5 ms·
UK consulting on bringing in social media ban for under 16s
- xyzal 9mo agoIf social media means FB, TikTok, Instagram then I'm all for it. Don't start smoking until you are an adult, and by then, perhaps you'll have a bit of reason.
- 0x3f 9mo agoPorn block ineffective at capturing enough personal data. UK considers how it can build its own great firewall.
- blitzar 9mo agoThe UK has had a great firewall for decades - try going to a kiddie porn site or a torrent site and you will be unable to connect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
- squigz 9mo agoDid you just equate a social media ban and torrenting to... child pornography?
- benjojo12 9mo agoNo, he gave two different examples of websites that is typically blocked in the United Kingdom
- School-Cotton 9mo agoPointing out an analogy between two things, or describing them as two examples of a more general phenomenon, is not “equating” them.
- badgersnake 9mo agoIt’s just DNS though isn’t it. Trivial to bypass, some ISPs don’t even bother.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- ewwwtf 9mo ago[flagged]
- iso1631 9mo agoWhat amused me is shortly after cutting the UK off from pornhub etc, the UK then tried to ban porn sites from porn with strangling -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk3qzq7k7o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk3qzq7k7o If they had instead gone on a "porn sites that would obey the ID law need to flag themselves via this system and ISPs/phone providers should block them by default and only the account holder can enable it", then they would actually have some leverage over mindgeek (or whoever), and would be able to remove that subset. But instead people in the UK now either use a vpn to bypass it and thus will also bypass this new law, or go to far dodgier sites which ignore the requirements that the commercial ones follow, driving teenage boys (and adult men) into the arms of sites with incest, bestiality, snuff etc, rather than this generation's equivelent of playboy.
- dispo 9mo agoOr they could consciously choose to not bypass the restrictions and to not consume pornography. If they are seeking out vile material like incest, animal rape and sexualised murder then the blame lays entirely on them, not the government. I mean what is even your point? Male depravity is unavoidable, and men are mindless ejaculators with no free will to curb abnormal sexual behaviours?
- 0x3f 9mo agoAs far as I know, consumption of "socially-undesirable" pornography is correlated with a reduction in the corresponding acts themselves. Should we presume you're anti-depiction then, but pro actus reus?
- iso1631 9mo agoThey aren't, they're choosing bouncing boobs. The only sites left to them are the ones that were already illegal. Or a VPN service, which means the UK has no voice in the mainstream sites. You turn people off the professional sites which can be held accountable and they end up on the dark side of the internet. America saw the same thing when the puritans banned alcohol last century, people ran right into the arms of organised crime.
- 0x3f 9mo agoVery unimpressive compared to China. Typical, the UK lagging behind on tech.
- mystcb 9mo agoProbably going to illicit some bad responses, but hopefully here, people might see what I am trying to say. While I am annoyed a "ban" has to come into play for social media, it seems to be the only thing we can do in the short term, but as a person in the IT industry, I do wonder if we are missing doing an RCA on the issue. Even as an adult with a child, I can't see us ever letting our kid actually use social media till they understand it, and that comes down to parenting properly, teaching them the right way, and letting them know of the dangers. However, I see the root cause as these are commercial platforms which enable the person with more money to throw their version of events at all of us, not just kids and adults. I can see that it isn't just the kids we have to worry about, but we have adults in high places who will believe the same thing, and while we worry about the children in this, there are adults who could do serious damage to themselves and others, and people would look the other way. These days, people need to have different ways to talk to each other. Yes, I know we used to have letters, then telegrams, then everything evolves, but live changes, and information is so much more freely available. Locking people out of good information means that you are essentially stopping them from seeing the wider picture. Moving closer to sensorship. For me, its frustrating that this the direction we are going in, but it doesn't actually solve the issue. It just passes it along to later on, further time away, for it to then cause more damage later on. How many times have we as IT people left something and had to then deal with the issues later on. Social media is just that, it isn't good. I try to stay away from it, but in a way it is the only way I do get updates on what happens to my friends, globally. The world is changing, and we need to adapt, but we need to put the right guardrails in the right place. Personally, I think the blanket ban is not the right thing to do, but in the short term, we have ended up being the only option we can do, and that isn't good. That is why for me, a ban isn't good. It isn't because I don't think it will help, I just believe it doesn't solve the problem itself.
- closewith 9mo ago> Locking people out of good information means that you are essentially stopping them from seeing the wider picture. Good information is impossible to define, not least because it's different for every person. There is no single wider picture, certainly not one any two people could agree on and certain not one that can be legislated. > Moving closer to sensorship. Censorship for children is an absolute and unabated good. We should be censoring what children can see. We already do in other forms of media and communications. > For me, its frustrating that this the direction we are going in, but it doesn't actually solve the issue. It just passes it along to later on, further time away, for it to then cause more damage later on. No, unfettered access to obscene, extreme, & traumatising information, and unfiltered communication with a globe's worth of predators, is orders of magnitude more damaging to children than to adults. Delayed access until both biological and psychological processes mature dramatically reduces overall harm and introduces no new harm.
- hopelite 9mo agoWhat is it about this 16 y/o cutoff that seems to be the focus everywhere? Why not 18? It almost seems like this will make SM attractive by making it a kind of forbidden fruit and/or a social standing status indicator for impressionable, malleable minded, underdeveloped minds of teens seeking to feel like adults. In other words, if I didn’t know any better, I would have guessed that it might actually be the likes of Facebook pushing these controls internationally (not the least because they seem so coordinated all across the planet) in order to manipulate target users into coveting having a fb/SM account again. Tell me you think Facebook, the same Facebook that was caught running uncontrolled and illegal psychological manipulation testing on its users, would not do such a thing!
- ludston 9mo ago> What is it about this 16 y/o cutoff that seems to be the focus everywhere? Why not 18? Some studies have found that puberty is the peak problematic age for people to be on social media and 16 is the rough point by which mostly this is finished. There is a book, "The Anxious Generation" that covers this pretty well.
- wongarsu 9mo agoWhy 18? Why not 21, or 26? I agree with you that this would create a forbidden fruit, and a combination of social media becoming more desirable to under-16yo and teenagers binging social media as soon as they become 16. But the solution to that is to push the age limit down, not up. 14 or 12 would be much more reasonable ages. That gives parents a clear cutoff when their kids have to be ready for social media, and prevents bans in the phase where teens are most rebellious
- hopelite 9mo agoIt seem to me the obvious counter is that the current age of things like FB is 13. Short of legislated controls, guardrails, limits on that access (e.g., parental responsibility for any and all online activities with parental notifications, reports, and clandestine surveillance abilities, limitations based on immediate proximity or same school attendance, limitations based on age difference, i.e., only +/- 1 year, etc) I don't see how the current state is ideal. The problem now is arguably that parents are not really good at "teaching" children about SM, to a large part because they aren't "good" at it, don't underestand it, and it constantly changes too (Looking at FB here). I would agree with you if there were some kind of solid, public input crafted specification and standard for SM to not just handle minors, but even transportability across SM/sites, and also hard user data protections and ownership laws. The idea being that possibly anything but boring BBS basically dying out because the data cannot be captured, collected, and sold like harvesting humans in the Matrix.
- badgersnake 9mo agoDoing their level best to piss off the entire electorate with additional bureaucracy. Makes zero sense unless they’re actually trying to lose the next election. I opened Snapchat for 5 mins in Australia (on a trip there) and now it’s demanding I prove my age.
- 0x3f 9mo agoSadly I don't think these are unpopular policies. At least not before they are implemented. The British public love a good ban.
- Steve16384 9mo agoIf it's for a positive outcome, yes.
- 0x3f 9mo agoYou can present anything as positive. Ever since Lady Chatterley's Lover.
- gadders 9mo agoHonestly, my daughter has aged out of this now, but I don't hate it. I don't think social media is a net positive for under 16s.
- blitzar 9mo agoI don't think social media is a net positive for over 16s either
- lowdownbutter 9mo agoAnd I don't think social media is a net positive for 16 year olds.
- blitzar 9mo agoI promise I remember to include a greater than or equals to in my code ... most of the time.
- gadders 9mo agoHaha! Fair, but at least adults can make a semi-informed choice.
- mikkupikku 9mo agoWhy is American social media still legal outside of America at all?
- surgical_fire 9mo agoIt could just be banned altogether, regardless of age.
- throwaway85825 9mo agoSocial media bans only exist for governments to strangle the anonymous internet. Politicians are very sensitive to online criticism. A German politician tried to have a commentor arrested for for saying they were fat.
- wewewedxfgdf 9mo agoZero science, zero research, just politicians restricting citizens rights.
- tgv 9mo agoAt least read Haidt.
- LeoPanthera 9mo agoNot only did you not read the article, you didn’t even read the headline.
- wewewedxfgdf 9mo agoPlease don't break the rules of posting on HN. You should ensure you understand them to post here.
- camillomiller 9mo agoWrong. Meta has years of very well documented practices that are fundamentally detrimental to society when not clearly illegal. Explain why politicians, which have not acted enough to avoid that, now should not act to limit the issue. This line of thinking is detrimental and only defends the concentration of wealth that the online platform came to represent. You should be the one doing some more research, I reckon.
- wewewedxfgdf 9mo ago"Protecting the children"
- 0x3f 9mo agoThe practices may be well documented but the studies are... flimsy. Please send meta analysis for my consumption.
- delis-thumbs-7e 9mo ago> "The studies show that Meta has obtained extensive evidence, from many different kinds of research, that its products facilitate and enable vast direct harms to young people (e.g., cyberbullying, unwanted sexual contact) and that its products are likely harming users’ mental health, particularly for adolescent girls, particularly via harmful social comparisons, promotion of eating disorders, body-image problems, and increased depression." https://metasinternalresearch.org/#block-2e15def2e67a80c0928ae310940b665c https://metasinternalresearch.org/#block-2e15def2e67a80c0928...
- sputr 9mo agoAll of this would be easier if we just called Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all the others by a more correct name: “Sales-acceleration platforms” and it's mode of operation is "inducing emotional instability in consumers". “Sales-acceleration platforms” should be regulated to protect consumers, no? Also, why do children need to be on “Sales-acceleration platforms”?
- pandemic_region 9mo ago"Sales-acceleration platform", great naming I'm going to use this!
- dylmye 9mo agoWill they consult any of the under-16s they're targeting? Or just those who "know what's best"
- xyzal 9mo agoShould they consult youngsters on cigs as well?
- blitzar 9mo ago9 out of 10 crack addicts say its very moreish
- enaaem 9mo agoShould we consult kids if they would like to drink, smoke and gamble?
- pandemic_region 9mo agoDo we consult toddlers for their opinion about food?
- 0x3f 9mo agoWell, yes? At least, I've never force-fed a toddler.
- 1659447091 9mo ago> It would also look at whether more robust age checks could be implemented by social media firms, which could be forced to remove or limit features "which drive compulsive use of social media". Why not some version of this from social media companies? Revert the service back to the early days for under-16 (or whatever) accounts where they connect with friends and only see post from them in chronological order without all the other outside content injection. A very pared down limited feature version so the kids still have online interaction minus the content up for debate on its harmfulness. And if the companies did it on their own they could use that to look like they care; be the "good guys". The risk is everyone else wanting the same -- better, imo -- experience. In which they tell the adults to kick rocks and everyone gets on with life.
- craig552uk 9mo agoAs a parent of early-teen children I don't want a ban, I want better tools to supervise and educate my kids about using SM safely. - Searchable history of all content that has been viewed on the app - Age-based content/functionality restrictions, with sensible defaults - SM account DOB set from device DOB, with no override - Parental controls implemented consistently across all apps - Free comprehensive public education programme for parents about using SM safety Some of this already exists, but not widely and is rarely done well.
- Joeboy 9mo agoI'm fairly agnostic to the headline question of whether social media should be banned for under 16s. The part that seems interesting to me is whether this will entail linking online activity to real world identity for the rest of us. It doesn't have to, but in practice I guess that's probably what'll happen. Unfortunately all the debate is "but freedom of speech" vs "but think of the kids" vs, and nobody will be lobbying for a better (or less worse) implementation.
- 867-5309 9mo agorecent petition, only takes a few secs: Ban social media for under-16s to protect children https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/710283 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/710283
- athrowaway3z 9mo agoThis is sure to be a very constructive thread, but let me sum up the dissonance and solution I think will work. IT people are rightly afraid this will be used to create Draconian requirements. Parents are rightly afraid social media is having extreme negative effects on children (and society). Banning social media for 16 is the right way to go, and enforcement should be put on the parents / schools. Not the tech platforms beyond a cursory glance. The goal should be to get >80% of kids off social media + a campaign to clarify the other 20% is a bunch of addicted losers getting played by an algorithm. That's it. By making it the law you make it the norm. Dutch School policies banning phones have been overwhelmingly successful when you ask children and parents. They like having lunch breaks again where nobody is on their phone. Delusions about perfect 100% coverage by some technical solution that boils down to mass surveillance / authorized users is just idiots saying idiot things.
- adrians1 9mo agoGiven that, according to the ban proponents own words, social media algorithms are addictive as hell and impossible to resist, what do they think it will happen to those children after 16? Do you really believe that they will magically be "immune"? Even adults are addicted to social media, and it didn't even exist back when they were teens.
- woodylondon 9mo agoIt should be that when you sign up with an ISP AND have children, you should be required by law to install software to monitor and track your children's usage. It needs to be done at this level, as this then stops the Proxy, VPN argument as well. This is both a technical and an educational problem that needs to be solved. The technology for network monitoring needs to be easier for parents to install, with all 18+ content blocked by default, etc. Companies have software installed that tracks everything you do—every piece of software you install (or can't install if the system is locked down). We need this level of technology available at home. Now, if Microsoft, Google, etc all got together, backed by the government, they could build this in months, and so the cost would be low and shared. All mobile phone contracts block access to 18+ content. If a child has a mobile phone, then yes, block access to social networks. It could be a plug-in device that connects between your router OR an ISP-level feature that, when you first join, asks whether there are children in the house. If you say no and there are, then that's breaking the law. When you first install it, a well-designed interface would prompt you to select your children's ages and add their devices (laptops, iPads, etc.). You install the client software locally, link everything up, and the whole system tracks and monitors usage. Problem solved. If children go to friends' houses, there should be a way for them to join as guests so parents can still see everything. If children go to grandparents' houses or friends of friends, then either you need to install this box to manage access, or there's no Wi-Fi. They'd have to use their mobile data. What I don't agree with is that childless people have to comply. I don't know any children, and all the ones I did have have grown up now. Fundamentally, I do think that we need to find a better way to stop social media bullying, the fact that beheading or gore videos are so easily accessible - I think that's worse than any "normal" porn! Children cannot drink or smoke. It's not like you can argue against this; parents have a responsibility to stop that from happening. It's no different; in fact, it's worse. Now, of course, once kids get to 14+, they will find a way. Since the start of history, we've all gone through that, and nothing any government does is going to stop children from pushing boundaries, learning, and experimenting. My concern is that Gov will go down a route where every website you sign up to requires AgeID. It will be impossible to have Anon accounts anywhere. Sites will love it as more advertising and tracking for everyone. I stopped posting on social networks, as the second you say anything slightly different from someone else, the trolls come out and attack. I simply could not be bothered, and so deleted all social networks. Waiting now for the HN trolls to attack - don't worry, I simply cannot be bothered to respond :)
- chaz6 9mo agoI think this will be bad for the cybersecurity industry. I cut my teeth by hanging around on IRC networks back in the day. That said, I doubt these will end up being regulated due to their popularity and antiquity.