Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.
Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is "designed to be addictive". A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.
"That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance," the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.
Starmer adds that the government is "not prepared to compromise" on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.
I just wonder who the hell is asking for this from the population? Out of all the things that are being brought up as issues on either side (like immigrants, trans rights, energy, housing crisis, the wars etc) I've never seen this being brought up as the thing anyone has wanted.
How have we reached this level of "democracy" where even protesting is banned..
Capitalism always trends toward fascism, this is nothing new.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
OAPs who don't understand how the internet or young people work and Age Verification companies.
Emphasis on age verification companies and other beneficiaries…
This is quite popular amongst parents where I am. There's also a big local push to avoid kids having smartphones before they're 13. Hopefully by that point they're mature enough to have a better understanding of what they're being exposed to, and are better equiped to know when to turn to an adult if something is upsetting or worrying them online.
Notably this isn't about restricting access to the internet, as kids have many other ways to get online at home, school, a friend's house, or even the library. Instead it's about ensuring they aren't exposing themselves to things they aren't ready for without an adult to guide them.
ETA: A lot of kids are pretty keen on this too, especially if they have had a bad experience online. The idea that none of their peers has a smartphone or social media means there's less peer pressure too.
Thank you for the perspective.
I'm surprised parents think this is helping the issue though. I remember being bullied in school and going home after being beaten by other kids, before the time the internet became broadly available or smartphones existing.
Not that I don't think bullying is a problem, rather that this is duct tape with a side of privacy violation for everyone with barely a thought about how to even do the age verification well.
We are not seeing anything about funding the educational system, trying to attract more teachers, aiming for smaller class sizes, funding activities and clubs or more support for parents to spend time with their kids.
Now imagine that that beating carries on when you get home, albiet on a different form. Kids gang up on each other online at least as brutally as in the playground. Limiting access to social media removes the peer pressure to put yourself in harms way, and removes the bullies' ability to access their victim. It is absolutely not a perfect solution, as you, say bullying happened before the internet, but it does go sone way to ensuring kids have some form of sanctuary without being pressured into leaving it.
The second, and, if anything, more horrific, issue is the amount of grooming that goes on online. There is an Ofsted report Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges that talks about this is more detail. Ideally this is the sort of problem that would be dealt with by social media companies, but unless, and until, it is, it is safer to avoid children accessing these networks unaccompanied.
Age verification is a thorny question, and I'm certain there is no perfect answer. No smartphones for under 13s is a fairly easy first step. Children that young can't enter into a contract anyway, so the parents, or another adult have to be involved. Smartphone free childhood is a voluntary pledge, but multiple schools in the area are encouraging their parents to sign up.
Age verification for social media is trickier, but I actually quite liked the bill that was moving forward in California, which just had your device send a flag saying you were either; under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or 18+. That way, services have no excuse for serving up inappropriate content. As always, it's not perfect. In particular, there are questions about who is responsible for ensuring the flag is set correctly. I think they went astray here, and it should be the owner of the device who controls it, unless it is explicitly made for children, in which case the 18+ flag should not be available.
Absolutely, this is a huge problem. The VAT imposed on private school fees is supposed to be ringfenced for this sort of thing, but it's not enough. We should be putting much more into educating and safeguarding our next generation.
I had the opposite problem. I had very few friends IRL, and wasn't happy. I made a lot more online. Had social media been banned for children, I'm not sure how my life would have gone.
I think the issue is not so much social media inasmuch it's abilities for parental and user controls lacking (or being unbalanced), or algorithms promoting severe polarisation and radicalisation towards fascism.
That and the cost of living as well the ginormous malevolent oligarch class, which affect all the above. Those are the root issues.
It'd be better to addres those.
It is a good point about the bullying never stopping, but there are other ways to look at it as well. For example, online communities can be the escape for kids and a way for them to find support and friends if for some reason they are unable to in person. Sure the bill says they're aiming not to block chat, but it's not always a clear cut (e.g. discord, also not universally good or bad either).
I also wonder if removing the social media and the online bullying aspect will simply increase the ferocity of the in-person aspect, or even the overall depth as bullies may assign blame to their victims for them losing access to services.
I agree with the rest of your points, unfortunately it's evident the goal is not to protect kids but to remove anonymity and cater to the oligarchy - otherwise the government would be pushing social media sites to moderate themselves and service providers to give parents tools for this (or age verification in a manner that doesn't expose your identity outside of your device aside from the age group flag)