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

UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 302 posts

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#201

Post by jvvw »

Aurornis wrote: post #190
jvvw wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already exists in the schools near where I live in the UK, but only came into place in some of them in the last year. I was surprised that they had been so slow about it.

It’s happening in my area, too (US, not UK). I was also surprised it hadn’t been the case. Apparently there were some policies against phone use during class but the enforcement was so toothless and sporadic that teachers and kids alike were ignoring the rule. Now the rules are firm, universally applied, and have actual consequences. That last part seems to be the key. You can try to say phones are banned but until t…

Round here they have a locked pouch they have to put their phone in during school which seems to work reasonably well (although I'm sure not perfectly). It makes it more clearcut if they do find somebody with a phone not in their pouch anyway that they've definitely broken the rules. They get locked at registration at the start of the day and then unlocked when they leave school at special points.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#202

Post by Lio »

hollerith wrote: post #171
Lio wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned and we think it's important. I that once freedom of speech and freedom to communicate and freedom to decent are gone they are gone for good. I dislike very much that politicians like Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have tried to shut down dissenting voices by comparing them to paedophiles or saying this is just about access to porn. I'm really angry about this. I don'…

>We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned Huh? I must've read thousands of comments on this site over the years to the effect that any censorship of the internet would be wrong.

Yes, on this site but not in mainstream discussions.

I've lost count of the number of politicians and special interests I've heard on shows like Radio Four's Today Programme talk about online "safety" and funnily enough they never speak about mitigating the fall out from that.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#203

Post by thisislife2 »

p-e-w wrote: post #146
ajkjk wrote: post #136

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?

Perhaps it may surprise you to know that's exactly how it works in some democratic countries - e.g. India and Japan - as the system does provide some leeway to the police on how they extract information from suspects. (India leans towards physical torture, while Japan to psychological torture). Moreover, Americans are often surprised to know that not answering police questions can in fact harm your defence in court in many countries, and police misconduct also does not necessarily exclude any evidence collected.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#204

Post by ajkjk »

Lio wrote: post #202
hollerith wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned Huh? I must've read thousands of comments on this site over the years to the effect that any censorship of the internet would be wrong.

Yes, on this site but not in mainstream discussions. I've lost count of the number of politicians and special interests I've heard on shows like Radio Four's Today Programme talk about online "safety" and funnily enough they never speak about mitigating the fall out from that.

Well mainstream discussions are idiotic, lol. You won't find any deep or principled philosophy there.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#205

Post by thisislife2 »

Aurornis wrote: post #185
thisislife2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too don't like all this "age-verification" approach, but how does banning phones in school prevent kids / teens from using social media?

The goal is to prevent phones and social media from being a distraction during school time. The schools in my district did it. Several kids ran huge campaigns with flyers and news media involvement trying to protest it, but after that died down the response has been very positive. It’s not going to satisfy the people who think that all children everywhere must be banned from social media at all times whether their pa…

Oh ok. I agree with you from that perspective - phone are indeed a distraction and should be banned in school. I do find that whole debate strange though because in India, schools (not government) have never allowed phones in the first place and our society has been largely fine with that practice. Nobody has accused any school of "overreaching" or made such mandates a political issue. In fact, my mischievous nephew's phone was confiscated by his school Principal who told his parents that she wouldn't return it till the term ended because they shouldn't be giving a phone to him at his age!

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#207

Post by danw1979 »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #150

When 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…

> When 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.

They’ll do what my son has done his whole teenage life, having been banned from social media by me before he even asked for it, and go out and see their mates in real life !

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#208

Post by ajay-b »

I agree that children under 16 should be limited in their exposure to social media but... I am deeply worried this will be used to either limit everyone else's access (particularly in "times of crisis") or may lead to a national identity requirement for accessing the internet. It's a little alarming the tech-minded public has not pushed back on this more.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#209

Post by theultdev »

ajay-b wrote: post #208

I agree that children under 16 should be limited in their exposure to social media but... I am deeply worried this will be used to either limit everyone else's access (particularly in "times of crisis") or may lead to a national identity requirement for accessing the internet. It's a little alarming the tech-minded public has not pushed back on this more.

Yeah where are the site banners? We had more for BLM than this.

Guess gone are the days of net neutrality and privacy protests by devs.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#210

Post by dgroshev »

drnick1 wrote: post #114
JonoBB wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s a lesser evil, at least in the UK, which has a reasonably well functioning government and society. As much as it pains me, I’d rather have that than the brain rot being forced on young kids. And you can argue all you want about “parental control”, but there are too many parents who don’t care, plus peer pressure is a real thing. I also think that at that age all the social media sites are a net negative.

> Because it’s a lesser evil, at least in the UK, which has a reasonably well functioning government and society. You wrote this in jest, right, right?

We do, objectively speaking. We have free elections, viable new political parties, working mechanisms of feedback from the population to politicians, and a constitution keeping up with the times (we had a constitutional change just this year).
Post reply on HN