Government brings in social media ban for under 16s - Do you support it?

SheffieldMan1976
SheffieldMan1976 Posts: 2,342 Connected

I have no children and it's unlikely I ever will, but I do not support this ban, it's unenforceable for a start, people will just use a VPN to get round it.

Thoughts?

«1

Comments

  • Emilee
    Emilee Community Member Posts: 39 Connected

    Why don't you support it? What about it do you not agree with?

    I 100% support the idea, although I don't know the full extend of details yet.

  • SheffieldMan1976
    SheffieldMan1976 Posts: 2,342 Connected

    Because it's George Orwell's 1984 coming true, it was never about protecting the kids, it's all about getting our online data.

  • Emilee
    Emilee Community Member Posts: 39 Connected

    Oh, most definitely, most actions are about data and control. However, I still think limiting children's access is important, regardless of the true motivation behind it.

    My concern is that it could have the unintended consequence of encouraging children to be sneakier about it, which could ultimately make it even more dangerous for them.

  • SheffieldMan1976
    SheffieldMan1976 Posts: 2,342 Connected

    Indeed.

    The government are on about banning VPNs, which is also unenforceable because people will use them anyway to get round social media bans.

  • egiste2r
    egiste2r Posts: 88 Connected

    The UK is gradually turning into Russia, where access to websites that are objectionable to the authorities is first banned for children, and then for everyone.

  • egiste2r
    egiste2r Posts: 88 Connected

    Fighting VPN services is technically entirely possible.

  • WelshBlue
    WelshBlue Community Member Posts: 1,365 Championing

    I'm 50/50 whether this is good or not. As has been said … kids will work around it, which will not always be the safest.

    Then there's disabled children to who Social Media is a lifeline.

    I'm all for protecting all children's safety and Mental Health. But maybe let's start by protecting with non suspended sentences for those adults who incite/ engage with children for nefarious reasons ?

    Banning under 16's from YouTube worries me the most … it's such a great educational tool … why can't they just go after the harmful content and not a blanket ban ?

    Or maybe the establishment should go after bad parents who let their kids round around feral and harming society. Or maybe the world is doomed if you or if you don't ?

  • Mr_Shoes_Tied
    Mr_Shoes_Tied Community Member Posts: 123 Empowering

    I see the need for limits but I would not have survived my teenage years without it. It was a lifeline for me.

  • SheffieldMan1976
    SheffieldMan1976 Posts: 2,342 Connected

    The problem is that YouTube is hosted from America, so any UK based ban wouldn't work, it'd have to be International.

  • WelshBlue
    WelshBlue Community Member Posts: 1,365 Championing

    But like you I'm not happy if I've got to verify my age. Give Data. Legally you don't have to give the Police your details unless it's section 50 public order or have broken the law

    It all goes too much against article 8 of the HRA for my liking

  • MyHappy256
    MyHappy256 Community Member Posts: 152 Empowering
    edited June 17

    I 100% support it, though I recognise that it is unenforceable because of VPN, I think this will take the responsibility off everyone else and put the responsibility back where it belongs, on the parents and the children.

  • kreacher
    kreacher Community Member Posts: 428 Empowering

    when i was a teen, youtube didn't exist, but banning something makes it more of a challenge to do it, my mum banned me and my sister watching grange hill, so we went to a friends house and watched it there

  • Kimi87
    Kimi87 Community Member Posts: 8,807 Championing
    edited June 17

    Like certain other recreational activities meant for over 18's those determined will find a way around, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a ban which which will benefit the majority.

    The tech companies have had quite long enough to put solutions in place. They are only interested in profit, keeping users using their products as long as possible each session, and have inadequate teams to deal with abuse & harm reports.

    Children won't be banned from the Internet, various apps and websites will still be available.

    I wasn't in favour of a ban at the beginning but have come around to the idea.

    I really feel for the young people losing access to social media, but historically we've stopped children accessing other harmful things this isn't any different.

    Growing up smartphones did not exist they were capable of calls & texts only, then a bit later camera phones launched.

    If we wanted to use Facebook or MSN messenger this was done from a desktop PC, usually located in a public area of home.

    I'm so glad I didn't grow up a generation later.

  • martinezXgonzales
    martinezXgonzales Community Member Posts: 26 Connected

    No I do not support it as it will affect us all via a digital ID, I've stood with the big brother watch campaigns since 2020 on things like this, completed the green papers to no avail….

    Thank Christ I never voted for this also, after my 1st election voting back in 2018, I decided that no party is what I want to represent me, no centrist ideologies - just hard left or right. therefore I put the "I do not consent ashby/white case 1703"

  • SheffieldMan1976
    SheffieldMan1976 Posts: 2,342 Connected

    The biggest issue with this is that most of the main social media sites such as Faceache and X are hosted Internationally, so UK law has no jurisdiction on them.

  • rubin16
    rubin16 Scope Member Posts: 1,495 Championing
    edited June 18

    People are just like sheep and will vote for anything which they think benefits them, regardless if they truly asked the question Why? we are doing something. Most things people think is a benefit is designed that way to ensure later down the line more control is put in place. Its similar to when you want to put an animal to slaughter, you never show them its happening.

    So no I don't agree with this and neither should anyone who values their human rights, which will eventually be taken away.

    This is how it starts first you put a control in saying its going to benefit the population, then you put further controls in place i.e VPN's bans, to eventually you have full control over the population. Its going to get to a point where privacy is no longer a human right and people are dumb enough to vote for it or agree with it till they realise its too late.

  • rubin16
    rubin16 Scope Member Posts: 1,495 Championing
    edited June 18

    Also this is never about "Children's Safety". [removed by moderator] This is simply an excuse designed to limit everyone's privacy.

  • martinezXgonzales
    martinezXgonzales Community Member Posts: 26 Connected

    exactamundo

    How people can't see this is beyond me, I saw things like this creeping in since secondary school, I'm nearly 25 now & I just often think am I the inmate in the aslyum or vice versa…?

  • SwiftFox
    SwiftFox Community Member Posts: 1,185 Championing
    edited June 18

    That's not a problem for us. If youtube or any social media does business on our shores, then they do so under our laws and taxes and the government has the right to ban it or make sanctions against it. And I for one, am glad of the ban on social media for under 16s. It should happened years ago, if being a sheep for thinking of peoples safety or even god forbid relying on social media to survive, then god help us all.

  • egiste2r
    egiste2r Posts: 88 Connected

    There are two possible scenarios here: either a blanket ban on an internet service that doesn't comply with the law, or wealthy internet giants ensure the passage of the laws they want.