Should The UK Ban Social Media for Young People?🤔
Comments
-
@WhatThe I was using this forum as an example only, using this forum as the people here can relate to it.
Missing from the list, people without issues, people that are white, people who are black, people who are bald, people who are young and people who are old. As you can see the list of people that could be represented is basically endless, so everyone is not represented by the group.
Does that more sense or explain it better?
0 -
This is a disability forum so who better knows and understands disability or impairment?
What does colour, baldness or age have to do with protecting children from harmful content?
1 -
@WhatThe you have missed the point I was making. Censorship has very little to do with protecting children from harmful content.
Most censorship is aimed at the main population, it is used to control what or how you perceive things.
I have been involved with censorship for about 45 years now, the biggest problem in unintended consequences. Many years ago the government decided that written text should be gender neutral, this meant you could not refer to a persons sex in any way. This made the staffs job almost impossible, try describing a fight between a male and a female without referring to their gender in any way.
1 -
I most definitely think all social media should be banned for under 16 year olds, I think the state of out country at the moment has a lot to do with it, all 4 of my adopted children were read stories at bed times , when they were old enough then they read to us at bedtime, phones, iPads etc were always left downstairs, many a friend for a sleep over used to say to me that they were allowed to have phones etc to bed with them, well unfortunately not in my house, obviously once my children got to a certain age (17,18) then we didn’t have as much say so, as they had to learn to make their own choices in life, but just look at the mess of our country now!, many a younger wants to play games all night on their ps5s and sleep all day, they don’t need to work as they get more on benefits so why should they …… I’m certainly not tarring the youngsters as all being the same, but yes I my opinion it’s all to do with social media …….
1 -
Under the slogans of protecting children, the rights of adults are definitely limited, this is a fact.
0 -
🤨
0 -
That doesn't bother me at all! My interest here is in protecting children.
1 -
0
-
What point did I miss? We are only talking about children here! It is our job to do everything we can to protect them while they are still children!!!
I asked you what colour, baldness or age has to do with protecting children from harmful online content.
In 2026, we can and do describe men and women as men and women. It's not complicated.
0 -
From my perspective, if you want to protect children the Government needs to make parents available for their children. In the 80's this basically stopped when the government decided that everyone should work and not look after their children, this was done because parents at home were counted as unemployed and the Government want unemployment numbers down.
Parents not the State should decide what their children see, hear and learn. Parents should protect their children not leave it up to a third party.
Do you think censorship is to lax or to strict or just right?
3 -
Are you going to answer my question or just keep generalising about censorship?
1 -
I think they have answered, or intended to, I could be wrong but I think @CarNineSix is saying that restricting access to information raises questions about power, bias, representation and the unintended consequences of censorship, and it's impossible to always understand the impact without being from that group.
They used Scope forum as an example not because they were changing the subject but to try and explain that protecting children will mean different things depending who is deciding what is safe for children or not.
For example a bald person will look at things from a different perspective and need access to different information to someone with a full head of hair. It's a point about who decides what is harmful or not.
They also used the example of a few years ago so much literature online was made to become gender neutral as it was decided gendered terms were harmful, and some of that is being backtracked because the people who make decisions about whats harmful has changed.
Who makes the decisions about what is harmful to children is important. Censorship is difficult because the people deciding what should be censored might be biased.
Like in the US theyve banned many books on race and inequality saying that they're harmful to children, because the people deciding what's harmful have that opinion (which I strongly disagree with and think books on race and inequality are important!)
You're both saying you want children protected. I think anyway.
1 -
Sorry if I overstepped
0 -
This has certainly prompted a lively debate and it's really interesting to hear everyone's opinions. It's an incredibly nuanced topic and it would be incredibly difficult to have one single answer.
Just a reminder to please be civil with each other even if you disagree.
0 -
@WhatThe please read @Anhedonia2 has written.
And yes, children should be protected, but from what or who?
And the opening post is about protecting young people, it does not say children.
1 -
https://cs18.pikabu.ru/s/2026/04/14/17/e3frerwb_s0f0d164m0_960x720.mp4 Telegram War
For example, in Russia, under the slogans of protecting children, everyone was deprived of direct access to YouTube, Netflix, BBC, and thousands of other sites. The services of continuous glucose monitoring systems also fell under the restrictions. The latter was done unintentionally, but knowing how the Internet works, this should not be surprising. So you still insist that all diabetics, including children with diabetes, should suffer to protect children?
In addition, you do not take into account that children can independently bypass prohibitions or create their own networks outside the Internet you know. Why?
1 -
Again, a reminder to be civil please. I feel that this particular part of the discussion should end as it is clearly causing tension.
0 -
A very interesting debate we have going on here. I don't really have an opinion on the matter but it's certainly interesting hearing other people's.
0 -
personally I agree with the ban, Social Media can be a very toxic place.
0 -
I agree that it's incredibly toxic @Rag_793. There can be good sides to social media but it's near impossible to police. I feel like we've gone too far now to ever turn back and it's really sad for the next generation.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.4K Start here and say hello!
- 7.8K Coffee lounge
- 123 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 190 Announcements and information
- 25.9K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 445 Current affairs
- 2.6K Families and carers
- 890 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 630 Money and bills
- 3.8K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 676 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.6K Talk about your impairment
- 885 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 950 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.3K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41.8K Talk about your benefits
- 6.2K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.6K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income