypass it and thus will also bypass this new law, or go to far dodgier sites which ignore the requirements that the commercial ones follow, driving teenage boys (and adult men) into the arms of sites with incest, bestiality, snuff etc, rather than this generation's equivelent of playboy.

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#25
post #13

Doing their level best to piss off the entire electorate with additional bureaucracy. Makes zero sense unless they’re actually trying to lose the next election. I opened Snapchat for 5 mins in Australia (on a trip there) and now it’s demanding I prove my age.

Sadly I don't think these are unpopular policies. At least not before they are implemented. The British public love a good ban.

If it's for a positive outcome, yes.

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#26
post #7

What is it about this 16 y/o cutoff that seems to be the focus everywhere? Why not 18? It almost seems like this will make SM attractive by making it a kind of forbidden fruit and/or a social standing status indicator for impressionable, malleable minded, underdeveloped minds of teens seeking to feel like adults. In other words, if I didn’t know any better, I would have guessed that it might actually be the likes of…

> uncontrolled and illegal psychological manipulation testing on its users

Facebook is so uncool to the youth the only idea they could come up with to make kids want to be on it again was to "ban" it.

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#27
All of this would be easier if we just called Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all the others by a more correct name: “Sales-acceleration platforms” and it's mode of operation is "inducing emotional instability in consumers".

“Sales-acceleration platforms” should be regulated to protect consumers, no? Also, why do children need to be on “Sales-acceleration platforms”?

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#28

Social media bans only exist for governments to strangle the anonymous internet. Politicians are very sensitive to online criticism. A German politician tried to have a commentor arrested for for saying they were fat.

Also let's not forget about Andy Grotes Pimmelgate

Re: UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s

#29
post #5

Probably going to illicit some bad responses, but hopefully here, people might see what I am trying to say. While I am annoyed a "ban" has to come into play for social media, it seems to be the only thing we can do in the short term, but as a person in the IT industry, I do wonder if we are missing doing an RCA on the issue. Even as an adult with a child, I can't see us ever letting our kid actually use social media…

I agree with you on a few key points. Social media is structurally harmful, it amplifies those with money and reach, and good parenting and education are important. Where I disagree is in thinking that “good parents” and awareness are enough; you sound like you’re doing the right thing for your own kids, but that’s the exception, not the norm, and many parents are themselves oblivious to how these products work, so legal guardrails are needed in the same way we regulate alcohol or cigarettes.

If anything, a 16+ cutoff is still quite conservative. These platforms deliberately target developing reward systems and social comparison in the brain, and there is growing evidence (summarized well in the book “The Anxious Generation”) that the risk profile changes meaningfully only in the late teens, so pushing first exposure from 11–13 to 16 gives kids a better chance of resisting those algorithms.

Banning under‑16s from highly optimised, social feeds is also not the same as stopping them from talking to each other; you can still have calls, SMS, WhatsApp, group chats, email and offline social life. In my own case I’ve been social‑media‑free for about four years while still talking to friends and family regularly through these channels.

As someone who grew up all over the world and never stayed in one country for more than five years, I’m 35 and still in touch with close friends around the world purely through direct communication, which has also made it obvious how distorted social media’s notion of “friends” is. Once you leave, you quickly see who actually reciprocates effort instead of passively consuming a curated feed of your life.

You are right that bans don’t fix the deeper structural issues of commercial platforms or information asymmetries, but that’s not an argument against shielding children while we work on those deeper problems. In practice, a simple, blanket rule is often the only thing enforceable at scale that doesn’t depend on every parent being highly technically and psychologically literate.

In that sense, an under‑16 ban is not perfect and does not “solve the problem itself,” but it is still the right move compared to the current situation of throwing undeveloped brains into systems explicitly tuned to hijack their focus. The consequences of which we are only beginning to see now... the issue is tremendous.

Post reply on HN