Britain Unveils Sweeping Ban On Social Media For Under-16s (nbcnews.com)
- Reference: 0183891166
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/06/15/1653226/britain-unveils-sweeping-ban-on-social-media-for-under-16s
- Source link: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/united-kingdom/keir-starmer-social-media-restrictions-rcna350037
> British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has [2]announced a [3]sweeping ban on social media use for those under 16 , joining [4]other [5]countries [6]around [7]the [8]world seeking to protect children online. "It's a big step for our country," Starmer said in a recorded video message released Monday. "Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe, and as a parent, as much as a Prime Minister, I just can't let that go on anymore," he added.
>
> The ban will include social platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, while there is no intention for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included, the government said in a release. [...] Starmer's government called Monday's announcement a "landmark" move, saying the new measures would be brought to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected to come into force next spring. Beyond the blanket social media ban, the restrictions will also include blocks on functions such as livestreaming and stranger communication with children for under-16s, it added.
"It's not an easy thing to do. I'll be honest about that," Starmer said. "We haven't rushed into it. We've looked carefully at the evidence, and we'll have to adapt our approach as technology changes, learn from other countries which are taking similar steps."
He went on to say that it will face resistance from some of the most powerful companies in the world. "But we will take them on, and we will win, because the need for action could not be any clearer."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/world/united-kingdom/keir-starmer-social-media-restrictions-rcna350037
[4] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/12/09/2112230/millions-of-australian-teens-lose-access-to-social-media-as-ban-takes-effect
[5] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/12/31/1954246/france-targets-australia-style-social-media-ban-for-children-next-year
[6] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/04/24/1649232/norway-set-to-become-latest-country-to-ban-social-media-for-under-16s
[7] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/06/2116214/indonesia-to-ban-social-media-for-children-under-16
[8] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/03/27/1826207/austria-plans-social-media-ban-for-under-14s
Re: (Score:3)
> Where do you think their activity will migrate to?
*Stares at cricket bat. *
*Stares at football.*
*Looks out the window at the park.*
*Considers going to the movies with friends.* ...
Nah fuck it I'm going to spraypaint a corner store and steal some old lady's handbag. It's really the only option without my phone. There's nothing else that we could be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
A [1]Clockwork [wikipedia.org] [2]Orange [wikipedia.org] only ever represented a small minority of the British youths. Most hardly ever visited the Korova Milk Bar or went for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(novel)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
Re:BRILLIANT! (Score:4, Informative)
> Lets take all of our Youth, and ADD THEM to the ongoing and intensifying criminality outside... You just took away, what they are currently engaged in for 8+ hrs a day. Where do you think their activity will migrate to? LOL! The crime explosion from this will be the most interesting thing to happen EVER. (Grabs popcorn)
Slashdot reader thegarbz already gave you a brilliant reply. I'd just like to add that kids being engaged in social media for 8+ hrs a day is likely to make a lot of them unfit to have a productive role in society. This will make them a huge drag on society in several ways, criminality among them.
Re: (Score:3)
Crime? Nah, Teen pregnancy will rise.
Ban them from libraries too (Score:1)
We would not want them reading for 8 hours a day, it could corrupt their minds
Re: (Score:3)
> We would not want them reading for 8 hours a day, it could corrupt their minds
I'm hoping you wrote that with tongue in cheek and were being sarcastic.
But in case you were being serious, I'll point out that reading - assuming we're talking about books and not posts - isn't perverted by some dystopian engagement-driven tech-bro scheme to separate people from their money their autonomy, and their sanity.
Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:3)
Undoubtedly social media use by kids is problematic and it's not something that can be handled just by parents. If all the other kids are communicating through social media, banning your kid is isolating them from their peer group.
But requiring identification to use communication tools is bound to be implemented poorly. Type your age doesn't work, but anything more rigorous is step closer to an Orwellian future.
Re:Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
It is about ending anonymity on the internet.
Discord for example is requiring your face and ID to "prove you're an adult", in countries where these laws were implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. It's not about the kids, it's about the adults.
Adults will complain that they have to send in info to prove they're not kids, and Starmer will say "it's funny you mentioned that, because we already have the solution. Just apply for your lovely new Digital ID."
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
But given UK, i wouldn't be surprised if was a solution like sending agents to your house to certify you're an adult, like the TV license thing.
Re: Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:3)
The trouble is its cant be handled by parents , kids are too savvy. And no, I dont know what the solution is either other than physically depriving them of their phones because this ban will work as well as it has in australia , ie not very well.
Re:Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
> Undoubtedly social media use by kids is problematic and it's not something that can be handled just by parents. If all the other kids are communicating through social media, banning your kid is isolating them from their peer group.
> But requiring identification to use communication tools is bound to be implemented poorly. Type your age doesn't work, but anything more rigorous is step closer to an Orwellian future.
I agree. And I think age restrictions are a Band-Aid solution anyway. What we really need to look at is the harm that social media are causing to society in general, Then we need to overhaul social media with a view making it a net benefit to society instead of a benefit to tech broligarchs to the detriment of society.
Of course, the government of the most influential country in the world is owned by the uber-rich to an even greater extent than the governments of other countries. With the people who benefit most from destroying society in the name of profit also being the ones ultimately in charge, we may be kinda fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it would be easier to just ban anyone under 16 from having a smartphone or tablet.
Please show us every paper you got (Score:2)
To prove that you're an adult, that is!
We're 100% not storing it anywhere, and this won't be used by Starmer to put you in jail for criticizing his face.
Re: (Score:1)
Aye my favorite is when they want proof I'm over 16. And somehow the fact that I've had an active account with them for over 20 years doesn't automatically cover that.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, it's obvious that the account were from your parents, like an inherited treasure
Re: (Score:2)
just tell them you are 5 and sue them for allowing access. i mean at least in US we had a rule for under 13's that no one enforced.
Good idea but parental influece more important (Score:3)
I support this sort of ban in principle. But the fact remains that parents' influence and guidance is much for effective than laws and teaching children how to navigate the online world, how to use it appropriately, and how not to be harmed by it. That includes parents leading by example too. Putting phones away when they are interacting with their children, at meal times, etc. And being a part of their children's online life.
But the big societal problem is that our modern economy's pursuit of money at all costs robs parents of the time and energy to do this, as both parents have to work multiple jobs just to put food on the table. So everyone suffers.
This ban won't address the root economic problem. Perhaps it will end up providing tools for parents to help partner with their kids and learn how network and fellowship appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, show me how an 11 year old girl who has had parental "influence and guidance" copes with Grok nudifying her and all her class mates being sent a copy.
You are incorrectly assuming that your controls impacts every other person in their lives, it doesn't.
It does not stop bullying
it does not stop racial posting
It does not stop offensive posting
its does not stop the scams
it does not stop the cat fishing
Parental controls is a myth, it does NOTHING and is so easy to get around its farcical.
I
Great Plan (Score:2)
So does a "blanket ban" mean everyone in the UK will need to provide government ID to access YouTube?
Wow, that will be a boon for advertisers... Not so much for the parents.
Re: Great Plan (Score:2)
Some of the best educational content is also on YouTube... Certainly beats netflix. Oh well. Nothing toxic ever happened back when I was growing up without tiktok.
Re: (Score:2)
the word you are looking for is brain-rot, and no not to this scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope there's a growth in Invidious usage.
That's fine. And probably enough. (Score:3)
Teens will find a way, like they always have. You can't stop the tide completely, but that's not necessary. Probably not desirable, either. You just need to slow it down. Moderate it. Like we've done for decades on other problematic things in society, I couldn't buy a playboy back in the early eighties... at least until I found the Chinese corner store owner who would look the other way. No shade - he just happened to be Chinese. Interesting factoid... it was usually easier for kids to get pot than booze...
There is not much of a downside here. Being identified might even curb the "asshole in waiting" inside of angsty teens and shave off the worst online behaviours.
Re: (Score:3)
> it was usually easier for kids to get pot than booze...
Yeah. Pot market back then: illegal. Booze market: legal but regulated. Much more for businesses to lose in the latter case.
One good argument for legalizing skunk.
How long until you Merkins Invade (Score:2)
to bring democracy and freedumb ?
Good start (Score:2)
Now do over 16s next.
One-sided (Score:2)
I don't have strong opinions about this one way or another, and I surely don't claim to have any answers, but I'm sort of compulsive about numbers and statistics. So:
* " [1]Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show [congress.gov]" -- but do they?
* "'Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse,' the [Facebook] researchers said in a March 2020 slide". But what about the other 68%? Did they feel better? Or were they unaffected?
[1] https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114054/documents/HHRG-117-IF02-20210922-SD003.pdf
Bluesky is not banned (Score:2)
Interesting, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't fit the exploitation model.
Bad for adults (Score:2)
Social media is bad for adults. This has nothing to do with children what so ever. It has to do with pushing for more identity verification to permanent identified each and every person with every single online request they make. It's the telescreen spying on everything you do. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with protecting youths is not realizing what's really in play here.
Convenient. Surveillance 2.0. (Score:2)
All this will do is tie you to a digital identity so that the government can link every adult to their online accounts, and then by proxy to their email, phone, other identities online, etc. And all of this under the guise of protecting children again.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think it does not happen already ?
Social media only survives by tracking exactly who you are
They already link you to your email, phone, other identities, etc etc that is why they buy and sell your information
They know who you are, you age, your gender, your sexual orientation, your religion, your income range, your family, where you work, EVERY THING, because they need to feed their machine. Why do you think Social media is getting into AI, so their information can be even closer to the exact
Letting 0-10 year olds read social media (Score:3)
Letting 0-10 year olds read social media: It's right beneath binge drinking while pregnant and leaded fuel in terms of intellectual harm to children. Maybe 16 is not the right cut off, 12 is probably easier to agree to. But an argument for cutting it off at 25 probably exists as well.
I'm not sure even adults should be on social much if at all. But generally society lets adults decide for themselves how much of they should drink and gamble and otherwise harm themselves to a degree. To a degree in that most countries don't tolerate cocaine and heroine usage. These are roughly agreed to limits in societies throughout the world, although not quite universal.
So I guess the question is: will social media laws in the UK and other commonwealth nations be at the extreme like the laws for drinking alcohol for most adults in the UAE? Or are the limits going to be accepted as normal and rational like laws for minors in the vast majority of nations?
Re: (Score:2)
Why 12 ?
There is a hell of a lot of complexities to social media, connectivity , privacy , ect etc etc
You don't teach 99% of kids Fourier Transforms, why, because they do not have the mathematical background to support that teaching
Likewise puberty has enough issues in its self, body dysmorphia , bodily changes, sexual desires, staring independence of thought and action
And you want daily dopamine hits etc etc etc while this brain development happens ? I mean WTF... There is enough knowledge by kid
Re: Foolish idea (Score:2)
Easy, dont interact with it as an adult either. Simple. And we know how that works because it's how it has always worked except for the last 15-20 years. It's really quite easy to avoid using social media today. If all of it died off today, humanity would be better off tomorrow.. its positives do not outweigh its negatives. Not even close. Social media is not a bastion of useful or interesting free speech. It's a tool leveraged by corporations to get people addicted to hate so they generate ad re
Looked FOR, not AT evidence (Score:2)
How could they have "carefully looked at" something they didn't find?
[1]https://www.techradar.com/comp... [techradar.com]
[1] https://www.techradar.com/computing/social-media/brain-experts-tell-the-uk-government-theres-very-little-scientific-evidence-that-phones-are-harming-kids-but-a-social-media-ban-is-going-ahead-anyway
Good old Labour (Score:3)
Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time Labor won a by-election?
Re: (Score:1)
What was left of Britain after the British Empire collapsed died under Blair.
Not that the post-Blair Tories were any better, but they were just following Blair's script.
Re:Good old Labour (Score:5, Informative)
> Free speech just died in Britain. Sad.
Something has to exist for it to die. Britain never had free speech as an absolute right.
Re:Good old Labour (Score:5, Insightful)
> Free speech just died in Britain. Sad.
You absolute clown, in Britain facts are not even an absolute defense for slander. The British have absolutely never even gotten close to having free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents in the US discipline their children for using foul language in inappropriate places. Various SCOTUS cases define situations where we have no free speech. There are boundaries and the British Government is setting down boundaries as to when people are mature enough to encounter the types of posts common on social media. It's terrible when I watch Millennial parents staring at their phone while walking down the sidewalk with their children. This was a bad habit before we understood what social media c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented).
Re: (Score:2)
"When was the last time Labor won a by-election?"
Never - Labour (and many other words) end in -our in Britain.
Re: Good old Labour (Score:2)
Dont be silly!
This is a truly visionary, and ambitious programme undertaken by the british PM!
By restricting the information and content young people have access to, they can double down on state owned television and enforce messaging that favors them!
It'll only take half a decade or so to come to fruition, but it'll work, I'm sure of it!
There's no way those kids will use stuff like proxy servers, VPNS, fake identities, or TOR exit nodes! If they just block social media, they can shut down all those bad dir
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be a Brave New World, surely.
Re: (Score:2)
kids getting exploited by tech billionaires... go on tell me why this is good?
Re: (Score:2)
> Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.
I don't think a few 18 year olds are going to sway the vote in any meaningful way as much as an entire generation of boomers will. But really is this appealing to boomers? In what way? I thought it would be appealing to boomers to have kids distracted and not annoying them.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.
> I don't think a few 18 year olds are going to sway the vote in any meaningful way as much as an entire generation of boomers will. But really is this appealing to boomers? In what way? I thought it would be appealing to boomers to have kids distracted and not annoying them.
Boomer here. I want kids engaged and curious and asking questions and getting into trouble - not enough to harm them or hurt their chances at success. All of the boomers I know are like that - both those with kids and grandkids, and those like me who don't have them. Admittedly, my experience may not be the norm.
I'm wondering if there's a cultural divide here, either Canada vs US, or if one or both of us is/are in a bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
GenX is the best Gen
Re: (Score:2)
16 and under do not vote.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they grow up into voters. And Starmer wants to allow 16-year-olds to vote in the next election because he hopes they'll vote Labour.