Under 16’s will still be using social media. We have very tech savvy young people who will find a way around it.
Stammer is giving them the opportunity to vote on one hand, and taking away their voices on the other hand. It won’t work and it won’t help Labour win another election. Make social media safer, not more interesting to young people.
The more you tell people not to do something the more they will. Banning social media is just going to make it more interesting to them. How will they be able to control it?
Under 16s tend not to access news v often. They never have. Every survey going back to the 1970s finds the same thing. If they do want to access news in the run-up to an election there are plenty of ways to do so. Social media selects on the basis of outrage. If 15 year olds use the BBC for news instead it is hardly a problem. Oddly children back in the day had no trouble keeping in touch with friends & I can’t see why this generation would find that difficult. Certainly those who are still in primary school now will learn how to interact in the real world & hopefully won’t be tempted to leave when they turn 16. But the big issue here is preventing young people from accidental exposure to harmful content. That seems pretty normal to me. It’s the last few years that have been the anomaly. Time to return to a children first approach.
I see your point. I do think there are some key differences now from back in the day.
One is that in many parts of the country, older people in Britain have quite a strong negative reaction to teens playing outside, and a habit of calling the police on them. We also don't have the infrastructure anymore – youth clubs, sports clubs, music clubs, drama clubs. So if we want kids offline and outside, I'd say we could offer a carrot rather than a stick and try to give them alternatives.
I'd also say that – unfortunately – politics now primarily happens on social media. It's where you go to engage with issues. It's hard to cut kids off from that without cutting them off from the national political discourse. They don't read newspapers (less and less people of all ages do every single year) and it's hard to blame them given the state of the print media today.
Social media selects on the basis of outrage because thats the business model. Outrageous content gets more views.
In my view, this is not a children first approach but a Big Tech first approach. These laws are backed by the tech giants because they help concentrate and consolidate market power in the hands of the largest companies (who have money to implement them) and kill poorer or NGO competitors. They also help them consolidate more data on everyone (read: data=money).
Regarding your last paragraph - This is exactly why big tech are lobbying for AI regulations - because it will price smaller competitors out of the market and consolidate their monopolies.
I agree that outrage is part of the problem. That would be best dealt with at a technical level by regulating algorithms but Age is not irrelevant. Children exposed to violent content have no way of contextualising what they see. Protecting children is always relevant.
Good point about child protection. At least this ban will help parents draw a hard line when their children ask for access to social media.
Parents need to model good behavior. I often see parents pushing their child on a swing while they stare at their phone. Kids are going to be influenced when they see their parent doom scrolling.
Extremist content is definitely harmful to adults too (as well as society at large). Just look at the comment section under any GB News video.
I’m not sure why you think Big Tech are in favour of the ban. They aren’t. It will be a major disruption. I agree that it would be better to intervene at the level of the technology but anything effective- such as regulating the kind algorithms that are permitted- would also outrage free speech fundamentalists. By intervening in this blanket way we (hopefully) get a bit of a re-set and protect a lot of children while we try to do what should have been done in the first place: regulate to keep people safe.
They would obviously prefer no regulation at all (ideally) but they have lobbied for the ban (and for similar legislation in the States) because they get good PR without having to stop making tons of money off algorithmic chaos.
The data harvesting is the aspect that worries me the most about this. Starmer really does have some serious Big Brother motivations. This seems to be his solution to his desire for compulsory digital ID being squashed by the back benchers.
I'm getting so cynical about the moves he's made since coming to power I'm wondering if his time as the great human rights lawyer wasn't done purely to boost his reputation.
My initial concerns about him possibly being an authoritarian nightmare are all coming to fruition.
I don't know much about Burnham but I'm starting to pray he'll be in No10 sooner rather than later because I'm working up a very emphatic dislike of this PM.
His positive policies are starting to feel like the spoonful of sugar Julie Andrews promised would make the medicine go down.
The bad joke of facial recognition cameras are in use all over the place and surveillance cameras have been extremely widespread for many years without the impact on solving crime that they were sold to us on.
I suppose that I will have to get a passport, since I don't drive or have any ID - even my bus pass has expired! Bank cards, sure, but I prefer to use PayPal... Bloody nuisance!
For younger people the distinction would be too close to call for AI or human so ID showing a birthdate would be necessary but for those of us with grey hair or wrinkles not a bother. It's still a massive invasion of privacy though.
This is what's already happening under the Online Safety Act. 'X' uses an AI face scan to confirm your age.
Starmer's plan for this new law – it looks like – will be an entirely different, new type of age verification at the device-level. I get into it a bit in the piece
Oh. I have never used X and whilst Musk owns it, never will. I use Bluesky these days, although I still have a Facebook account. Mind you, my Arte account asked me for documentation I don't possess, so I suspect many platforms will not rely on AI to establish age.
The problem isn't children accessing social media or big tech monetising their attention - the problem is social media and the attention economy. It is just as unhealthy for adults as it is for children.
I'll give an example, I get gambling ads constantly, one of them literally shows someone waiting for a bus and looking a little bored and then suggests this is the perfect time to get out your phone and start gambling. Seriously, how can you admit that TikTok is bad for children's attention, and allow that sort of ad for adults?
Your clever 15 year old wants to have a website for their <insert nerdy but acceptable choice here> hobby. The sort of thing you'd want to encourage so you agree to pay the small monthly fee for its hosting. 5 minutes later, inbetween picture uploads, your clever 15 year old has cut and paste the lines of code necessary to enable a transparent proxy on the host, which being cheap is located in the US. Cheap, anonymous, untraceable. Your clever 15 year old is now charging classmates for monthly access.
Under 16’s will still be using social media. We have very tech savvy young people who will find a way around it.
Stammer is giving them the opportunity to vote on one hand, and taking away their voices on the other hand. It won’t work and it won’t help Labour win another election. Make social media safer, not more interesting to young people.
In Australia, more than 60% of them are still online (and I suspect the real number is probably higher)
The more you tell people not to do something the more they will. Banning social media is just going to make it more interesting to them. How will they be able to control it?
Under 16s tend not to access news v often. They never have. Every survey going back to the 1970s finds the same thing. If they do want to access news in the run-up to an election there are plenty of ways to do so. Social media selects on the basis of outrage. If 15 year olds use the BBC for news instead it is hardly a problem. Oddly children back in the day had no trouble keeping in touch with friends & I can’t see why this generation would find that difficult. Certainly those who are still in primary school now will learn how to interact in the real world & hopefully won’t be tempted to leave when they turn 16. But the big issue here is preventing young people from accidental exposure to harmful content. That seems pretty normal to me. It’s the last few years that have been the anomaly. Time to return to a children first approach.
I see your point. I do think there are some key differences now from back in the day.
One is that in many parts of the country, older people in Britain have quite a strong negative reaction to teens playing outside, and a habit of calling the police on them. We also don't have the infrastructure anymore – youth clubs, sports clubs, music clubs, drama clubs. So if we want kids offline and outside, I'd say we could offer a carrot rather than a stick and try to give them alternatives.
I'd also say that – unfortunately – politics now primarily happens on social media. It's where you go to engage with issues. It's hard to cut kids off from that without cutting them off from the national political discourse. They don't read newspapers (less and less people of all ages do every single year) and it's hard to blame them given the state of the print media today.
Social media selects on the basis of outrage because thats the business model. Outrageous content gets more views.
In my view, this is not a children first approach but a Big Tech first approach. These laws are backed by the tech giants because they help concentrate and consolidate market power in the hands of the largest companies (who have money to implement them) and kill poorer or NGO competitors. They also help them consolidate more data on everyone (read: data=money).
Regarding your last paragraph - This is exactly why big tech are lobbying for AI regulations - because it will price smaller competitors out of the market and consolidate their monopolies.
It's an age-old tactic. Unfortunately Silicon Valley, in both the US and Britain, basically gets to mark all of its own homework.
The problem is outrage and harmful content - the age of the person accessing it is irrelevant.
Starmer's ban is the wrong solution to the right problem.
The right solution would be deterring these practices on the first place, plus educating people on healthy tech usage.
I agree that outrage is part of the problem. That would be best dealt with at a technical level by regulating algorithms but Age is not irrelevant. Children exposed to violent content have no way of contextualising what they see. Protecting children is always relevant.
Good point about child protection. At least this ban will help parents draw a hard line when their children ask for access to social media.
Parents need to model good behavior. I often see parents pushing their child on a swing while they stare at their phone. Kids are going to be influenced when they see their parent doom scrolling.
Extremist content is definitely harmful to adults too (as well as society at large). Just look at the comment section under any GB News video.
I’m not sure why you think Big Tech are in favour of the ban. They aren’t. It will be a major disruption. I agree that it would be better to intervene at the level of the technology but anything effective- such as regulating the kind algorithms that are permitted- would also outrage free speech fundamentalists. By intervening in this blanket way we (hopefully) get a bit of a re-set and protect a lot of children while we try to do what should have been done in the first place: regulate to keep people safe.
They would obviously prefer no regulation at all (ideally) but they have lobbied for the ban (and for similar legislation in the States) because they get good PR without having to stop making tons of money off algorithmic chaos.
Another big lobbyist for these kinds of laws is the Heritage Foundation, the rightwing think tank that orchestrated Trump's Project 2025
The data harvesting is the aspect that worries me the most about this. Starmer really does have some serious Big Brother motivations. This seems to be his solution to his desire for compulsory digital ID being squashed by the back benchers.
I'm getting so cynical about the moves he's made since coming to power I'm wondering if his time as the great human rights lawyer wasn't done purely to boost his reputation.
My initial concerns about him possibly being an authoritarian nightmare are all coming to fruition.
I don't know much about Burnham but I'm starting to pray he'll be in No10 sooner rather than later because I'm working up a very emphatic dislike of this PM.
His positive policies are starting to feel like the spoonful of sugar Julie Andrews promised would make the medicine go down.
The Investigatory Powers Act (i.e. the Snooper's Charter) means the government can already record everything you do online.
They can but do they?
The bad joke of facial recognition cameras are in use all over the place and surveillance cameras have been extremely widespread for many years without the impact on solving crime that they were sold to us on.
I suppose that I will have to get a passport, since I don't drive or have any ID - even my bus pass has expired! Bank cards, sure, but I prefer to use PayPal... Bloody nuisance!
You don't need id for this. You submit a picture of your face and AI will figure out if you look old enough.
I still have my doubts about AI's (or anyone's) ability to do this. Does your face suddenly look different when you awake on your 16th birthday?
For younger people the distinction would be too close to call for AI or human so ID showing a birthdate would be necessary but for those of us with grey hair or wrinkles not a bother. It's still a massive invasion of privacy though.
Do I trust AI? And is this what the proposed legislation saying, or what Big Tech is advising?
This is what's already happening under the Online Safety Act. 'X' uses an AI face scan to confirm your age.
Starmer's plan for this new law – it looks like – will be an entirely different, new type of age verification at the device-level. I get into it a bit in the piece
Oh. I have never used X and whilst Musk owns it, never will. I use Bluesky these days, although I still have a Facebook account. Mind you, my Arte account asked me for documentation I don't possess, so I suspect many platforms will not rely on AI to establish age.
The sensible approach is to ban under 16s from having a smartphone. A phone that can send and receive calls and text messages is surely sufficient.
I don't know how old you are, George - but I doubt you're from Planet Earth!
The problem isn't children accessing social media or big tech monetising their attention - the problem is social media and the attention economy. It is just as unhealthy for adults as it is for children.
I'll give an example, I get gambling ads constantly, one of them literally shows someone waiting for a bus and looking a little bored and then suggests this is the perfect time to get out your phone and start gambling. Seriously, how can you admit that TikTok is bad for children's attention, and allow that sort of ad for adults?
Your clever 15 year old wants to have a website for their <insert nerdy but acceptable choice here> hobby. The sort of thing you'd want to encourage so you agree to pay the small monthly fee for its hosting. 5 minutes later, inbetween picture uploads, your clever 15 year old has cut and paste the lines of code necessary to enable a transparent proxy on the host, which being cheap is located in the US. Cheap, anonymous, untraceable. Your clever 15 year old is now charging classmates for monthly access.