8 ms·
The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy
- eiie 4mo ago[flagged]
- kennyadam 4mo agoIs that how it should work? The worst of us can’t be trusted to to behave appropriately in one area of life, therefore everyone must be banned from it?
- happytoexplain 4mo agoBucketing everybody who can't efficiently regulate children's access to the internet as "the worst of us" is unrealistic, and hideous. It's disgusting (or, charitably, inexperienced) of you to use these words. As I age, I understand more and more the non-realism of the argument "monitor your kids" in relation to the internet specifically. Everything else? Sure. The internet? That's like restricting a kid's access to the planet. The notion is out of touch and elitist. I don't think these regulations are necessarily correct in their specifics, but they are absolutely a shadow of something necessary to protect our species. It's time we stop being be so glib about such a hugely important topic and recognize its actual complexity.
- rando1234 4mo agoYes, if US tech companies exploitative behaviour is a net negative for children in our society then banning it doesn't seem unreasonable.
- rcxdude 4mo agoIt would be sensible to ban the exploitative behaviour in that case, no? IMO the bad parts of social media are equally bad for adults and children.
- happytoexplain 4mo agoNo, this is pretty arguably in the category of things that are more harmful to children than adults (gambling, drinking, etc). I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban it for adults - only that the impact is not equal.
- basisword 4mo agoThat's how it works everywhere with lots of other things. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. Given the amount of money that's gone into making social media as addictive as possible and the majority of mobile games really being gambling masquerading as games why should they be treated any differently?
- autoexec 4mo ago> Again, every detailed study on the subject has found that the number of teenagers who have negative experiences on social media is tiny. The study they linked is just self reported data from an internet survey. I'm sure that 13 year olds who don't get enough sleep because they're endlessly scrolling through ads, influencers, and disinformation don't see any problem with it the same way that a survey of alcoholics will show that beer is great, alcohol improves their lives, and that of course they can quit any time they want. I'm not even suggesting that this ban will be effective or helpful, or that such bans are a good thing, but we know that these platforms are used to prey on their users, that "negative experiences" can be found easily, and that there's actual evidence of actual harms caused or facilitated by social media (including corpses). It should take a lot more than the opinions of just over a thousand children to discredit all of that and cause us to assume there's no problems with these platforms, how they're being used, or the effects they have on children.
- trewnews 4mo ago> I'm sure that 13 year olds who don't get enough sleep because they're endlessly scrolling through ads, influencers, and disinformation I didn't get sleep as a teenager because I read books. Should we ban those too?
- autoexec 4mo agoIf books were collecting every scrap of data they could on you, and every new page you turned to was algorithmically changed using data collected from your reading history and from additional information purchased from data brokers, and the words and pictures were being used to manipulate you and encourage you to engage in harmful actions ranging from sending the publisher nudes to killing yourself then yes, we should probably have some kind of regulations on when and how children use those books. Facebook's own internal research shows that their platform is harmful to children. We don't need to depend on opinions of child victims.
- korm 4mo agoIt's interesting to see UK-based influencers all citing these weak studies (internet surveys) about how social media is not so bad for children, or bemoaning the huge loss for children whose access to educational videos will be cut. While the financial motive is clear, they must all believe it to an extent, because social media made their careers and changed their lives. The reality is that the vast majority of kids aren't interested in learning video editing or movie directing, they are mindlessly consuming AI-generated videos and similar content served to them. 30-second videos on random facts sprinkled here and there aren't education. Not that I think this ban will help, but downplaying the harm to children is a bit too much coming from people with ties to these platforms, like the author of this article.
- raychis 4mo agoThe UK government's turn towards authoritarianism on these sorts of things is extremely worrisome! Invest in a VPN to keep yourself safe.
- gerdesj 4mo agoWhere do you suggest for VPN egress?
- dyauspitr 4mo agoWhat a joke. Throwing around auth casually like this normalizes it.
- AngryData 4mo agoThe UK is an actual movie trope for pushing more and more authoritarian with their massive amount of surveillance and petty regulations and restrictions. I don't think it is a joke at all, they have been continuously moving that way the last few decades. Just because some places are or were at one time worse that doesn't absolve the UK from guilt.
- dyauspitr 4mo agoThis seems like a popular law you don’t agree with though most of your country does for valid reasons. Nothing about that seems authoritarian especially with actual auth stuff on this side of the pond.
- AngryData 4mo agoJust because politicians and rich assholes can get legislation pushed and passed that doesn't mean the people actually want it. Claiming people want what they currently deal withs just because they have "democracy" is a cop-out that has repeatedly been shown to be false across nearly every democracy in existence.
- 4mo ago
- g-technology 4mo agoIsn’t it normally the case when politicians in any part of the world say they need to do something for the children, it’s just theatre to cover up them doing nothing or to hide legislation with a different purpose?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoNo, that’s a tech meme. If you’ve ever been near a PTA, you’ll understand that there is terrific civic potential in appealing to parents’ fears. The true think of the children has always been national security.
- downrightmike 4mo agoexcept in food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, or general well-being. The cuts to education were the last thing that disengaged kids from the world, of course they are going to self soothe
- TheOtherHobbes 4mo agoGovernments always "Think of the kids" until they have to invest in them. Then suddenly it becomes performative posturing with maybe a little extra spending here and there. I'm not a fan of social media. I'm also not a fan of authoritarian governments. From my POV those two things are more similar than they are different.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> except in food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, or general well-being Parents activate over their own kids. They’re seeking to protect them and will call their electeds and knock on doors and potentially back a primary challenger if you ignore them.
- Reason077 4mo agoMy 15-year old niece who recently visited her cousins in Australia assured me that the recently enacted Aussie law did not affect her ability to access socials while in Australia, nor has it affected her U16 cousins, who still have their accounts. Apparently the age checking there only applies to newly created accounts.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoIs there a plan to start fining the social media companies themselves? Or raise their liability thresholds? This is sort of like the illegal-immigration debate. If you’re serious about fixing it, go after employers. Same for underage social media users. If you want to actually solve it, you have to penalize the platforms.
- foldr 4mo agoThis is the plan in the UK, yes: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4500988470135094 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4500988470135094
- ian_holt 4mo ago<s there a plan to start fining the social media companies themselves? Or raise their liability thresholds?> they will apparently be fined around AUD$50M if they fail to do due diligence (not sure how the legislation phrases. I am not sure if any social media company has at this stage. Unfortunately we have a dictator as a so-called e-safety commissioner backed up by an equally useless PM who seem to think all parents are unable to monitor themselves or their kids online behaviour
- pesus 4mo agoSeems like a drop in the bucket for these corporations. If anything, it'll just entrench the existing social media sites further and be another operating cost for them.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Bender 4mo agoFear not, Roblox will not be subject to the policy for the older games within Roblox and as such young children allegedly may be able to get the latest news from their possibly maybe perhaps adult groomers. The newer games within Roblox are purportedly going through a 16+ check. [1] [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9824zvpz9po https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9824zvpz9po
- Aeolun 4mo agoJup, I can’t publish anything useful to Roblox any more unless 100+ 16 year olds first enjoy it. Of course none of this retroactively applies to the games already frequented by 10M U12’s every week, because why would they actually follow the spirit of their own rules if it harms them financially.
- basisword 4mo agoThe tone gave it away before he finally disclosed but - shocker - the author is on the board of a social media company. Social media has been a pretty clear net-negative for society. The opinions of a guy in away connected with the industry are irrelevant. As usual when tech people are asked to do something to control the harms of their products the excuse is "you don't understand, it's not possible". The author thinks preventing children sharing nude images on platforms is some impossible task - yet Apple has already implemented pretty good controls for this. I'm not saying the regulations are perfect but continuing to ignore the problems caused by social media is irresponsible. There was an interview with a kid in the UK that went viral yesterday. The interviewer pointed out the kid had spent 9 hours on a screen the previous weekend and asked what they would do now. The answer - stare at the wall. Funny. Maybe said in jest. But I think it still sums up the reason we need to do something about this. If kids literally don't know what to do with themselves without a screen the future isn't looking good. Another kid said it was taking away his planned career...as an influencer.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4mo agoSocial media isn't the problem cellphones are. The Yookay isn't gonna ban those because they are useful surveillance devices. > 9 hours on a screen > do something about this Yeah ban cellphones. And I don't mean just for children. If you want to be a shut in nerd that spends "9 hours on a screen" then you'd best sit down in front of a computer.
- flawn 4mo agoSocial Media is actually one problem, and that's not just cellphones. I don't disagree with the premise that this could be all a smokescreen by the UK spying on citizens but Social Media is a huge issue. If you are keen, read up on the intersection of Epistemology, Sociology and Social Media research.
- Aeolun 4mo agoYeah, and what they could actually do about it would be banning the whole social media thing. Ever tried to enforce rules you don’t follow yourself on teens? They see through that shit in three seconds.
- basisword 4mo agoIt would be great if we could test the harms of social media societally. Hypothetically if a democratic country with a free press was able to effectively ban Facebook, X, etc for a few years there's no doubt in my mind that the division we see in so many countries would clear up relatively quickly.
- pj_mukh 4mo agoArticle mostly cites self-reported studies ie the kids think that the kids are doing alright, which is a different statement from the kids are actually doing alright. Most teachers seeing generational changes are raising five alarm fires around how badly the kids are doing. Actually testing kids is showing a startling reverse Flynn effect [1]. I’m curious what the author has in terms of actual evidence here? [1] https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/the-negative-flynn-effect-a-systematic-literature-review/ https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/the-negative-flynn-effec...
- Lerc 4mo agoAlright covers a broad spectrum of properties. Most teachers have been asking for more resources for decades, warning of the consequences of not doing so. It seems a little on the nose to ignore their warnings and when the consequences manifest opt to blame something else entirely.
- kian 4mo agoIt doesn't seem like there's been a precipitous drop in resources compared to the decades of requests and warnings that have led up to this point. So what's different now, if not resourcing?
- Lerc 4mo agoI'm not sure which precipitous less than a decade drop you are referring to, but I would be inclined to think, in the last decade, a period of social isolation and absence of education might have been a factor.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoResources have never been higher. Theres an expectation now that the schools will do everything and pay for everything but its never enough.
- applicative 4mo ago
- 100ms 4mo agoLike most I've been listening to this same old argument for nearly 30 years. Old enough now to know it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement, a significant chunk of young people won't even need a technical restriction beyond being told the behaviour is against the law because it's bad for them. But keep goading with "it's technically impossible" and watch what's left of the Internet turn into a government licensing fest, because it is entirely technically possible. Imagine how much cleaner and shiny the nation's pipes would be if we simply throttled any ciphertext flow that couldn't be matched to an Ofcom license holder. They'd never do that. No country in the world has done that, right?
- dogwalker5000 4mo agoAt what cost though? Everyone will now need to submit real ID to access social media. Smaller social media sites will probably just shutdown since it’s unlikely they can afford the whole verification process.
- 100ms 4mo agoThe same was true of food safety. Aunt Tracey might not be able to sell cupcakes from her home any more (made in the oven next to where the cat likes to sleep because of the heat), but we centralised things enough that when BSE and Salmonella outbreaks happen, which nowadays is extremely rare, we know how and why almost immediately. If the cost of ridding ourselves of animal torture, terrorism and child pornography is a few hundred fewer Mastodon instances I could most certainly live with that
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- greatgib 4mo agoCrazy to think that all of that happens in the country of George Orwell that was probably too in advance for his time with 1984 and the Animal Farm. It was supposed to be a kind of satire of his own time, but it was in the end a perfect prediction of what is coming to us now. Scary to see how far will go the Pigs that are in command in UK, France, Canada, ...
- dyauspitr 4mo agoNo one is falling for this fear mongering anymore. The people are finally raising up en mass to this toxic mess…
- drivingmenuts 4mo agoThis is a "can't lose" for Starmer. If it inevitably doesn't work exactly the way he wants, then he'll just blame the tech companies for not trying hard enough. Best bet here is to require that the government provide exacting requirements for what they want done and to hew to those requirements exactly. Some form of malicious compliance is necessary here.
- downrightmike 4mo agoThey are running a bi-election for a replacement to dump his arse, he's already out the door
- Lerc 4mo agoI have to wonder how much of this is projected guilt. Parents can feel guilty about the amount of time they themselves spend on social media. Choosing for someone else to reduce their usage combined with choosing for someone else being required to make that happen seems like a way to feels as if they are acting against what they don't like, but at the same time doesn't require them to make any particular concession to their own behaviour.
- Quarrelsome 4mo agoMumsnet CEO is apparently on their advisory board, which more or less explains it. They just want something cheap they can tell someone else to implement to win the votes off concerned parents. It doesn't matter if it works, it just matters if they can carve out votes in 2029 for it. UK has a relatively long standing tradition of fucking itself over in order to win a single election (e.g. the Brexit ref). Its particularly frustrating cos they ain't even done the OAuth properly like the Aussies have taken a pass at. Could even put an NGO as a shim in-between to protect privacy. But noOoOo, we'll ignore all the tech advice, do something shit and then follow it up by trying to "ban" VPNs when it clearly doesn't work, because we're thick.
- fhub 4mo agoA lot of issues require holding two ideas in your head at once. Age verification chips away at privacy and internet freedom. It likely also reduces harm to some/many/whatever children, even if it’s imperfect and won’t stop everyone. The interesting question is where the right trade off sits. People often end up arguing only one side.
- eastof 4mo agoMassively downplaying it to say "chips away" this takes a sledgehammer to the core of internet privacy. In all cases in the world where this has been done before like China or Russia, freedom is also lost shortly after. Of course people only argue one side, the stakes are losing internet privacy and freedom in the entire world if the west also succumbs to these authoritarian policies. It isn't the government's job to prevent your child from getting access to a phone/ipad, that's your job as a parent.
- fhub 4mo agoI think you’re proving my point a little. You’re treating the costs as obvious and enormous, while treating any potential benefits as essentially zero.
- roenxi 4mo agoWe have to accept that there are policies with obvious and enormous downsides and essentially zero upsides, because they exist and get tried from time to time. Eastof (and the article) are providing an argument that this is one of those times. A pretty reasonable one too, I forget the implementation details of the UK scheme but in Australia and most of Europe the authoritarian bent of the people implementing these age restriction bans is concerning - it looks like they're setting up a general purposes minority targeting systems. I'm not sure how they're going to justify that and I don't recall seeing anyone make a reasonable argument to justify it yet beyond "We can and we're going to. Trust us and think of the children". Your argument seems to be that the issue is more nuanced than anyone else is saying, which is cool and all but then it sits with you to identify what the nuances you want to talk about are. Pointing out that someone else has identified different tradeoffs than you have is something of a given since that is the case with almost any pairing of people.
- tim-tday 4mo agoNo, it’s surveillance masquerading as “think of the children”. You can’t verify age without verifying identity.
- herunan 4mo agoas always… any ban of this type is lazy virtue signalling. it’s proving unsuccessful in australia and it’ll be unsuccessful in the uk. it’s way too easy to circumvent with vpns and social media is not going to prevent it because it’s not in their interest. governments should put their thinking cap on and regulate the addicting ux patterns that social media uses…
- throwaway85825 4mo agoI don't think the government that sponsors child rape gangs actually cares about child protection. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6810978a41bbc42489eafa81/t/6a314bb1151e511944bd4421/1781615537601/The+Rape+Gang+Inquiry+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6810978a41bbc42489eaf...
- sneak 4mo agoThe requirement to show ID is not to perform age verification to ban children from services. The requirement to show ID is so that every user (especially adults) online can be real-world identified and located. This allows the state to privately and quietly retaliate for any sort of posts or publications or link-sharing that they don't like. It's a ban on anonymous publishing, anonymous speech. It's so that they can simply and easily retaliate against publishers that don't have a legal department and media team (i.e. you). This is a fundamental attack on freedom of expression by adults, by prohibiting anonymous use of the internet. It has precisely zero to do with children.
- throwawayk7h 4mo agomy government is implementing a ZKP protocol to solve this problem. So is brazil. (bifold open wallet.)
- 6stringmerc 4mo agoKids, like all humans, are subject to an uncomfortable reality that is dismissed far too often in discussions about leadership and regulations: 49% of all people are less intelligent than the average person.
- defrost 4mo agoWhat if 10% of all people are indistinguishably of average intelligence?
- thatscot27 4mo agoTo the people that agree social media is somewhat bad for children (I wish it didn't exist for adults). What do you propose the government do, if not banning it via internet restrictions? I don't see anyone offering alternate solutions in these conversations and I think the ban is a necessary evil I do however think the ban should be more nuanced
- Cider9986 4mo agoThey could force the social media companies to federate so you can use the content with different algorithms. They could regulate the harmful algorithms. They could make for-profit operating systems implement actually robust and easy parental controls. Anything to give parents more control.
- thatscot27 4mo agoBut how would they serve the first two to kids? Yeah agree with the last one, but I have wondered if parental controls will breakdown relationships between parent and kids. I see articles now and again about parents controlling kids causing issues?
- d1sxeyes 4mo agoThere are two key problems with social media. The first is a people problem. Predators, bullying, etc. This is a difficult problem. The furthest I got in ideating on this was some kind of graph-growth limitation: some proof of physical co-presence or chain-of-trust (i.e. approved by a trusted adult) required for friending. The second is a product problem. Advertising, the 'algorithm', etc. For that, I do have a suggestion: force all social media sites to have ad-free versions which apply to the accounts of under eighteens, and attempt to reduce 'virality': no like buttons, ways to discourage reposts of original content, etc. so the timelines become less engagement driven.
- throwawayk7h 4mo agodevice-side restrictions; improve the UX for parental restrictions and make them on-by-default for children. When you buy a device, if you can't present ID (or the device is for a child), the vendor gives it to you in "child mode." Child mode has a whitelist/blacklist of all apps and websites that it can use. The list is set by the vendor, but modified by the federal government, state/provincial government, municipal government, school district, and parent/guardian (in that order, each overriding the previous.) Perhaps in addition, devices in "child mode" always attach "do not show me adult content" to the HTTP headers they send to websites.
- spants 4mo agoIt is not about "protecting the kids". This statement is attached to every process that the government wants to roll out that is normally unacceptable to the population. It is about monitoring and identifying all members of the public - "prove that you are over 16" creates a profile about you that they can track and use.
- halsafar 4mo agoSocial media was dying amongst that demographic. Now that they are being told it's banned that demographic will be all over social media again.
- underlogic 4mo agoIt's going to cost the population a fortune to VPN to a free country.