UK announce a social media ban for children under 16
The UK has become the latest country to announce a social media ban for children under the age of 16.
Last week it was Canada, six months earlier it was Australia, and on Monday the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed that social media companies will soon be blocked from allowing under-16s to use their services.
SEE ALSO:Canada to ban social media for kids under 16
Platforms on the ban list include TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. The government is also planning to block livestreaming and "stranger communications" for under 16s. Messaging services like WhatsApp will not be included in the ban.
"This is a line in the sand," UK prime minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. "Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations."
The government is planning to use the same age assurance criteria that it introduced in 2025 with its age verification law on pornography. This means that social media platforms will be required to use things like "open banking, photo ID matching, facial age estimation, mobile network operator age checks, credit card checks, digital identity services and email-based age estimation" to ensure a user meets the required age. The government is saying their plan has the backing of 9 in 10 parents, but its worth noting that online age verification is a complicated topic that draws its own criticisms.
As for when this ban will come into effect, according to the announcement the first set of regulations could come into effect in spring 2027.
Topics Government Family & Parenting
it's a strange feeling coming to terms with the fact that between the new 'out trans kids immediately to their parents' policy for schools, and the fact that kids can't really find escape online anymore, that i would be dead if i had turned 18 just a few years later than i did
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRemoved + ban. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the sitewide rules.
DeletePersonally I feel it’s just a back door way of bringing in some form of digital ID.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to VPN’s I wouldn’t be surprised to see a ban come in for them and force company’s which use them to have some kind of license for use.
I strongly suggest everyone contact their local MP about this and try and get the government to reverse its decision.
ReplyDeleteDigital ID was stopped and this will only see it come back. I don’t want to live in a Papers Please society.
The political landscape in this country is so depressing. Both Labour and the Conservatives support authoritarian policies like this that have no proven benefits and the main alternatives are the greens/reform who are even worse.
ReplyDeleteTbh I think if you have to ban something that probably does have a negative effect on children overall without infringing on liberties, it would be smartphones at school.
Just a truly depressing time to live in this country tbh when both Labour and the Conservatives support complete bullshit like this policy and the alternative options are Reform/Green.
ReplyDeleteI actually5
I'm utterly ashamed of this country and these buffoons we've voted in.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the main parties are all dominated by buffoons, even the Green party is headed up by an 'environmentally friendly' Farage.
DeleteWho is to blame for these lousy choices? The media? The electorate? Foreign powers and billionaires manipulating our institutions for their own personal gain?
I will make an account publicly available to all.
ReplyDeleteThis will break the ban.
Share it with everyone
Black market accounts
Facists parents are morons
In theory you should be able to make infinite accounts since they shoudnt save your ID , right?
DeleteThey might just literally start selling verified email accounts or so , or "ID unlocked" smartphones , in future.
Before that a vpn shpuld be enough tho
Not sure but maybe, somebody might sell them. But kids will figure it out on how to get around it.
Delete"YouTube said in a statement: “Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services.”
ReplyDeletelol
When all that kids will be able to watch are the mega corporations that own TV channels and the BBC, I fear the amount of propoganda and shite that will be fed to them.
ReplyDeleteThe ban fundamentally goes against freedom of speech, interferes with everyones right to privacy and will lead an entire generation of kids into an AI and tech driven world, with zero ability to discern real from fake when that's getting hard for even internet veterans like me to do.
In the governments defence however, it sounds like they've acknowledged everyone will bypass it anyway, and care more about the societal pressure on parents to monitor kids more closely than actually going guns blazing ban VPN's yada yada - only time will tell.
So everyone jumping on the “they will just download a VPN” bandwagon, I’m sorry, but as a parent you should be parenting what you child downloads or looks at. It’s fucking easy to do.
ReplyDeleteThey want an app- I approve it. Check their phone whenever you want to check history etc. It’s a privilege to have a phone not mandatory.
ReplyDeleteso odd.
the only way kids can communicate is old (phone calls etc)
its breaking a generation. that on top of all the bullshit going on, and talk of voting for 16 yearolds?
Were going to have a really fucked up 2-3 generations coming
To dissent against most of the opinions here, I actually think this is a pretty great proactive move against something we’re only just beginning to understand the health risks of. I feel like we’ll look back on social media the same way we look back on nine-year-olds being allowed to smoke cigarettes before we knew better.
ReplyDeleteReally the only positive about social media is the connection it affords to young people, and they can still achieve all of that through other means like messaging apps, just without all the toxic algorithm-driven slop they get fed.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why they are going this route.
Much simpler IMO is that every single connected device sold in the UK should come with adult content filters built in. Then at point of sale the buyer can ask for those filters to be disabled.
So an adult using the phone gets the same content as today. A child is limited to safe content only.
And an adult that buys a phone for their child and gets the filters removed - that parent made a decision on their child's development which may or may not be beneficial.
Ban phones from schools at least during lessons, and really I think that's all that's needed, is much more viable than the new system and doesn't give the right the chance to complain about government meddling.
Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteThe inclusion of a ban on YouTube both baffles and disappoints me. At first I thought it would be like the Australian ban on YouTube accounts for under 16s, but this government's proposal implies banning access to the site/app to anyone under 16 which means no access to regular YouTube videos at all other than what is approved through a YouTube Kids account.
I'm 32 now but I started using YouTube around the age of 12 and made my first account at 13. I was a pretty nerdy kid whose hobbies and interests included railway modelling, motorsport, cars, aviation and building computers. I'm still a nerdy adult but as a child, YouTube gave me a platform to enjoy my hobbies on demand. No other platform - not even well illustrated magazines were as good as YouTube for things like railway modelling tutorials and enjoying other people's layouts, or seeing onboard videos of pilots flying planes or passengers recording their take offs and landings, or catching up on motor races of series that you didn't have the channel for as a kid.
I have build every desktop PC I had owned since 2009 - I was 15 when I worked over the summer holidays to build my first gaming PC with skills and knowledge I learnt from DIY PC-oriented YouTubers and forums linked through their channels.
Sure, I may not be affected (other than potentially having my ID data leaked when verifying my 19 year old account) but to any quiet child with niche interests like I had who enjoyed their interests through YouTube will have that taken away from them or have to borrow their parents' devices to watch them.
If I have a social media account that is over 16 years old, would that count as age verification? Or will I still have to submit to digital ID?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the idea, I’m doubtful of the implementation, here’s my better (I think at least) idea. Tell me why it’s good or bad.
ReplyDelete1. By law, retailers must enable parental controls on digital devices by default.
2. Parent’s attendance at ‘managing digital devices and connectivity’ meetings/lessons is mandatory - link this to schools. Criminalise non-attendance.
3. Government set clear age-by-age recommendations for digital device use.
4. This is a big one… if social media companies (and similar such companies) cannot prove that they cannot reasonably identify a users age via non-intrusive measures (ie the ones they are already using to highly effectively target ads) then their CEO is criminally liable for any misuse of their services by under-16s. Essentially this makes companies profiting off children responsible for them.
Children of course need to be protected, but don't we all? In fact, don't we all need to be protected from government overreach and attacks on our privacy and civil liberties which will ultimately harm us all, including the children? I think that a far better way needs to be found to protect the children from Internet-related harm that doesn't do irrevocable damage to everyone.
ReplyDeleteLet's specifically address one of the increasing number of elephants in the room - this new attack on our very hard earned civil liberties, those same civil liberties which we have fought so very hard for in both world and civil wars, not forgetting to mention in the courts and by protestors on the streets.
Over the years I've read many books and seen many TV and movie dramas which highlight such attacks on civil liberties, and one in particular has stuck in my mind because it's so very well written and so very succinct and to the point. Some people will dismiss it because it's a quote from Star Trek, but the medium doesn't matter, it's the words and the intent that count.
It's the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode titled 'The Drumhead' (season 4, episode 21) - Jean Simmons is the guest star who plays a judge (Admiral Satie) who is deeply paranoid and whose aim is to 'purify' Starfleet by exposing imaginary traitors and 'subversives'. She uses fear and guilt by association to impose her will, including the erosion of civil liberties. While the episode is, superficially, about finding 'traitors' and 'spies', the overall implications are highly important and very relevant to today's politics and society as a whole.
At a hostile hearing, Picard says the following to her:
"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."
(Judge Aaron Satie is Admiral Satie's father).
Better still, watch the clip, it sounds even better coming from Patrick Stewart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD1pehdFF_M
or for more context, a longer clip (but poorer video quality):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smdqe2eluEI
better still, watch the episode.
adults to provide ID for any social media apps so they can further attach an online profile to a real world person so if you say hurty things they can pick you up easier
ReplyDeleteHear hear!
DeleteLabour: if moves, ban it. If it doesn’t move, ban that too!
ReplyDeleteDo I think the policy is a bad one? Yes.
ReplyDeleteDo I think it will be harmful to some groups of teenagers? Yes.
Do I think social media, especially ones with algorithmic feeds are dangerous to children and teenagers and something needs to be done? Yes.
Do I know what should be done instead? No.
Come on, whilst this may be a bad policy, something has to do done. And all the rhetoric of becoming a pariah state is just bonkers. We'll be in the same boat as Australia and soon to be France, Greece, Austria, Canada amongst others. This is a worldwide concern. And yes, we should be holding the platforms to account initially - but ultimately a ban would be the next step there anyway if they refused to comply (and we all know they would).
"something has to do done"
DeleteThat old cry of "something has to do done" has caused more problems than it has ever solved. It's an illusion of control that's not even on the slightly higher but still ineffective level of putting a sticking plaster over a gaping, infected wound.
Problems are often complex and the solutions to those problems can be even more complex and require smart, compassionate people to fix without causing major problems for everyone.
Would you sell your soul to the devil to fix a problem, any problem, not knowing how the devil would treat your soul? Or, on a more grounded level, perhaps everyone should be locked up at home and permanently disconnected from the Internet? Because that sure would fix a LOT problems ....... (and caused an awful lot more).
For delicate brain surgery you use a scalpel, not a carving knife.
Read what I said again.
Delete"Do I think the policy is a bad one? Yes.
Do I know what should be done instead? No."
Yes problems are complex. I am acknowledging that.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to try to combat those problems.
Is this the answer? Probably not. But sitting here letting generations suffer the mental health effects of social media is not the answer either.
Or to put it another way - Labour implements ID requirements for all users of social media under the guise of “safety” for children.
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
DeleteThe UK is a joke. Ban this, ban that. It's turning into an authoritarian nanny state.
ReplyDeleteCan we just ban everything that comes out of starmers mouth?
My under 16yo kids doesn't really do Facebook and such, but they love YouTube and they can keep watching it till their hearts content. Starmer can fuck off.
I actually support restricting social media access for younger children if the evidence shows it's harming them.
ReplyDeleteWhat frustrates me is that this seems to be one of the few areas where politicians are willing to act for younger generations.
They can't afford homes. Or to have kids. Graduate debt is ridiculous. Entering the job market means beating out AI and (proably soon) fucking robots. Prices are rising which will squeeze wages and pensions making, not only living, but also retirement virtually unsustainable.. and we might be sending them off to war.
And yet the big policy announcement is... banning them from something.
We seem so willing to take things away from young people than we are to create opportunities for them.
If we're going to tell the next generation what's bad for them, maybe we should also spend some time fixing the things that would actually give them a future.
We should ban the over 70s from social media while we're at it. Given how influenced they are as a block by nonsense on it, it's probably just as harmful to themselves and everyone else.
I really don’t like social media but I do use it and appreciate I’m a total hypocrite. I don’t love the idea of kids being banned though, surely that will just create sneaky ways round the ban? Then if something serious does happen kids are less likely to ask for help because they shouldn’t have been on there in the first place. I feel like there are other options than a ban, teaching kids to be smart around the internet and social media.
ReplyDeleteI think people need to start framing this as a TOTAL social media ban for EVERYONE because that's exactly what it is, that is unless you produce suitable, privacy invading ID to prove that you are over 16.
DeleteBlueSky isn't banned nor is Reddit
ReplyDeleteIt's like the government doesn't really have a clue
Oh and 4Chan is tell the UK government to pound sand over the Online Safety Act already
From all that I've read Bluesky is too small (it's not included in Australia's new law either), but Reddit IS likely to be included because the UK government have stated that it's replicating the Australian model, and Reddit is included on that.
DeleteThis is the most authoritarian government of my lifetime by a considerable distance. Somehow both crueller and more incompetent than the Tories. Didn't think that was possible
ReplyDelete"all adults now subject to identity checks to use social media, starmer announces"
ReplyDeletefrom a civil liberty perspective, i struggle to think of a more dangerous prime minister. authoritarian zealot who hides behind kids to usher in whatever privacy stripping DAVOS edict he has handed to him. no one voted for this shit and he has to fast forward it in before he takes his rightful place in the binbag of history.
While I agree with everything you said, Starmer did NOT specially say "all adults now subject to identity checks to use social media", in fact he's been extremely careful not to mention the elephant in the room, that being ID checks for everyone in order to 'protect the children'.
Deletereframe the headline to 'All adults required to disclose personal information and age verification for internet access'
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
DeleteI feel like there's been a really sudden sea change on this.
ReplyDeleteA year or so ago it had cross party support and it felt like the public were largely in favour, even reddit. But now people are picking holes in it.
I am largely in favour but not if infringing on my personal privacy is the cost of doing business.
DeleteThere are myriads of ways this can be implemented better than "upload your personally identifiable information to an American company we've contracted this out to and hope they don't use your data elsewhere or it gets compromised"
Because this seems less about saving the children and more about data harvesting and stealth pushing through id verification and digital id
There's a lot of holes to pick, in fact most of them are deep chasms.
DeleteI don't think it's a bad idea to curb social media usage to be honest. Kids shouldn't use it. Adults should use it sparingly.
ReplyDeleteThe nanny state or security concerns are separate discussions. Security or privacy concerns are fair but they shouldn't block this - they should be taken into account. As for nanny state I'd just point you to then countless parents that just don't care.
A point of concern however - I don't actually know who has been pushing for this agenda worldwide because every country in the west seems to be implementing this. Now I'm not sure if this is because the political class likes to copy cat or if it's because there are some big players with a vested interest in this.
Interesting to see family vloggers who pimp out their kids on YT and other platforms have moved out of the UK already, i wonder if their management companies have seen it coming.
ReplyDeleteThis is fine. Seriously. Society has tried doing nothing about social media and the many ways that it is The Worst. And it turns out doing nothing is ineffective. So do something. And this is something, because we have seen that anything less than bans gets completely ignored.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is not a third space, it is not the town square or your local pub. It's propaganda, scams, predators and influencers, all curated to drive engagement by any means possible at the behest of rich weirdos. It's long past time for democratic institutions to fight back.
"So do something."
DeleteThat old cry of "something has to do done" has caused more problems than it has ever solved. It's an illusion of control that's not even on the slightly higher but still ineffective level of putting a sticking plaster over a gaping, infected wound.
Problems are often complex and the solutions to those problems can be even more complex and require smart, compassionate people to fix without causing major problems for everyone.
Would you sell your soul to the devil to fix a problem, any problem, not knowing how the devil would treat your soul? Or, on a more grounded level, perhaps everyone should be locked up at home and permanently disconnected from the Internet? Because that sure would fix a LOT problems ....... (and caused an awful lot more).
For delicate brain surgery you use a scalpel, not a carving knife.
Being subtle has been tried. It has had no effect on social media companies and the way that they behave.
DeletePeople need to stop going to bat for some of the most irresponsible and cynical corporations on the planet.
A question for those who think this needs to be done: what you're saying is that people should give up their privacy and right to anonymity in order to protect the kids? And you're assuming that the data will be used fairly and with no danger of it being used against you, also that the computer systems will never fail or make a mistake, or that a future highly corrupt government won't use the data for their own gains?
ReplyDeleteSome have said that there are far better ways to protect children while not implementing such draconian rules which basically require everyone to submit ID when accessing, for example, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
cant wait to see how this plays out over the next few years, how long before we get another terror attack or otherwise random violence from the far-right/far-abrahamic loonies that the social media screen wasn't able to catch because it deplatformed teenagers
ReplyDeleteBe much easier to educate them on the dangers of social media and how to spot predators on them.
ReplyDeleteBut that costs money, whereas contracting ID gateways makes money... For someone somewhere.
DeleteAnd we wouldn't want to go around teaching future voters how to think for themselves either.
Good. And if you’re a fully grown adult crying about under 16s not being able to access social media, you need your hard drives checking
ReplyDeleteThat's some serious disgusting Peter Kyle level bullshit.
DeletePeople can be concerned about the detail, consequences, motivations, of this sort of policy without being criminally deviant.
In fact, I have to wonder what sort of person leaps straight to the "If you're against breaking the internet you're a paedo" argument.
He hasn’t said how they will be banned. That’s really the crux of it isn’t it? Because it won’t be a law instructing Google and Apple to block five or six apps. It will be ID verification, face scanning, monitoring tools, and heavy enforcement.
ReplyDeleteThe OSA was supposed to protect the little kiddies. It costs billions for businesses to comply with every year (governments own impact assessment stated this). Now they want to go further? What are the costs and implications for this? How much do they expect it will reduce harm by?
He wants to follow Australia's failed example.
DeleteLifting children out of poverty is too hard, but we can ban their socials.
ReplyDeleteRemember to thank everyone you know that voted labour for this authoritarian law.
ReplyDeleteLabou have always been weord control freaks, so i'm not surprised.
imagine thinking the uk public want to be forced to use an id every time they go onto youtube, this is disgusting
ReplyDeleteThe age limits don't make sense especially as there will be social media curfews for 16-18. So now we have a daft situation where you will never be allowed to smoke but you can turn 16 and be allowed to vote, gamble and have sex but then need to wait two years to buy alcohol and have unrestricted social media access. I don't want my kids rotting their brains on social media but it's hard not to be cynical about a government that wants to lower the voting age on one hand and then says that they aren't mature enough to have unrestricted social media access.
ReplyDeleteBanning YouTube which has a massive educational and "made for children" video section seems like a fail.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's spending so much time arsing about with stuff like this that will let some right wing grifters into power.
I would have thought (and the polling suggests) that people care about policing, knife crime, having a policy of any description on immigration, spending public funds responsibly etc. not pratting about deciding what categories of porn are appropriate for people.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna assume under-16s are far more tech savvy than the government in how this works in practice. Hell most adults are more tech savvy in getting around the consequences of the OSA.
The responsibility for this should more fall in line with parents and educators to properly teach content on the internet than pushing a law out
From doctor pov, it’s a good thing. I work with psychiatrists/children doctors. Social media has an effect on children.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically: -The impacts of social media/Tik Tok, AI, etc on attention span, overall cognition, independent problem solving, patience. -Helicopter parents. This one is huge. This type of parenting really handicaps the kid long term. It creates a weird dependency on the parent and prevents individuation, self sufficiency and the development of the skills to live a full life. I worry about what the future will look like.
Depending on which views you wanna take on. You have to look it at either two things. Social safety / data safety / future children safety.
DeleteJust to clarify: what you're saying is that people should give up their privacy and right to anonymity in order to protect the kids? And you're assuming that the data will be used fairly and with no danger of it being used against you, also that the computer systems will never fail or make a mistake, or that a future highly corrupt government won't use the data for their own gains?
Some have said that there are far better ways to protect children while not implementing such draconian rules which basically require everyone to submit ID when accessing, for example, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Well that’s the dilemma. I can agree with points from both side. But as an only a doctor pov for children side, that’s the issue people have.
DeleteWe can not treat after the issue has already occurred. Not underlying cause. Some parents are well educated and properly disciplined their children and do a well balanced activities within their daily life. Whereas others just can’t and issues occurs.
Doctors tend to handle a lot of traumatic cases
e.g. children therapist and you tend to see very horrific cases.
Without going details look into ;
online predators which uses social media Snapchat / Roblox to target children.
Or
Humans are not accustomed to small dopamine releases while scrolling to social media. Which has harmful effects into children and adults.
Overall, yes as directly from doctors perspective who handles trauma/ depressions you tend to side with fixing the cause then the privacy part.
"Overall, yes as directly from doctors perspective who handles trauma/ depressions you tend to side with fixing the cause then the privacy part."
DeleteThe thing is that the privacy part is all encompassing and affects everyone and results in governmental overreach, this has the knock-on effect of reducing government accountability, increasing erosion of civil liberties, more abuse of people's rights, so leading to escalating problems for adults and children alike.
As mentioned, there has to be a better way to prevent harm to kids without causing even more problems for everyone, because this current government plan isn't going to solve much, if anything.
This is so unbelievably stupid and such a lazy solution. The issue with social media isn't that children are using it.
ReplyDeleteThe harmful elements of social media are harmful for everyone, not just children. Pensioners who are routinely getting brainwashed by AI slop are just as vulnerable. The issue is unrelated to age.
Actually do your job and regulate social media properly. Ban the specific problems like infinite scrolling, recommendation algorithms, rampant radicalisation, and Cambridge Analytica style hyper specific ad targeting.
I presume my 19 year old youtube account will need to prove i am over 16 years old? No thanks, i will continue to use a VPN.
ReplyDelete
DeleteA VPN won't help you because the service that you are connecting to via a VPN will still need to authenticate you with an account on that service (YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, etc).
Note to those downvoting this: downvotes (and upvotes) don't change facts. If you think I'm wrong then say so and say WHY, don't hide behind that downvote button.
If it appears I'm from a country with no restrictions to YouTube, there is no reason YouTube would authenticate anything, just like now.
DeleteIncluding YouTube is ill thought out insanity. So any school using it for language learning or science videos is technically breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteCool.
ReplyDeleteNow do it for the over-50s, as those are the ones swallowing the far-right AI bullshit and causing bother on the streets.
There's no need because this new law, if implemented as it stands, will apply to everyone: people, adults included, will need to submit ID in order to access services like Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, etc) otherwise how will the service know if you are under or over 16?
DeleteStrange how after all this fuss, they're waiting until 2027 to do it. The legislation already in place gives them the power to do it much earlier.
ReplyDeleteThe legislation is not already in place. The government already has foundational powers via the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, and they hope to pass the formal secondary regulations before Christmas 2026.
DeleteDoesn't labour also want 16 year olds to be able to vote? Imagine voting without having access to 90% of the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest wow from me on this is the ban of YouTube.
ReplyDeleteSo is this a simple matter of the fact that 14 and 15 year olds can't watch project car videos and instead have to settle with Cocomelon?
The issue is that YouTube is so incredibly diversified, you can find pretty much anything on the service.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the right idea. It won't be perfect, and some will bypass it in some way, but anyone who thinks you can have the current system continue is out of their minds. Social media giants couldn't give a toss and are being supported heavily by the US, so they are not going to change. Kids deserve protection from the shit that fills their social media feed.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue we need to go even further and make disinformation a criminal offence. It's rampant online.
Social media giants couldn't give a toss
DeleteBig Tech are orgasming with delight over this. They get to link everyone's accounts to real IDs and they get more vendor lock-in because signups to new rival services become more cumbersome.
Comment has been removed
DeleteNaturally children need to be protected, but just to clarify: what you're saying is that people should give up their privacy and right to anonymity in order to protect the kids? And you're assuming that the data will be used fairly and with no danger of it being used against you, also that the computer systems will never fail or make a mistake, or that a future highly corrupt government won't use the data for their own gains?
DeleteSome have said that there are far better ways to protect children while not implementing such draconian rules which basically require everyone to submit ID when accessing, for example, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
"I'd argue we need to go even further and make disinformation a criminal offence. It's rampant online."
Can't argue with that, but how to implement such a law without penalising the innocent and invading their privacy?
I would like to point out that 8 years ago, the government in Iran banned social media for teenagers too
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame people don't understand Arabic and Farsi because many of the same policies being put in place in Europe and UK are the same policies that the Middle East put in place 10 years ago.
What will happen next?
i feel people who comment should indicate if they under 16.
ReplyDeleteGet this compromised nanny state prick out of office and check his donations ffs. Starmer continues ban and sell out or nation, and hell at this point I hope it’s about selling us out because otherwise he’s just an actual boob.
ReplyDeletePeople mad about government verifying their identity, while simultaneously feeding every detail of their lives to Silicon Valley and the CCP
ReplyDeletei dont like the bloke, but his speech this morning was best he's given. impassioned, with hard edge.
ReplyDeleteit's pretty brave for politician to take on big tech and very risky, so I have to applaud that.
And guess who owns the age verification services? Peter Thiel.
ReplyDeletePalantir Keir.
Let me rework that headline to more accurately reflect reality:
ReplyDeleteUK Govt to force everyone to give their passport or driving licence to social media companies. ID fraud likely to skyrocket. Those without ID to be excluded from modern life.
I really hate my country and its "people". Why does everyone have to be some virtue signalling totalitarian or some technologically illiterate subhuman.
ReplyDeleteThank god. Social media for children is an absolute disaster for their development. Surprised at the reactionary over the top takes in this thread.
ReplyDelete
DeleteJust to clarify: what you're saying is that people should give up their privacy and right to anonymity in order to protect the kids? And you're assuming that the data will be used fairly and with no danger of it being used against you, also that the computer systems will never fail or make a mistake, or that a future highly corrupt government won't use the data for their own gains?
Some have said that there are far better ways to protect children while not implementing such draconian rules which basically require everyone to submit ID when accessing, for example, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Keeping kids off the internet until they’re 16 and forcing them to have to go through learning all of that and what is true or fake on there at a later age than previous generations is such a good idea.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't force them off the internet.
DeleteBad wording. I just mean keeping them off social media where they’re gonna get into it at an age where they will have to learn stuff we learned at much younger ages and therefore didn’t fall into traps for when older.
DeleteOr at least some will, others will find ways around it.
Can we have better wages? No that costs money
ReplyDeleteCan we have actual housing instead of having to live in a bedroom or live with our parents? No that costs money
Spends millions because lazy parents are thick, stupid and neglectful.
This country is a mess
Sceptical about this. Governments need to press for algorithm transparency from social media companies; that's what's really harmful
ReplyDeleteBanning Rachel TV? Kids tv on YouTube? Like the dumbest thing.
ReplyDeleteJust need to ban pensioners from Facebook next, they might remember how to think for themselves.
ReplyDeleteWay to avoid making the tech giants take responsibility for their addictive and toxic algorithms.
ReplyDeletePerhaps next an over 50's ban for the sun, mail and GB news? /S
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm for kids not having social media accounts, I'm not sure how this is going to be successfully enforced. Most teenagers know what VPN's are what's to stop them from using one or other loopholes. The big worry is the rest of us being forced to give our ID away to online third parties.
Surely parents should take more responsibly for unmonitored internet access and perhaps schools should include in their curriculum the dangers of online addictions, AI, misinformation and online gambling. To help educate and make them more aware of what they're interacting with. Schools did it with online stranger danger, surely they should now be including these topics too.
Ban smart phones for children that the simplest way. Works reasonably well for tobacco and alcohol. Children get a Nokia 2112 with snake on it.
ReplyDeleteIt won’t stop all children - that’s a given. But it might protect some vulnerable children from the harmful effects of social media.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, it’s a leaky bucket when the boat is sinking, but even then, that’s better to use than giving up and going down without trying.
Let's adopt a policy that suffocates independent online communities because only megacorps can deal with the compliance costs, isolates minority children from meeting children like them online, doesn't help teach children what the real world is like (full of social media!), and doesn't involve any parental responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWhat could go wrong? Oh, and also, let's make everyone give us their ID.
Ban it for over 50s if you really want to stop social media harms.
ReplyDeleteNot just social media any website where people can share user generated content leave comments or even chat with a bot
ReplyDeleteHe won’t be in office long enough to get this through.
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously so adults need to give i.d know who is sharing information that is not in line with their narrative. I honestly can't believe how authoritarian this government has been. It honestly feels like 1984
ReplyDeleteCan't take fake news articles away from the boomers that in turn affects elections, so let's hit up the more tech-savvy kids.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I approve of the sentiment. As some in the cyber industry and education it’s way too late. The genie is out the bottle. Kids use a lot of the social networks to communicate. They will find ways around the blocks. This is going to be impossible to manage.
ReplyDeleteI’ve worked in IT / software for 30 years to the point where I’ve seen these companies based out of other countries bring out these harmfully addictive ways to keep young people on their platforms. And they refuse to change it, and the U.K. as a whole has been kept under the threat of tariffs for “attacking American companies is attacking America”.
ReplyDeleteIn the last few years I’ve wanted to completely leave this industry for the harmful affects it’s having on people, and not just young ones. Everyone is addicted. I’m arguing with both my teens and also my parents to put their phones away when out for dinner.
People can’t even drive a mile to Tesco without getting their phones out at traffic lights.
A lady walks past my home every day and her dog shits on the grass every day and she’s immersed on her phone rather than appreciating the walk.
These apps harm us all.
Agree, and I'm open to admit that I use my phone way more than I should - that said I certainly don't do it driving....
DeleteEveryone reading this should reflect on themselves.
reading the comments, it's a reminder of the nature and demographic of the sub.
Deleteits teens crying "you cant tell me what to do", with a sprinkling of those that think being required to wear a seatbelt means you are living under nazi jackboot.
the evidence is beyond doubt, the companies are too big, too powerful, and they have impure motives. yes, the solution is inelegant and imperfect, but that doesnt mean we should do nothing.
The book the anxious generation was a great read if you’ve not read it.
DeleteI’m being downvoted to oblivion by the same adults who are also addicted and chronically online, and that also includes me having replied to a notification. I do put massive effort in to stay off my phone and keep it in another room, and when the kids are with me we mostly have phone free time. My boy will say “I’m bored” and this is where the problem lies that it’s not just about keeping them off devices it’s also about trying to rewind some of the harm that’s been done. Boredom is where art and music and creativity flourishes, and modern devices can have a part to play in this but not where every app is hooking them back on again.
DeleteWe’re hardly unique, it’s going to happen everywhere. Social media is a recent thing and it’s a genuine plague.
ReplyDeleteNow they go to the grey/Dark web that is right wing, and unmonitored.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations... England has fallen
Funny how the "think of the children!" Crowd spent decades vilifying kids being outside as yobs and feral, hammered into their heads that they are suspicious by default and anti social, gutted any third spaces they could go to, and act surprised that they turned to social media.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the definition of Social Media? I mean, is the BBC site banned as it allows comments?
ReplyDeleteThe more you tighten your grip, Starmer, the more social systems will slip through your fingers.
Obviously I've got a lot of issues here. But the biggest one is the YouTube ban. My last few years of school were under lockdown. Before you tell me the BBC has great learning materials, I wouldn't have passed my exams without the videos on YouTube. It's a great source of information
ReplyDeleteI dont even get how this will be enforced. Apple introduced age verification through iphones, then apps like reddit can use that to provide access to age.
ReplyDeleteBut for example, reddit still blocks NSFW access to me even though ive provided my age through apple verification. So does that mean its just straight blocked it or what? How will this then work for other social media?
It means the government is normalising double-dipping. You would have to age verify on your iphone, and then age verify again to access social media. For each single social media site.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAs soon as the vast majority of adults realise that they too will need to provide ID to use their favorite social media platforms there is going to be an enormous backlash, this will result in the proposed law being extremely watered down by Spring 2027 and rendered all but useless.
Who wants to have to provide ID just to use Reddit, YouTube and Facebook? Perhaps your main use of YouTube is watching gardening videos, you'll still need to have some form of ID logged with YouTube.
I would urge people to go and watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix to get a good insight of how social media is designed. It is scary how young people everybody is being manipulated, sucked into addiction, and their health damaged so these companies can make a profit.
ReplyDeleteMultiple tech execs have come out and said they do not let their children use these platforms. That should give you a bit of a hint.
Aren't there more important issues at the moment than kids using social media? Stay in your lane, Starmer. You take care of the economy and security, and I'll take care of my kids.
ReplyDeleteI know everyone is on the social media bad thing, but if I hadn’t had social media (and thusly friends on it, and uncensored information) I wouldn’t have made it to sixteen.
ReplyDeleteI get that social media isn't great, but this just seems a bad idea and a slippery slope. This is something fo parents to deal with and monitor.
ReplyDeleteThere are bans on torrent sites in the UK, and you now have age checks on adults sites too. A VPN gets around this literally in 2 clicks which takes a couple of seconds. How is this enforceable? Not to mention the internet is global. You should have freedom to access more, not less, because of that.
Also kids are going to be smarter tech wise and find ways around it easily, or just find other sites to sign up to (which probably have a lot less checks and regulations). Kids teach their parents how to do stuff online a lot of the time, there is AI now too to teach you things more easily. Banning stuff outright is just dumb.
And worst of all it is about control and putting restrictions on what people can do online. That will creep into more stuff (like the adult age checks on sites).
How about rather than ban it completely (because that always goes well... Alcohol bans for example in the past lead to moonshine, smuggling and having it in secret). They have to have an adult connected account authorize it and allow that adult to be able to keep track of things, set time limits and monitor what they are actually doing/saying etc...? Doing that from a younger age, they'll think that is normal and they'd likely use it more responsibly.
Again an invasion of privacy for the kids, but that's a better way to allow them to use it rather than ban it.
Something forbidden will always make them want it more and then make them use it even more when they do get the chance to use it.
If you're allowed a little wine from a young age, you aren't going to suddenly want to drink tons an dget drunk off it when you're more age appropriate for it...
Guess I gotta spread the Gospel of Proton VPN to the younger generation now. Not because I think they should be on the internet but because I hate this move from our government as it makes my life midly more annoying so I wanna see them fail.
ReplyDeleteGood. Teens can still keep it touch via WhatsApp and live their teenage lives.
ReplyDeleteNo need for social media infinite scroll slop.
This won't work, and just drives kids to different, less regulated websites.
DeleteRegarding the use of a VPN to try and bypass this when (if) it comes into force, VPNs wont help though because the social media service that you are connecting to with the VPN will still need to verify your age.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to be forgetting why under 16 use social media in the first place, to post stupid pics and videos, what kind of clown kid is going to post pics and vids after the ban? the social media websites will instantly ban them or face huge fines.
ReplyDeleteNobody going to be using a VPN ha ha, What's the point? they can't post anyway
Not all kids who use social media necessarily post pictures of themselves that would implicate them as being under 16.
DeleteComment has been removed
DeleteJesus Christ. Did they learn nothing about prohibition.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI find it quite funny for the past week or so every social media app has pushed adverts about locks for under 16's on their platforms only for this to now come out.
The solution isn't to ban kids from the internet, its make their parents be parents.
Or bring in child phones - simple devices that link to a "parent phone" to allow access to things rather than forcing me to upload my private information to prove I'm not a kid
Big, evil corporations such as social media companies make a good populist lightening rod for Starmer just as immigrants do for Farage. In both cases they are fundamental (and I would argue net positive) aspects of modern society. Social media companies and immigrants that is, not Starmer and Farage.
ReplyDeletemy latest Firefox update now has a VPN built straight into the brower
ReplyDeleteWondering if the bots are out in these comments or whether people on reddit are all repeating the same things about this being bad, despite huge public support.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS07X1HvPEc
ReplyDeleteso this shit is real. what the actual fuck are we going to do?
The best solution would have been to prevent social media registered to an under 16 to be 'public', which is how they were initially intended to be used.
ReplyDeleteAlas.
Starmer is just giving the election away to Reform on a silver platter.
ReplyDeleteAll he had to do was be boring. I’m done defending him.
On the logic of some of the commentators here, we shouldn't have banned alcohol or tobacco for children, because parenting. Is that what we believe?
ReplyDeleteNo, we believe we shouldn't ban people as old as 15 from leaving the house in case they encounter alcohol or tobacco.
DeleteYour analogy depends on the supposed similarity of (i) using social media and (ii) leaving the house.
DeleteI'm certain this fucking wanker is trying to beat Thatcher's queer kids killed high score.
ReplyDeletePunish the population because parents are fucking morons
ReplyDeleteGenius Labour.
For those stating that teenagers will just use VPNs...unless they lie about their location, age and identity, social media companies will have to ban their accounts as they would be illegal. This will become self policing.
ReplyDeleteCan we stop with the endless moral panicking and nanny state. Just as teens in the 80s used to watch Tv all day teens in the 20s watch Tiktok and Youtube.
ReplyDeleteIncreasingly a control state so they can control peoples views about the two tier system... this is just a distraction.
ReplyDeleteKids will always find a way. For those of you at school in the 00’s-10’s, remember at school when that one clever but feral kid would find a way to go on YouTube or pornhub on the school’s computer? There is always a way
ReplyDeleteReform UK leader Nigel Farage says the ban is "well-intentioned" but "unlikely to work" given the popularity of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
ReplyDeleteVPNs allow users to have a private, secure internet connection that could bypass age-checks by hiding your location and identity.
He claims that age-verification checks will lead to "the introduction of digital ID via the back door".
The answer, Farage says, is "handsets for children with limited features".
Jesus christ it's a dire fucking day when I agree with Nigel fucking Farage. I know he's only saying this to score points but jesus christ.
Also find it disturbing that the BBC is wheeling out every bereaved parent to get a sound bite from them with absolutely nothing to the contrary. Objective coverage? Don't be ridiculous!
Can we ban it for the over 60s next? If I see one more AI generated piece of shite from my Aunt about foreigners...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't intrinsically care. Making things illegal doesn't stop them happening. Its been illegal to break the speed limit for years and people still do it on a minutely basis!
ReplyDeleteam I the only one that thinks this is a good idea? social media is probably one of the worst things that can happen to a teenager. I wish my country would implement a ban like this. Impressionable teenagers shouldnt have to deal with social media bs that will leave them feeling too fat, unfit, uncool, too broke, you name it.
Not to name issues like cyber mobbing or suicides derived from comments online against them.
They'll enforce this by making everyone have to verify their ID on American data centres because they'll make the social media platforms do the verification.
ReplyDeleteOne databreach away from a bad actor being able to reset many of our passwords becase they'll have an email address and PII.
Nobody from the UK wants their personal info on a data centre outside the UK or EU.
This is gonna be massively difficult to actually enforce and end up encroaching on all of our privacy in some manner
ReplyDeleteFascinating how against this Blog is. It seems obvious this is a good idea and almost everybody recognises this. How can the alternative be blaming bad parenting... Why not lift the under 18 limit on alcohol and blame bad parenting when kids start buying it. Get real...
ReplyDeleteThis will have a massive negative impact on neurodivergent and LGBT teenagers.
ReplyDeleteOk im sure this is a legit issue. But instead of going on this anti-porn crusade. I wish he would address the problems with our economy first.
ReplyDeleteWe'll do literally anything in this country to avoid telling parents actually parent their children and be accountable.
ReplyDeleteAddicts react to government limiting supply of their drug to children.
ReplyDeleteAnyone that has worked with kids in the last 10-15 years will tell you how much of an effect social media has had on kids and their behaviour.
ReplyDeleteBehaviour in schools is abysmal. Is social media it the sole problem? No but it’s a big part of it.
Let’s take one example. Andrew Tate. There is no way someone under 16 should be watching his videos and spreading his ideology’s around a school. (No one should be watching his crap let’s be real.)
Personally I don’t think this is anything to do with control. trust me if the government wanted to control us they would be doing much more than banning social media to U16’s and we wouldn’t even know about it.
I can’t believe I’m defending Kier Starmer!
I don't see how this planned ban will actually work.
Deleteand have they actually defined what "social media" is anywhere?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the BBC:
Delete"The ban will cover platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, the government said. An exhaustive list of which platforms the ban will apply to has not been released. However the government said it would apply to those "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material".
Comment has been removed
DeleteThere aren’t enough words to describe how much I despise Starmer.
ReplyDeleteThe UK is a mass surveillance state, and he’s responsible.
The cynic in me thinks this is just an excuse to ban VPNs. The government REALLY REALLY wants all our tasty data to sell to advertising agencies, the military industrial complex, and the Epstein class.
ReplyDeletenot to be dramatic but as someone who grew up lonely and "different" in an isolated village, social media and the friends i made there saved my life. wouldn't be here if i didn't have access to it as a teen
ReplyDeleteIt's not the ones at home he should be worried about, north face hoodies on leccy bikes with knives seem a tad more important
ReplyDeleteYouTube. YouTube… why? Honestly I got half my history education off YouTube and things like the World War One, World War Two and Cold War channel.
ReplyDeleteThese kids are the future of the nation. We can't risk exposing them to harmful ideas that could turn them against The Party
DeleteYou mean people might be misguided to think the party is -ungood?
DeleteI'm now imagining the police breaking my door down because I let my 14 year old daughter watch YouTube.
DeleteIt's actually insane.
It's utterly ridiculous isn't it. The good YouTube brings far outweighs any bad and is for the most part well moderated, unlike say X.
DeleteComment has been removed
Delete