12 ms·

Every country should set 16 as the minimum age for social media accounts

• baggachipz 10mo ago
  I absolutely agree that gamified, algorithm-driven social media should be banned for those under 16. My issue is how that should be done. I sure as shit don't want to have to present my ID to look at dank memes.
  • JoshTriplett 10mo ago
    I don't think it should be banned, but I'm all for encouraging alternatives that use simple reverse-chronological and don't have the same tendency to create FOMO, a desire to check repeatedly, etc.
  • Hizonner 10mo ago
    Why for those under 16 in particular? It has no value for anybody at any age, and has apparently driven tons of adults insane. But the right answer is still to ban advertising. And I don't mean just to those under 16.
    • glial 10mo ago
      Agree, targeted advertising in particular is a trojan horse for many other internet-fueled social ills.
    • marcosdumay 10mo ago
      > But the right answer is still to ban advertising. Banning platform owned advertising on social networks is already impossible. If you have any concept that is broader than that, rest assured trying it will create a dystopia that still has advertising.
      • deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      • AngryData 10mo ago
        I assumed they meant banning most unsolicited advertising completely, even outside of social media. Advertizing is a scourge upon humanity. We know propaganda works and is generally bad, so why should propaganda be allowed to be used for money making purposes? Especially when money itself can and is used to influence politics even more directly?
    • NoPicklez 10mo ago
      Why not the same thing for alcohol? I think its fairly obvious why there are certain age restrictions for younger groups of people as they are more vulnerable.
      • Hizonner 10mo ago
        Because people actually want alcohol, whereas advertising is generally something they're stuck with.
  • jsemrau 10mo ago
    Its not only gamified and algorithm driven. People are also monetarily incentivized for socially harmful behaviors. Irrespective of political affiliation. Political content is highly engaging and also highly toxic.
  • Cornbilly 10mo ago
    >I absolutely agree that gamified, algorithm-driven social media should be banned for those under 16. I agree. It's purposely addictive and harmful to peoples' mental health. The current situation is akin to having absolutely no regulations on cigarettes. Personally, I'd take it a step further and ban targeting algorithms for all ages and pair that with strict data privacy laws that make the entire user data industry collapse.
• matthewmorgan 10mo ago
  I don't really like how western governments are coordinating all these massive law changes together. Something distinctly sinister about it.
  • knallfrosch 10mo ago
    Sounds like you'll have problems sourcing NATO national IDs in St. Petersburg to create fake accounts.
  • sejje 10mo ago
    Amen to that. I don't think Europe and the US share enough values to do it on a lot of fronts, so perhaps that will shield me as an American. But it seems like a lot of that coming down the hatch for most of Europe.
  • lovich 10mo ago
    It’s governments with similar cultures and practices, all tackling a relatively new phenomenon. Coming up with similar laws could just be convergent evolution rather than coordination. You also can’t discount that once one country has tried it others that we’re considering similar legislation are much more likely to take the plunge if the outcomes in the first country aren’t negative
  • Quarrelsome 10mo ago
    something sinister in the masses of misinformation, especially political/social that takes place in those spaces too.
  • marton78 10mo ago
    You notice that now? Remember 2020-2022?
• gregbot 10mo ago
  There are two objectives that western regimes have for pushing these draconian measures: the first is to end the historically unprecedented era of free and anonymous political speech by ordinary people. The second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western people. Young people will only hear the perspectives taught in government school and on corporate media. No choosing a different perspective early in life. On the idea that this is needed to “protect children” it is the job of parents not the state to decide what media their children consume. If you want to make that easier for parents then regulate and mandate parental controls and make sure parents always have the choice.
  • lawn 10mo ago
    Or, you know, they actually want to protect the mental health of people. You may argue that the approach is bad (I would agree) but it's not because of some evil mastermind plot.
    • JoshTriplett 10mo ago
      There's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection. This isn't a hypothetical, it's the actual stated goals. https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... > The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
      • barbazoo 10mo ago
        > There's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection. Please do share that information.
        • 10mo ago
• charcircuit 10mo ago
  This would disadvantage young business owners, cutting them off from a crucial marketing channel for businesses in the modern age.
  • barbazoo 10mo ago
    Children shouldn't be business owners.
    • ghssds 10mo ago
      According to who?
      • esseph 10mo ago
        Laws in most countries require the age of 18 for signing contracts or anything legally binding.
    • charcircuit 10mo ago
      I disagree, many children have a unique view into problems that adults may be unaware of. Since they don't have to make back living expenses, they have a prime opportunity to make a start up.
      • barbazoo 10mo ago
        Most children don’t and most children need to be protected until adulthood when they have a better idea about the consequences of their decisions. Tragedy of the commons again.
        • charcircuit 10mo ago
          We shouldn't let the majority hold back the high performers.
• sejje 10mo ago
  I think it would be much easier to pressure the ~ten companies or whatever to implement policies.
• asdfasdfdf 10mo ago
  [dead]
• bahmboo 10mo ago
  Or perhaps we should watch what happens in Australia and draw lessons from it? I have a hard time telling a teenager that they cannot socialize with people just because it is via electronic means. I also do not like teenagers identities manipulated for commercial ends. Though we have done this since the 1950s. Also shouldn't we ban MTV and rock and roll music in general? It's destroying the youth!
  • barbazoo 10mo ago
    > I have a hard time telling a teenager that they cannot socialize with people just because it is via electronic means There are still other means to chat with other individuals or groups that don't involve social media.
    • johnisgood 10mo ago
      Not according to many people on here. They consider WhatsApp "social media" for example because of group chat.
      • barbazoo 10mo ago
        True, they're just not social media in the context of this "social media ban".
  • sejje 10mo ago
    It's the social media, not the digital communication. AIM/ICQ didn't rot our brains or attention spans.
    • bahmboo 10mo ago
      That's a good point. The problem for me is where the line is drawn. Is a car enthusiast forum social media? How about youtube comments? I think society is generally improved when the teenage generation is at least part of discussions. We need to protect the young people but excluding them and suppressing them leads to unintended consequences. I am not a tiktok apologist. Hey Facebook used to be enemy number 1 and now it's an afterthought for many people.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• aidenn0 10mo ago
  I like that this article at least links to a document with the features they want under scrutiny, but they do avoid a definition, and nearly all networked systems have at least some of the features in the document[1]. Is google docs social media? It certainly has social features and I've been witness to cyber-bullying via a shared google doc. What about Spotify? It has social features far beyond just sharing playlists WhatsApp? Discord? MMS? 1: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GVO7sNuCNmNwqVK64PHQI7wxd8-Gmr9PqdkW12elmus/edit?gid=941162555#gid=941162555 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GVO7sNuCNmNwqVK64PHQ...
  • giancarlostoro 10mo ago
    Discord is 100% social media. Just like WhatsApp. MSN definitely was, remember MSN Groups? MSN Chat (the IRC knock off), and a bunch of other things. As someone who has consumed social media and chat platforms, I will note that most chat platforms are social media in their own regard. Habbo Hotel is another example of social media. :)
    • iso1631 10mo ago
      Is SMS social media?
      • smlavine 10mo ago
        No, it is a protocol that allows a user to create their own social network within their Messaging app.
        • atiedebee 10mo ago
          Wait, how is that different from WhatsApp?
        • Bratmon 10mo ago
          How is that different from Discord?
        • vlad-roundabout 10mo ago
• NickC25 10mo ago
  Honestly it should be even older than that. Should be 21. Let's not let easily influenced teenagers on what are effectively mass advertising platforms designed to make the likes of Mark Zuckerberg even more money.
• hnspirit95 10mo ago
  Am I crazy for thinking setting age limits is just a lazy half measure by politicians who don't want to actually draft meaningful legislation for social media? Like the negatives of social media aren't just isolated to just kids and while shielding them from it is generally a good thing it still seems like putting duct tape over a giant crack in the foundation.
  • Quarrelsome 10mo ago
    its better than the alternative. I think generally in terms of grooming the internet is an insane thing to give to minors.
    • hnspirit95 10mo ago
      Which alternative are we talking here? Doing nothing? Or the alternative I mentioned where governments actually do something for a change?
      • Quarrelsome 10mo ago
        doing nothing. Governments typically marginalise techies when it comes to decision making, so the least they can do is make the call of lesser harm. If kids really want to use social media, they'll find a way. Its more about making it hard/impossible for those who haven't yet grasped their agency. As ever, its about electors and in this case: parents.
  • XorNot 10mo ago
    No at all, this is my actual problem with the proposal. We're 6 months away from the news report about "the new thing kids are using on the Internet" but the open propaganda and AI forgeries on Twitter and Facebook will continue to do their work on everyone else.
• rpowers 10mo ago
  Just ban social media entirely. You would find a lot benefits to society for doing exactly that.
  • eli 10mo ago
    Is HN social media?
    • ngruhn 10mo ago
      I'm certainly visiting HN somewhat compulsively.
    • XorNot 10mo ago
      Assuming someone won't harm themselves or accept sacrifice for a cause is a poor argument. If burning HN to the ground deleted Facebook and Tiktok out of existence, then let it burn.
  • amelius 10mo ago
    No, ban the ad-based monetization model. That's the most important perverse incentive. Others can be dealt with later.
• eli 10mo ago
  Surprised to see this seemingly presented positively on HN. Social media "feels" like it should be uniquely bad for children but the evidence is low-quality and contradictory. For example, high social media use is associated with anxiety and depression, but which direction does that relationship run? Meanwhile there are documented benefits especially for youth who are members of marginalized groups (e.g. LGBTQ). Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of problems with the big social media companies. I just think they affect adults too and that we should address them directly. But setting that aside, the practical implications of age gate laws are terrible. The options are basically to have an LLM guess your age based on your face, or uploading sensitive identity documents to multiple sites and hope they are stored and processed securely and not reused for other purposes. But OK let's assume social media is always bad for kids and also that someone invents a perfect age gate... kids are just going to find places to hang out online that are less moderated and less regulated and less safe. How is that not worse?
  • B56b 10mo ago
    Social media being bad for mental health in childhood is one of the most robust theories I've ever seen for these kind of society-wide problems. You can peruse the After Babel Substack for the evidence if you're not convinced, but Jonathan Haidt has consistently done incredible work here.
    • eli 10mo ago
      All due respect, I do not think the substack of one of the world's leading proponents of the theory that screen time is harmful is a good source for evidence that runs contrary to that narrative. Here's Nature reviewing his book: > Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers > These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
• oytis 10mo ago
  I am not a fan of governments controlling the internet and of Australia in this regard in particular, but Feature 4 makes it all acceptable to me. We shouldn't ban all of web 2.0, people, including children, have right to talk to each other, but gamified, attention-leeching design is absolutely harmful, and I would be happy to see banned for everyone
• taco_emoji 10mo ago
  No, social media companies need to fucking moderate.
  • wrxd 10mo ago
    That’s not going to happen
• fnoef 10mo ago
  It’s better to just ban social media all together. It clearly doesn’t provide enough good value to society, regardless of age.
  • pdpi 10mo ago
    You just expressed that opinion on social media. There's no reasonable definition of social media that wouldn't include Hacker News.
• AngryData 10mo ago
  If something is unacceptable for a 15 year old, it is unacceptable for the majority of the adult population too. I do not support age restrictions on information in any form. If you don't want your kids to do or view certain things, that is your problem to solve. There are plenty of parental control options and apps already, we have had legislation proposed to label adult content, the reason all this verification crap keeps getting pushed is because corporations want your full identity to sell and fascist supporters want to dox everyone and their ideas and activities for the government to control and punish people for.
• Reason077 10mo ago
  Is this ban actually effective and going to be enforced, anyway? My 15-year old niece just returned from Australia where she reports she was definitely still able to access Tik Tok and Instagram while in the country. Her similarly-aged Australian cousins thought it was all a bit of a joke too, apparently.
• tolerance 10mo ago
  If this were to take effect with the bulk of social life taking place digitally we can expect minimum voting ages to be decreased the same and in the case of the US, the age of consent for sex to be standardized in the same direction too with a deemphasis on 18 as the de facto minimum at the cultural level. And we can expect 15 year olds to hit the workforce full-time around then too I reckon. Or younger. Imagine 9 year olds stowed away in Waymo taxi trunks with socket wrenches and cyberdecks.
  • true_religion 10mo ago
    Or we could stagger the introduction to adult society, like we do today. Drinking beer at 16, drinking liquor at 18 for example.
    • tolerance 10mo ago
      In some circles I believe that’s referred to as ‘grooming’?
      • true_religion 10mo ago
        The circles I am referring to are the UK and EU. Are those the same circles you were thinking of?
• dontwannahearit 10mo ago
  This too shall pass. In 2050 people will say "Do you remember social media?" and someone will say "Oh yeah, those online systems where everything you said was used to build a marketing profile of you? Where every picture you posted of your girlfriend / wife / sister / daughter / aunt / grandmother or child was taken by some weirdo and turned into porn? Where our kids hung out and were radicalized by fanatics and foreign powers?" "Oh yeah, whatever happened to them?"
• Tiereven 10mo ago
  Maybe the problem isn't the teens. Bullying is bullying no matter where it happens. Profiting via dark patterns is despicable, whether it's preying on teens or the elderly. How many elderly people are fed distorted, sensational news and believe it wholesale? At least our teens have learned to be skeptics. Instead of punishing the innocent to gatekeep a system that is one of the most important innovations in history, maybe we should focus on the root cause: the crappified, ad-based internet that glorifies "clicks" above all else. We might have to face the fact that "free" accounts have become too expensive. If the cost of a free internet is a business model that monetizes outrage and addiction, it's not working. I don't love the idea of paid-only access or enforced identity, but applying a single standard to everyone might be better than what we have now. I still believe in the free internet, and I know what I want to do to build it: Make excellent content. Teach good things. I want to prove the value of an open and positive system.
• cadamsdotcom 10mo ago
  It’s hard not to blame Meta for this. Did they really need to push the evil lever to 100% just for engagement? Or could they have pushed back on shareholders just a teeny bit, in the name of long term legislative freedom?
  • gherkinnn 10mo ago
    Blaming a company that allowed bots to hold "sensual" conversations with children? An outrage! https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/15/meta-ai-chat-children https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/15/meta-ai-c...
• stevenalowe 10mo ago
  People under 16 should not be permitted to socialize or express themselves, nor should they be allowed to hear words from adults at all, not just online. /s
• jmward01 10mo ago
  The impacts of social media on children (and adults for that matter) are becoming more clear by the day but a question, I think, is is it the format/function or is it the algorithm to drive the feed that is the issue? So, for instance, pushing damaging teen influencers at a child's feed or pushing negative/polarizing content, etc etc. Could there be safe social media, that wouldn't need verification, if for instance the algorithm was 'dumb' and just showed friend feeds and feeds specifically selected to follow?
  • politelemon 10mo ago
    The necessity we have for infinite unsustainable growth will always result in unsafe social media. Safe social media requires altruistic and benevolent intentions.
  • asdff 10mo ago
    >if for instance the algorithm was 'dumb' and just showed friend feeds and feeds specifically selected to follow? That is how it used to work on facebook But social media was still toxic to teens even back then from the pressures they'd put on eachother, expectations for posting, etc.
    • jmward01 10mo ago
      That is making an argument that teens shouldn't interact since that generically describes many teen's lives at school. I don't know that we have good studies on 'dumb' social media vs weaponized social media compared to normal interactions for the target group.
  • Zak 10mo ago
    One study tested whether using TikTok/Reels/Shorts in the typical way, skipping videos any time the user wants has a short-term impact on prospective memory. The result was that there is a significant negative impact immediately after a ten minute session. That's cause for concern given that people regularly use these apps on short breaks throughout their days, and especially problematic if they're using the apps as their main source of news. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09658211.2025.2521076?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed#d1e337 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09658211.2025.252107...
• daedrdev 10mo ago
  What counts as social media? Is discord social media? What about Roblox? What about youtube? Many sites don't need accounts to access, is the account the issue or the access?
• unquietwiki 10mo ago
  I think stuff like this, is trying to recreate a world that doesn't exist anymore. With whom, are you gonna go play in the woods with, that haven't already been bulldozed into housing and strip malls? Do you need to watch YouTube only on a parent's TV that's logged in, even for homework help? Some kids start working at 14 or 15: they can be trusted to work somewhere outside of home, but not online? What about Steam games? What about any games? What about hobby & fan forums, that have nothing to do with "grooming" or grabbing eyeballs? What's next, an Internet license?
  • WheatMillington 10mo ago
    The YouTube situation is the biggest self-own in Australia's implementation. Previously kids under 16 could have an account under a parent's Family, and there are full parental controls and monitoring. Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring. Oh and have you seen what youtube looks like when you're not logged in!? Give parents control over parenting.
    • shirro 10mo ago
      Fully agree. I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family at all except for YouTube. Accounts under Family Link control should have been allowed as they are overseen by an 18+ parent. Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. When I wrote to the minister they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media which I do agree with. We had curated kids logins with age restrictions, subscriptions, and ad free under premium and also youtube music with individual playlists they used for instrument practice etc. We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this with special apps and browser extensions but this was a single cross platform solution that was working for responsible parents. To be fair it is partly YouTube's fault for prioritizing Shorts and watch time over quality.
      • 708145_ 10mo ago
• cbmuser 10mo ago
  Good luck trying to enforce this!
• jonplackett 10mo ago
  Does it worry anyone else that this is all actually a government attack on anonymity? I have 2 kids and I agree under 16s shouldn’t be on social media. But everyone then has to prove they’re 16+ Is this just stealth digital ID cards? Or am I conspiracy theorist?
  • aleph_minus_one 10mo ago
    > Does it worry anyone else that this is all actually a government attack on anonymity? [...] Is this just stealth digital ID cards? Of course this is the intention, or did anybody seriously believe that politicians deeply care about protecting the children? "But you have to think of the children ..." is just the argument silence the critics of these to-be surveillance laws.
    • jonplackett 10mo ago
      Hardly anyone seems to be talking about this though. “Won’t somebody think of the children” is still far too effective.
• mjbale116 10mo ago
  Re-posting an older comment of mine on the subject: Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban: 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best." 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn." 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes." All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.
  • protocolture 10mo ago
    >All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought. I have categorised my opponents, defeating them forever. No wait hang on.
• touwer 10mo ago
  I'd go for 80 as the minimum. As if adults are immune to the depressing doomscrolling and skewed algorithms on social media
• wnevets 10mo ago
  Is anyone else old enough to remember when D&D and rock music was supposedly ruining the lives of young people and causing them to worship Satan?
  • gloflo 10mo ago
    Neither were algorithmically designed to cause addiction.
    • wnevets 10mo ago
      Then why are "earworm" songs so hard to get out of my brain? Listening to Kpop demon hunters sure does feel like an addiction.
  • lifestyleguru 10mo ago
    TBH cigarettes were chemically designed to cause addiction, most music stars smoked cigarettes, then kids did follow them and also smoked. Will not even mention alcohol.
  • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > when D&D and rock music was supposedly ruining the lives of young people and causing them to worship Satan? And then the evidence didn’t pan out. Social media and device use looks like cigarettes the more we study them.
  • mcmoor 10mo ago
    I actually am convinced that it does make Satan worshipping more popular or at least normalized. See: Tumblr. You can say whatever about whether it's good or bad or ironic, but it did happen.
• Jigsy 10mo ago
  The question is, what falls in the scope of social media? Would IRC count? And considering it's not entirely difficult to set up an IRCd server (you can literally run it on a spare computer or inside a VM), would the state be branding teenagers as criminals for doing so?
  • aleph_minus_one 10mo ago
    > Would IRC count? And considering it's not entirely difficult to set up an IRCd server (you can literally run it on a spare computer or inside a VM), would the state be branding teenagers as criminals for doing so? That's the idea: the government wants to set up laws to punish people who set up communication infrastructures that are not officially approved by the government.
• MoltenMan 10mo ago
  Whenever this comes up people point out, 'Come on, let parents decide for their kids!' -- I sympathize with this argument, but let me explain why I don't believe that actually fixes the real problem. For reference, I'm gen-Z, COVID hit while I was in highschool, and I have seen and to this day see Tiktok / Reels / Shorts used every day by my friends (and to some extent me). I may not be having kids for a while yet, but if I had teenagers today I would absolutely move somewhere where it is not legal for kids to have social media accounts. The underlying problem is that this isn't an individual problem, it's a social one! If a teenager's friends all have social media, he is going to be left out! It is going to severely hurt his life. Even if he never watches short-form video (the main component of social media I think is detrimental), his friends will! When I was in highschool sometimes my friends and I would get together and we would be bored, have no clue what to do. Instead of messing around doing random things, a couple of them would just open up Instagram reels and bam, afternoon wasted. If the half the group isn't trying to do something, you aren't going to do anything. Contrast this with before I was a teenager and before phones, I vividly remember me and my friends just exploring and doing random things. It's just a different experience and I think social media needs to be banned for everyone for it to be effective.
  • aleph_minus_one 10mo ago
    > If a teenager's friends all have social media, he is going to be left out! The problem rather is that children with parents of very different value systems are forcibly put together in a daily jail (compulsory schooling).
• Nevermark 10mo ago
  > Every Country Should Set 16 as the Minimum Age for [Manipulation] Media Accounts FTFY. That is the real problem, no? The combination of surveillance, analysis of the surveilled data, very active feed manipulation based on that surveillance, and indirect business models that both finance and direct the specific manipulation. Kids should be social. They should connect. I think we do a grave disservice to our ability to reason about online safety by letting "social" be applied to what is largely interaction with adversarial/amoral value extracting algorithms, model-in-the-middle intermediating human connections, as if the result was any kind of natural social behavior.
• kurtoid 10mo ago
  This post appears directly above "So, you’ve hit an age gate. What now?". The irony
• budududuroiu 10mo ago
  Great way to absolve social media platforms of any responsibility to moderate content. "What do you mean we need to moderate our content? There's no kids on our platform, so moderation means limiting adults' free speech"
  • jonshariat 10mo ago
    So today but at least kids get spared? Jokes aside, we do need moderation of digital platforms but it feels like in the US political landscape at least, that would do more harm that good.
  • gerdesj 10mo ago
    16 does not define "kids". I recall going to a Subway in TX some years ago and making some slightly risque remarks - we are Brits (ooh er missus). We were mildly scolded that "minors are present". The minor in question was 20 years old, we were told.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• alwaysforslicks 10mo ago
  - Will the ban in australia catch everyone, No. - Does this present some privacy issues, Yes. But the reality is we needed to do something to combat what this is doing to our kids, while it might not be harmful content per-see there are serious effects its having to attention spans, warped perceptions of normality that these algos do to both normal folks, older folks and young children. What i think the aus legislation does tho is give parents ammunition to enforce good practices on their kids that might have been difficult when "everyone at school uses tiktok etc". Much the same way drinking laws etc give parents an ability to push back on underage drinking etc. It's illegal is a far easier argument to make to a teenager vs it'll rot your brain. This is not a black and white issue and those that treat it as such do a dis-service to a serious problem, we need to iterate on smart legislation and controls (zero trust proofs for example) that allow for safe and open internet for everyone.
• firefax 10mo ago
  And what happens when someone under that age needs to anonymously ask for advice on the internet? Most folks hit puberty at around 13. Imagine your parents have divorced -- your new stepfather is very religious. Your phone and laptop have spyways ("parenting software") on them. You manage to get onto a terminal at the public library. You've missed your period -- you're afraid you're pregnant, and not sure how much time you have to do something about it. There are so many edge cases where the benefits of access to social media outweigh the harms -- but we've framed this as a discussion about selfies and sharing when it's really about free expression, and there are so many dark turns a young life can take that are made darker if they're left to their family and friends to rely on for help.
  • bdangubic 10mo ago
    no solution will ever be perfect but social media is infinitely more net-negative for kids, period. just as your example paint a picture of someone in dire need of help outside of friends / family they get easily get wrong help and suffer severe consequences (“drink bleach and you won’t get pregnant”)
  • insane_dreamer 10mo ago
    Sure there are disadvantages with almost any policy but as a parent of teens I’ll take those any day in exchange for a ban. Even in your scenario it doesn’t prevent them from researching online. And the sad reality is that they’re more likely to ask GPT for advice than on some forum.
    • firefax 10mo ago
      why should your opinion matter more because you're a parent? in my experience, folks with the economic comfort to create children by choice tend to be extreme machavellian and justify said machinations by the fact they must provide for the children they have thrust into an overpopulated world. as a nonparent, i'm less biased towards the natalist mindset and thus my opinion should be weighed more, not less than yours.
  • paxys 10mo ago
• 627467 10mo ago
  Maybe most of these regulations already come with these restrictions, but in my view social media apps that cater to under-16 can operate if: - they dont offer an "algorithmic" feed - underage can only see content from who they follow and, most importantly - photographs NOT allowed. I bet 90% of social issues with "social media" disappears if these tools go back to 1990s style internet
  • parasubvert 10mo ago
    Lots of photos on 1990s internet. Everything has a camera these days.
• parasubvert 10mo ago
  Terrible policy. It denies freedom of expression to an entire class of citizens and their parents. This should be unconstitutional in most of North America and Western Europe. I was a kid online with BBS' in the 1980s when I was 10 years old and met many of my best friends that way. I have teens that met their close friends locally online too. This will also just lead to parents creating accounts for the kids. I'd much rather have parental controls to manage my kids account. And if the issue is bad parents , it isn't the role of the state to be a nanny. Safeguards and laws yes, but this is too far and almost totalitarian. Political parties that adopt this stance should be laughed out of power. Worse, these authors are not interested in debate, they just delete comments that don't agree with them. Charlatans.
• sershe 10mo ago
  I think this makes total sense, when I was 15 there was no social media and we socialized just fine over beers at an unattended construction site (ok also playing soccer but I do fondly remember opening bottles on rebar). Kids these days! /s
• chollida1 10mo ago
  How do you define a social media account? Some laws were including youtube in that list. I can't see how preventing someone from watching youtube videos would be a net positive, but if you allow youtube whiteout an account then why not reddit, why not snapchat as that's how most kids i know communicate and organize their sporting events, etc.
• wolvoleo 10mo ago
  I don't want them to do that because it would also mean I would have to prove I'm 16 everywhere that can be considered social media. No thanks. We have enough of that BS already. Even if it can be done in a privacy-conscious way I don't want it. And will avoid it by VPN etc. Just leave parenting to the parents. And fix toxic social media (the real root cause of the issue) or ban them altogether.
  • taejavu 10mo ago
    Yeah as an Australian I thought this would be the case and I'd have to stop using Facebook etc (because there's no way I'm uploading ID or whatever to keep using it). Turns out because I created my account over 16 years ago they're happy to assume that I'm at least 16 years old. Which makes sense but I didn't anticipate it going that way.
    • wolvoleo 10mo ago
      Hmm yeah but that's a pretty long time. Also what we see here in EU is that some sites (e.g. porn sites who already have to use age verification) demand it periodically, probably so you don't create one and give the credentials to a minor or something. In fact it's becoming pretty insane here, even my bank and phone provider want me to come in and show my ID every few years. As if I suddenly became another person?? I kinda snapped at them last time because of these retarded processes and I felt bad then because I know it's not the employee's fault but it's just so ridiculous. I'm getting so sick of this pervasive tracking and monitoring in society with everything we do.
• marcus_holmes 10mo ago
  I compare this to the alcohol rules. We recognise that children drinking alcohol is not a good thing. Adults drinking alcohol is also not a good thing, but that's up to them. But the countries with the best relationship to alcohol are the countries that also have flexible rules about children and alcohol; most of Europe allows children to drink alcohol in a restaurant with their parents from around 12-14, and order it themselves from around 16. Alcohol is widely available, and cheap. Generally these countries don't experience binge drinking or drunken behaviour, and while alcohol consumption is high, it's not so problematic. The Anglosphere has way more problems with binge drinking and drunken behaviour, and part of the reasons for that is that we enforce strict limits around alcohol consumption. We have strong age limits on alcohol purchases, and strong limits on who can sell alcohol and when they can sell it. There's a very authoritarian attitude to alcohol restrictions. This means that when Anglo kids hit the age limit that they're allowed to buy alcohol, they hit it hard and binge on it, with all the harms that happen because of that. Enforcing a strong authoritarian limit on social media will have the same effect, I think. Children will have no training on how to deal with social media, no exposure to social media in limited, controlled, circumstances with the support of their parents. They'll hit 16 and be given full access to the entire range of platforms, and they'll overdo it and binge on it, with all the harms that happen because of that. We need to get better at educating our kids on how to deal with harmful stuff. Banning it until they're "adult" isn't an answer because it doesn't train them on how to have an adult relationship to this stuff.
  • like_any_other 10mo ago
    > They'll hit 16 and be given full access to the entire range of platforms, and they'll overdo it and binge on it, with all the harms that happen because of that. "Full access" meaning deanonymized, with a hostile government watching over their shoulders to control online sentiment: First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...
• OurQuiz 10mo ago
  [dead]
• niemandhier 10mo ago
  I think banning is the wrong method, since it keeps the incentive to target teens: They are a very profitable consumer group. One could consider taxing the revenue for adds and content show to teens at an absurdly high rate and apply that as a default unless the consumer is prooven to be an adult.
  • aleph_minus_one 10mo ago
    > I think banning is the wrong method, since it keeps the incentive to target teens: They are a very profitable consumer group. This does not fit my experience: As a teenager (and as a university student), you barely have any money available. The value in targeting these users rather lies in forming their long-term values and long-time preferences (which rather few companies keep in mind: they are just looking for the next quarter). On the other hand, grown-up nerds who are intellectually under-stimulated or frustrated in their jobs are quite a profitable consumer group. :-)
• nkmnz 10mo ago
  Even though alcohol is provably toxic at any age, and more harmful the younger you are, we cannot agree on the correct drinking age: 21 in the US vs 14 in Germany. Laws aren’t perfect and they have second order effects, which is why it’s important to make such decisions based on individual circumstances. Parents - not almighty bureaucrats and especially not random bloggers on the internet - should decide when you’re ready for your first sip of social media.
• Ekaros 10mo ago
  Why not just make it 18. Would simplify everything so much. With expectations that everyone is adult. No need to control the content anymore. Porn for example could be freely shared.
• ropable 10mo ago
  I continue to be broadly in favour of this idea. I agree that there's some wiggle room around the specific age (15 vs 16), but for a population-level change you just need to pick an arbitrary value, implement, and re-assess later. I also acknowledge that 1) online age-gate mechanisms tend to suck, 2) the evidence of harm is weak, and 3) it really should be up to parents to manage at the individual level. But ultimately, I feel that a restriction like this would be a net positive for the mental health of the vast majority of young teens. Make the change, assess the effects, adjust/repeal as needed (just like everything else). It seems like the kind of change that's well-suited to undoing later, in case of unintended consequences. It's not like we're going to be permanently stunting the growth of an entire cohort or something.
• mc3301 10mo ago
  The problems of plastic waste isn’t because the end user didn't recycle; it’s a failure of companies to stop producing garbage in the first place, and they should be accountable for the harm it causes. I know that’s not how it works, but I can dream. Band-aids are easier. The problems of social media, addictive algorithms and attention theft shouldn’t be blamed on end users. It should be on the companies that design these garbage systems, and they should be held responsible. I know that’s not how it works, but I can dream. Band-aids are easier.
• nottorp 10mo ago
  Main problem is: What's social media? Am I supposed to use ewww sms again to talk with the kids, because they're not allowed on WhatsApp? If the post is from an US centric point of view, are the kids going to not communicate at all outside school, because if they play outside someone is going to call child protection?
• rdm_blackhole 10mo ago
  I am surprised to see the positive takes on this sort of thing on HN considering that we all know that is just the first step of many steps that the current governments worldwide are rolling out. Once we agree to that, then next time, you'll need to upload your ID to do something else and by the way you don't mind proving that you are not a psychopath and/or a sexual predator if you want to keep using WhatsApp/Telegram and other services? You also don't mind if we scan your private messages now, do you? We just want to make sure that you are are not some sort of extremist/activist or someone who might cause trouble. The slippery slope is real. We look down at China, Russia and Iran for silencing the voices of the protesters and dissidents but we are slowly building the infrastructure that will enable future governments to do just that in the future. Once everything is locked down and tied to your real ID, then it will be extremely easy to suppress view points or things that any government left or right doesnt want to see spread in the wild. What then? And those who say, well, we should just wait and see what happens in Australia because if it doesn't work out then we can always turn it off or something, my question to you is when have you seen a government go back on something like this?
• evolighting 10mo ago
  The issue lies not in shielding adolescents from the internet because of their susceptibility to negative influences, but in the very economic logic that governs the internet. They’ve built a system where everyone—not just kids—is a bargaining chip. Influence is treated as a product and sold by deliberately creating viral trends. It’s no different from advertising, but much more aggressive. By pushing content through entire information streams and dominating attention, it achieves an impact traditional ads never could. It’s proven to be extremely effective, so people keep paying for it and pushing the system forward, while brushing off criticism with cosmetic fixes—like banning kids from the internet and telling adults to just deal with it.
• schnitzelstoat 10mo ago
  Aren't age limits already in the ToS of most social media platforms? If the parents/children break the ToS their accounts should be deleted and their emails or even IPs banned. I don't really see why we need more government involvement here. It's just going to be ham-fisted and create unintended consequences like the kids in Australia having to use adult YouTube because they can't have a kids account anymore.
• ramon156 10mo ago
  I agree with the direction but the solution is just wrong. I know back when I was 12-16 my only outlet was online. Whether it was healthy I don't know, but it was better than telling my parents how I felt.
• vlad-roundabout 10mo ago
  How do you do it without harming privacy? How do you do it without nasty attestation that basically bans GNU/Linux? How do you handle children interested in topics (like programming) which only online platforms can sustain well? And allowing logged-out access is just keeping the worst parts, as the algorithms will keep showing the popular stuff, like those TikTok challenges. I propose, instead, banning recommendation algorithms. This would ensure that only content which genuinely interests people will be shown, not some weird brainrot just because it's popular.
• nacozarina 10mo ago
  Forcing people into a social underclass via digital exile is a grotesque abuse of power and makes a mockery of the ‘values’ you claim to uphold. Glazing it all with ‘for the children’ makes it acutely Less sincere, given the convenience with which that phrase gets trotted out. Zero points. The only consolation in this spectacle is that such abuses always bring unexpected consequences as harsh as the fools were misguided.
• incomingpain 10mo ago
  Restricting speech based on a protected demographic of ageism is wrong and shouldnt happen. But at the same time, I wonder how much of online political speech is actually poisoned by angsty immature low-info teens. But I do expect it's less than dishonesty. People who are parodies pushing negative stereotypes or dishonest positions of their political opponents. What would online political speech look like if everyone genuinely represented their own views as well as they could; including admitting when they simply dont know. Might be an enlightenment event on its own.
• poisonborz 10mo ago
  "Every web service that allows for communication should require personal identification to register"
• MaysonL 10mo ago
  So that bright tweens can get a practical introduction to hacking.
• simulator5g 10mo ago
  As someone who grew up with the internet, I disagree completely. Sheltering kids doesn’t do anything good, and is equivalent to child abuse in my opinion.
• erelong 10mo ago
  I was thinking as an alternative to this, a question of what education or orientation might be given to teens so that they might avoid some of the problems of social media that have led to people wanting to ban social media