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

71–80 of 118 posts

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

#71

Post by 28304283409234 »

designerarvid wrote: post #50
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…

Good point. Future historians looking back will likely consider 2015/2016 to be the point when we entered the social-media-epoch. Both Brexit and Trump where mainly social-media-driven phenomenon.

Wasn't Obama as well?

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

#73

Post by 28304283409234 »

dagss wrote: post #40
designerarvid wrote: post #10

Honest question: Is this about anything else than forcing all citizens to ID themselves to the government before using digital services?

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 cannot upvoter you enough. I'm a parent of teens as well. To those in doubt: Talk to some teachers of 8 to 18 year old kids/young adults.

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

#74

Post by bilekas »

I am no fan of solcial media, I think it was well intentioned at the beginning and like all good things, bit business has to suck the life out of it for every penny but this is unhinged.

It's very much lashing out for not having everyone verify their ID online to add to their already privacy invasive behaviour, but then gaslighting the people that it's all about protecting children.

One of the parents who supports it mentioned :

> "We've got to educate why this is happening, and the harm that is there."

Wow gee, wouldn't it have been a good idea to educate your kids about the internet and online ? Those of us who grew up before and during the birth of the internet seem to be better well adjusted because we were aware how it connects people of all kinds, good and bad. Todays kids are just given a phone with unlimited access and sent on their way.

It's not fair on kids, parents should have used the tools available, should have been more attentive to what their own kids were doing. I don't think its far in most cases to say "parents are too busy to monitor everything" There are plenty of tools out there. Apple themseleves have built in protections of useage etc.

I

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

#75

Post by sndgndgndgndy »

CommanderData wrote: post #20

Comes after certain ethnostates have the LOWEST popularity among young populations, and I'm certain this will help change that. The Iran war was won online and it's been widely reported the young amoung the military had extreme low levels of morale which had an impact on the battlefield. Social media is national security threat to our governments and colonialism needs it's foot soldiers.

Ah yes, Jeffrey Epstein was a, uh, "Colonialist". Working for the Colonialists to blackmail US celebrities and politicians. In the name of Colonialism.

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

#76

Post by rightbyte »

logicchains wrote: post #54
piker wrote: post #6

It’s a failure of capitalism that one of the greatest educational resources in four generations (YouTube) gets walled off to those who need it most. I’d say shame on Google for letting shorts ruin this for the kids, or shame on the UK government for short-sightedness, but it’s pretty easy to see where both are coming from.

>It’s a failure of capitalism that one of the greatest educational resources in four generations (YouTube) gets walled off to those who need it most. Without capitalism that resource wouldn't even exist.

Yes that is another drawback.

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

#77

Post by mytailorisrich »

28304283409234 wrote: post #73
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 cannot upvoter you enough. I'm a parent of teens as well. To those in doubt: Talk to some teachers of 8 to 18 year old kids/young adults.

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.

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

#78

Post by moebrowne »

XorNot wrote: post #22
designerarvid wrote: post #10

Honest question: Is this about anything else than forcing all citizens to ID themselves to the government before using digital services?

Its wildly popular to the tune of 70% support amongst the general population? The HN bubble needs to realize that it's not that people don't care, it's that they really want this and also when it didn't work started complaining they wanted even more.

source?

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

#79

Post by mrob »

More authoritarianism from the UK government. A more reasonable solution would be to make it illegal for under-16s to possess mobile devices (anything with a touchscreen and wireless networking that's designed to run off battery) and make it illegal to supply mobile devices to them. The problem is ubiquitous always-on access to social networks, not social networks in general. If it's something you have to consciously make an effort to access, like in the dial-up networking era, people won't feel pressured to be permanently online and existing offline social mechanisms will be able to moderate behavior.

It is less authoritarian to regulate property than it is to regulate communication. If there is a genuine problem, a non-authoritarian government must apply the minimum level of force necessary to solve it. Jumping straight to suppressing freedom of speech without trying less invasive solutions is pure authoritarianism.

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

#80

Post by hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm »

designerarvid wrote: post #10

Honest question: Is this about anything else than forcing all citizens to ID themselves to the government before using digital services?

You realise they don't need to ban under 16s to come up with an excuse to force online ID checks? This conspiracy theory needs to end.
Post reply on HN