ok, now guarantee that they get a library within walking distance, a bicycle a place to use it, and keep it, brick and mortor stores that have kids stuff for hobby and interest, parks, playgrounds, and police that call them "mam" and "sir", or, or, wait
just keep them inside with an electronic monitoring device that cuts them off from there peers.
UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
61–70 of 106 posts
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#62> “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.
It sounds like you're assuming a few things:
1. Where you've written "smartphone", you're using this as a proxy for social media, which is what this legislation purports to target.
2. aledevv is a parent.
3. aledevv has, for whatever reason, not withheld access to social media (I'm taking "smartphone" as a proxy for "social media") for their child.
4. What aledevv said they agree with is state-level restrictions on social media for children.
Please correct me if any of the above is a misunderstanding.
If the above are representative, then what I believe you've overlooked here is a the much more difficult issue:
Parents have power over children, at least up to a point, and many platforms provide help with exercising that power. Apple and Google provide some means to restrict social media access which place control in the hands of parents.
Parents do not, normally, have power over other people's children. Parents can influence in-person social circles, somewhat, but without withdrawing children from all situations where they interact with other children, including school, social media's influence upon a parent's children is still very strong via the indirect route.
When a child goes to school, attends a group activity outside of school, or socialises in real life with friends outside of school, there are always children in the groups they meet who either use social media themselves or have older siblings, friends or parents who use social media themselves and who influence those children themselves.
To be clear, I'm not giving any opinion about what's proposed here by the UK government. I wanted only to object to what looks like an oversimplification that makes a false assumption that parents have a level of control and influence that they really don't.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#63Feels heavy handed, but the brain-rot seems to be quite real, so I don't see a better option.
It is heavy handed on the wrong side. How about heavy-handed regulation of the Social Media platforms? Not content regulation, but operations regulation. I'm pretty sure bots and ai-spam can be both easily flagged and banned, something that would have a positive impact for minors and adults alike. But the platforms won't do it, because these drive engagement and keep their stock value up.
Also, including the mid-teens (15-16) into the regulation may have a generational negative effect. This is the age you start to get interested in the world and how it works. Social Media is the primary medium teens use to get this information, having eclipsed traditional media (magazines, tv shows, radio shows etc.) Banning Social Media for these ages leaves a gap in newer generations maturing to adults.
But maybe that's by design? I.e. make new generations indifferent to the world around them, and also prevent them from building resistance to (home) propaganda spread through Social Media.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#64Earlier 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.
It sounds like you're assuming a few things: 1. Where you've written "smartphone", you're using this as a proxy for social media, which is what this legislation purports to target. 2. aledevv is a parent. 3. aledevv has, for whatever reason, not withheld access to social media (I'm taking "smartphone" as a proxy for "social media") for their child. 4. What aledevv said they agree with is state-level restrictions on s…
To add a data point, my kids are not allowed on any social media and don't have phones. (They have iPads, but they are locked down and blocked at home anyway)
But that doesn't stop them seeing things on social media - when they are at the park, there are always peers there that have a phone and showing TikTok videos or Facebook reels etc, so even though I, as a parent, have blocked it at home, and chosen to not give them a smart phone, they are still exposed to it outside of that.
(And to be be fair, the same happens to me in a way. I don't have any social media logins, but I still get sent links for Instagram/FB/TikTok from friends, or my wife will show me something she's seen there, so it seems there really isn't much escape from it!)
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
A significant part of the brain rot involves full adults. Elon Musk is openly advocating riots in Northern Ireland; several people have been firebombed out of their houses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/belfast-riot... Targeting kids is a distraction from making the difficult choice of confronting powerful adults.
> Musk wrote, “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!” I'm certainly not defending the man, but that comment to me is definitely not plainly seen as "advocating riots"... I'd call that a very disingenuous stretch of the truth. If we're going to criticize people, I think we need to do it for the right reasons.
And what the fuck does he think a protest on the lower Newtownards Rd looks like, given the complex history & social context?
He's not thick, he's (at best) reckless.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#66This should be a parental decision, not a governmental one. UK parents are just offloading raising their kids.
Parents aren't responsible for the harms caused by social media services.
It's the operators who are responsible, and it's the operators who have the tools and resources available to reduce or mitigate those harms. So it is clearly they who should have taken action.
But they haven't, and so here we are.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#67> “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!
> “Children will be given back their childhoods,”
On one hand, i agree fully.
On the other hand I'm worried about how controlling and orwellian/totalitarian the UK is becoming under Starmer.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, that's the whole point. Gotta prevent another Belfast.
Except this doesn't, because most of the rioters are adults. 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!)
Hate speech laws are already in place. All that's needed now is for everyone to doxx themselves for the speech-to-arrest pipeline to work smoothly.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#69> “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.
You don't have children, do you? Being a know-it-all in an area you know nothing about. Denying a phone to one child is to isolate them among their peers. Denying it to all makes them equal again.
Re: UK Brings in Full Social Media Ban for Under-16s
#70This should be a parental decision, not a governmental one. UK parents are just offloading raising their kids.
Parents aren't responsible for the harms caused by social media services. It's the operators who are responsible, and it's the operators who have the tools and resources available to reduce or mitigate those harms. So it is clearly they who should have taken action. But they haven't, and so here we are.
The Ban for U16s is only going to push those who seek it out to darker areas with more risk. And for those who don't its only going to shift the current harm done onto those same children once they are old enough to then legitimately access theses services. Implementing the ban isn't going to fix a systematic failing of social media providers. This is the first step in a thinly veiled plan to re-implement the already unpopular UK Digital ID plan, under the guise of "protect our kids".