- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.
Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is “designed to be addictive”. A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.
“That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance,” the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.
Starmer adds that the government is “not prepared to compromise” on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.
Unpopular opinion: GOOD
I think you should make the first step here and upload a selfie video waving your ID around to prove that you are old enough to be on the fediverse/lemmy. Otherwise we must assume that you are under 16 and ban you from all instances.
I 100% agree with that view but honestly if losing lemmy means we lose Facebook, Insta, and the rest of pure online cancer then so be it.
What? They are still there, but they and their ID verification companies have even more data to sell.
If the authentication system is similar to a 2FA, where I store my ID information on my mobile phone for instance, and the seller website requires just an authentication token (or code), I’ll happily use it, as it would fit my security terms and requirements. Otherwise, I simply won’t use that service. Fair and square. What of this approach is too tough to get?
You will see for yourself soon enough that you will have to upload your ID or 3D scan your face if you live in one of those garbage countries. Those ID verification companies admit that they are only 95% accurate at estimating user age, which means that 5% of your population is now barred from accessing websites that they should have access to, which should be completely unacceptable in a normal world.
Have a tech question as a teenager? Good fucking luck trying to beat the reddit age verification. Want to refresh your knowledge of how to give first aid? Guess what, fuck you. Need help with school work? Guess what, it’s all on YouTube. Researching a sensitive topic? Age gated, restricted, banned.
If you give your little kids smartphones that’s your fucking problem, not mine!
What country do you live in? And, if you don’t live in any of those affected countries, why should your opinion be more valuable than the one of the people living in it?
And that’s an IMPLEMENTATION concern. A legit one, but still relevant just on how the system is implemented, not on the purpose on the system by itself.
That’s a seller problem. Each of them already offers a limited version of their content if you don’t login. Youtube has a Youtube Kids portal too! If the legislation is in place, they would do whatever they could to offer a sanitised version of their content to underage or not identified users.
Why should a teenager do it without guidance? Quite the opposite, the risk is to find just bad advice. This argument gets me even more convinced.
Yeah because that’s how kids reason, isn’t it? If you forbid something to them they absolutely won’t go to their peers and friends to get access to that, will they?
This is the internet, an international place. Everyone’s informed opinion is valuable here, regardless of country.
But Youtube Kids fucks over everyone, even those who are not a kid. Google’s Youtube for example automatically deletes the comment section if it even remotely thinks your video is aimed at children. So content creators instead have to get creative and insert unneccessary violence/gore (like Cas van de Pol does), to avoid this.
If your kids go to peers to have social media access, then why don’t you host gatherings for the kids and friends that are social media-free? You know, the ones that existed before internet?
It can also be enforced differently. On schools, there are social media bans that work without infringing privacy.
Guess how they figured it out? They simply confiscated mobile phones until school was over.
Possibly, but I have enough time spent on the internet to smell the malicious intent if someone anywhere else in the world makes some negative remarks against decisions taken by a sovereign country or their society.
And having a good rigorous way to restrict adult-only content at account master data level could be a good technical solution.
I have already said what I think about this, and I quote that I agree with anyone who says that kids should be guided and assisted on social media in the right environments, or in a way to find the right spaces to express themselves (with hobbies, sports, group activities, whatever), and I’ll vote for anyone who could do anything on that purpose. But we can also imagine flying cars at this point.
There is some sense in that; however in this case this is completely absurd. Do human rights violations not matter? Because thats what’s happening here, there are also wars which fit right in your logic, is that out of our concern too?
I’m certainly against people forcefully planting their beliefs and culture (I.e. Christianity, or other “superiors” who think their ethics are true) in other places. But honestly, if you believe things like genocide (which is included In your logic) is non of our concern, as long as its in a different country - then there is no point even continuing to read your entire post.
Agree. And any professional working or dealing with children would agree.
And, for anyone who is telling: “lEt ThE pArEnTs dO tHaT!!11|!!”, please put yourself in that situation. Would your parents have been able to set rigorous and effective checks on the media you accessed in your youth? And even if so, the conditions in which a teenager lives today are different than the ones you experienced: average time spent with families is decreasing, the average time that teenagers spend in touch with their peers (not necessarily in person, but also via IM) is increasing, and therefore also the peer pressure. Also, what about those kids with absent parents? What about those kids with toxic or incompetent parents?
Sure, I agree with anyone who says that kids should be guided and assisted on social media in the right environments, or in a way to find the right spaces to express themselves (with hobbies, sports, group activities, whatever), and I’ll vote for anyone who could do anything on that purpose. But we can also imagine flying cars at this point.
As a person supporting “professionals” you seem quite dead set on supporting what literally is fascism. Your last paragraph doesn’t make this any better.
Fuck that shit. I’m not a kid and don’t want people spying on me.
Just make the parental controls much easier to set up, have media literacy lessons instead, and that would help far more.
You can quite literally set up screentime for your children easily. So why not do that? Why not mandate that a children’s phone must have a limited amount of screentime?
People with absent parents still require a caretaker, so then those. And those that have toxic/abusive parents… well, how is it going to improve for them if they can’t find help online? If they’re prohibited from going outside?
No, I think we should address it by the root; the polarisation and fascist radicalisation, caused by algorithms promoting hateful content, caused by billionnaires’ growing exploitation of the proletariat, by which they steer social media to their own whims.
That needs to be kicked out.
I don’t want the gOhVehRnMEeNt spying on me when I drive!111! Why should I show a valid Driving Licence when I’m in my car! My car my choice of driving!
They would definitely need more guided help. But if professionals who offer this kind of guided help are the first ones on supporting these initiatives, why it’s so tough to understand their opinion on the matter?
Oh, finally a solution I could 100% sign for! I would definitely approve that, but how would you explain it to the same people that now are yapping about freedom of expression? Wouldn’t they complain about censorship also in that case? And trust me, I agree with you, but I’m already foreseeing people on Shitter (or any other right-wing most favourite Social Network) rallying against it.