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.

    • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I agree, but on the ageism point. The thing that needs to be done is regulation so that manipulative design is reduced. Its the corporations that are the problem. Bans only target the victims the most.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Consequences for rich people? Not blaming their victims?!? Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway??

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      No it wouldnt. It’d be a .001% reduction in users.

      If you want social media to become a ghost town, ban bots/AI

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Can they even do it? AI nowadays can reliably parse captchas, present themselves as adults, with little effort they’ll even present documents and “real” photos

        • MortUS@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          They could but it’s symbiotic. Social Media churns engagement using bots, which generates ad revenue.

          Not to mention that large Social Media companies like Meta are almost certainly filtering out bot content to train LLMs on.

          • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            They obviously don’t want to do it. But my point is that I think they actually can’t.

            I mean Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Cloudflare definitely can’t filter real people from AI. Documents photos, real time videos, those are even easier for AI to fake than to the real people to make them.

            That brings us to the good old sms to a physical sim card purchased in a real shop with human face and document check. And that also will be spoofed in like 6 months.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I mean if people can figure out bot accounts and make lists of them just by looking at them, I’m pretty sure the companies that see 25000 accounts all connect from the same IP address can figure it out.

          • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            if people can figure out bot accounts

            That’s a big IF and most of the times they don’t.

            25000 accounts all connect from the same IP address

            That’s just not how it works.

  • adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    How do you get an entire population of adults to voluntarily scan their faces and submit them to Palantir?

  • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s insane that they’ll say it’s designed to be addictive, and then just let the company keep doing that. Like maybe go after the entity producing the addictive substance directly then?

    • ziproot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The engagement-based algorithmic feed is the problem. Kids being able to talk to strangers is also an issue, but that isn’t because of addiction, and I personally think public chats should just be opt-in with the expectation that the parents will actually do their job and teach their children not to talk to strangers.

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I think it’s insane because social media is addictive because being social and communicating with fellow human beings is addictive. That’s what you and me are doing here and why we find it so pleasurable. That is not a bad thing.

      It’s a bizarre lesson to drill into our children’s brains that this is a negative thing. I assume they don’t really know what social media is and see it as distinct, more like the one way communication of comic books, rock n roll, and other media moral panics, and they assume children will too. But what will happen to the next generation is that they will see all forms of human interaction as horribly addictive, amoral, and unhealthy.

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Anything to avoid parents actually … parenting their children. Just like making weed illegal stopped everyone from smoking it! :D Same with alcohol.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It should have the Zuck riding the horse. He’s the one pushing for this so the advertisers know if they are showing ads to people and not bots on his platforms.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        He definitely isn’t. He already knows. This is 100% governments wanting to crack down on free speech. Look how many people the UK government already jails for social media posts.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    22 hours ago

    if the goal was to actually protect kids, it wouldn’t be a problem.

    however, this isn’t supposed to protect kids, it’s supposed to protect corpofascists.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s actually funny how some years ago The Great Chinese Firewall was a thing that we looked at as some horror. Yet very soon in the Western countries the Internet will be by passport only. China won’t probably implement this as they likely already know everything they want about their users.

  • wpb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This has nothing to do whatsoever with protecting children. That is not the goal. This is anti-privacy, plain and simple. Discussing the merits of this plan as a child protection measure is agreeing to their framing of the discussion, it’s agreeing to discuss it on their terms, and then you’ve already lost.

    Here’s a real counterargument: suppose we pass this, and the fascists win the election (I know, completely and utterly unimaginable, but bear with me). Now, organizing protests via social media (as it went in Tunisia, Egypt, Brazil, and so on) becomes impossible, because your actual identity is tied to your social media accounts. In the current climate the fascists will probably go after muslims first, so I hope you haven’t said scary things like insh’allah on facebook, because the government has your name now. Are you gay? Better hope you haven’t left a thirsty comment on the insta of someone of your gender, because the government will know.

    Of course, we don’t need to imagine some hypothetical fascist government. I hope you don’t object to genocide and post about it online, because that can be declared support of terrorism at the drop of a hat, and that’s illegal.

    • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      22 hours ago

      and the fascists win the election

      Mate….the fascists won the election. How can they push these laws and you still can’t see that?

      The people who been calling everyone else fascists are the same people who have been begging every social media site, forum, and company for MORE CENSORSHIP for the last 5+ years. You wanted this because you thought it would only harm people you disagree with. You thought wrong.

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        You wanted this because you thought it would only harm people you disagree with. You thought wrong.

        Don’t talk to me like I’m some liberal.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    " designed to be addictive ". So you think adults are somehow magically exempt from addiction?

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Are they though? Can you buy heroine in the UK freely? Aren’t Chinese and Russian media channels banned in the UK?

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Being an addict isn’t illegal, possessing illegal drugs is. Plenty of legal ways to be an addict if you insist though.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I think you raise a fair point, can you participate in social media without affecting others in a negative way? My guess is scale is a big issue. If social media was just our neighbors together in a forum using technology to improve our communication, that would be a positive overall I’d think.

              Tools aren’t really bad on their own, it depends how we choose to use them and what goals we try to achieve with them.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          24 hours ago

          For children yes, and when it affects others safety like with drunk driving. If an adult wants to fuck off in the woods and become an addict, thats entirely acceptable. Apparently some adults think that when we protect vulnerable people that we are taking their freedoms away.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 hours ago

            If you’re referring to me, you have the very wrong end of the stick.

            The irony is in admitting this shit is harmful and addictive…but uh, only for those too young to monetize.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              I think its well known its addictive for everyone, but profit and convenience are the most important things to Americans, so here we are.

  • bumbling_bee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    They learned from countries like Australia huh? Australian here, did they learn how much its not working 😂🙄! None of my kids have anything other than YouTube, but my 9yo knew how to get around it. He doesn’t because he just watches in a browser with ad blockers and we monitor it. My high schooler reports the many and varied ways kids just changed where they go online to continue their crap. Do I think under 16s should be on social media, no. But identity verification is not going to fix that.

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      This was never about protecting the children. That’s just an excuse to further promote mass surveillance and to exempt companies from responsibility for the additive design of their products and services. It’s easier and more rewarding to penalize the users.

      • bumbling_bee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Yep. I’ve since deleted it, but I had to verify my identity on my FB account, which i’d had since 2008. Math is a thing 🙄.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      If parents dont care or approve of their kids using social media then the kids will keep doing it. Its still important that the top officials in government are warning adults that its not safe for children there, because some people dont know or won’t trust anyone else.

      The problem was thinking it was okay for kids to be on social media, and this fixes that. People on here keep saying the problem being fixed is how to prevent every child from getting on social media, but thats not what’s happening.

      This also allows us as a society to punish parents who break these laws or allow their children too. We have to be able to signal to each other in society when something is harmful, whether it affects autonomy or not.

      • bumbling_bee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        If kids want to be on social media badly enough, they will find a way regardless of approval and permission from their parents. They get banned from Meta and TikTok, they just band together and move to an app not on the list. I agree that people need to know if something is harmful. All the effort and money going into a ban, would’ve been better spent on media literacy and education on how algorithms work, and the addictive nature of some platforms. This is the reason why none of my kids are interested in most social media. Because they know how awful it is. YouTube is a bit more grey, IMO. I filter out shorts for my kids, but they’ve learned a lot of stuff over the years. Yet Roblox isn’t banned? That should’ve been top of the list. Identity verification is a privacy and security nightmare. People should not be required to provide their identity to participate in discussions, or even worse, use their own device.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          If we actually cared about society in general, we would behave differently. This is a result of the fuck-you-get-mine mentality that thrives in America. There are plenty of people here that don’t care about their neighbors, at all.

          You only see outrage come from people affected firsthand, because everyone else thinks they are too smart/rich/successful to possibly fall victim to the same systems as the stupid/poor/lazy people.

          You bring up a great point about focusing on youtube and letting roblox slide right by. Plenty of parents made that mistake, but the truth is that almost no online platform is safe for children to meet strangers in.

          I’m not sure what the best way to restrict access to adults only is though, but it does seem the current attempt is the best we’ve come up with so far. Its incredibly invasive, and I simply won’t use products that require age verification, so I’m hoping this leads to a better solution. Perhaps another country will figure out an idea and we can copy it.