Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by TitaRusell » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 9:57 AM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #77

28304283409234 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#92

Post by designerarvid » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM UTC

28304283409234 wrote: post #71

designerarvid wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Always difficult to define a year exactly. Obama a/b-testing campaigns was definitely a step on the way.

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

#93

Post by pyb » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 10:46 AM UTC

"Social media" is such a wide and vague term. We're basically banning people from talking to each other.

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

#94

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 11:22 AM UTC

H4cks0r1337 wrote: post #70

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?

No. Simple as. Savvy teenagers will just go to darker corners of the internet.

But there are many many not savvy teenagers that won't do that. So at least this may help them, until they turn 16.

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

#95

Post by DrScientist » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 11:30 AM UTC

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…

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 act generally.

Obviously it's quite possible the not-so-hidden agenda is simply a political one of 'being seen to do something'.

I see that youtube is on the blanket banned list - which is a bit surprising given they are probably one of the more responsible platforms and it also contains lots of educational stuff.

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

#96

Post by mytailorisrich » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 11:36 AM UTC

DrScientist wrote: post #95

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…

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...

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

#97

Post by tsukikage » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 11:53 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #61

tsukikage wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…so, have kids actually stopped watching Youtube?

Watching youtube wasn't banned. They just got banned from having an account and participating in the social features of youtube. As for how effective the ban was on getting kids off social media in general, I think it's a long process that doesn't entirely sit on this change. Banning phones in schools has been a much faster more radical improvement. It's going to take a lot more work to defeat the tech giants but I'm…

...ah. So, kids can doomscroll youtube shorts all they want, but they can't use a premium account that lets them avoid adverts. Does that... help?

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

#98

Post by H4cks0r1337 » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 12:03 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #94

H4cks0r1337 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Simple as. Savvy teenagers will just go to darker corners of the internet.

But there are many many not savvy teenagers that won't do that. So at least this may help them, until they turn 16.

Teenagers have a way of helping each other out when it comes to things like this.

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

#99

Post by suprfnk » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

egorfine wrote: post #67

As a parent of four, I will do everything in my power to keep my kids in all social networks they want to, including setting up VPNs for them, etc.

Interesting; do you think it’s a net positive for them?

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

#100

Post by win2k » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 1:00 PM UTC

ascorbic wrote: post #57

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?

The UK government has no problem being openly authoritarian when it wants to, without hiding it behind other policies. Whether or not you think it's bad policy (I think it's mixed), I think this is genuinely about what it claims to be.

The truth is the vast majority of British citizens (70%+) support this. Actually, support for the Online Safety Act went up in the year after it was implemented. People you talk to online are not representative of public opinion as a whole. British society is very pro-"protecting children", which is what this is advertised as.

A lot of old people think a social media ban will bring back the good old days of their childhood where kids went outside. A lot of parents don't want to tell their kids "no" to social media because of "peer pressure", instead of just telling their kids to find better friends.

Only a small proportion of the population recognises this is about control. No major political party will speak out against this as they know being against it is a vote loser.