UK Mulls Australia-Like Social Media Ban For Users Under 16 (engadget.com) 25
The UK government has launched a public consultation on whether to ban social media use for children under 16, drawing inspiration from Australia's recently enacted age-based restrictions. "It would also explore how to enforce that limit, how to limit tech companies from being able to access children's data and how to limit 'infinite scrolling,' as well as access to addictive online tools," reports Engadget. "In addition to seeking feedback from parents and young people themselves, the country's ministers are going to visit Australia to see the effects of the country's social media ban for kids, according to Financial Times."
Wait 2-3 years (Score:3, Insightful)
See what problems the Aussie ban solves, and see what new problems it creates.
Then you can make a much more informed decision.
Re: Wait 2-3 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See what problems the Aussie ban solves, and see what new problems it creates.
Then you can make a much more informed decision.
And risk missing a trending chance at overreach? Come on, you have to be joking.
Re:Unexpected boon for Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah I'm not quite sure what to make of it. According to a friend of mine, his 13yo hasnt even been affected, it straight up hasnt asked his age yet.
The concept is solid imho. We DO need kids spending more time running about , getting fit and socializing with other kids. climbing trees, kicking footballs, figuring out how to talk to girls, all that good childhood and teens shit.
I'm just not convinced this is the right way to get there. I'd have prefered time limits. An hour or two screen time a day like the chinese messed about with for MMOs back in the day. That way kids still keep contact with the culture, but also have to go outside and touch grass and do the humaning stuff too.
Our parents rarely ever banned TV (Though my dad did try that for a couple of years when he sold the TV set so us kids wouldnt be glued to it, but he folded the next year and brought a new one lol) but what they did usually do is try and limit the amount of time we where planted in front of one.
Re: (Score:2)
The smart ones should be using Signal.
Aussie with two teenage boys here (Score:2)
Neither of my boys ever used any of the social media sites. The ban didn't affect them at all. They both have Android phones. We aren't helicopter parents, we don't constantly monitor what they do on their phones and PCs anyway.
US needs to do the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could get tetanus.
Re: US needs to do the same (Score:4)
Yes, parents should take some responsibility and limit their kids' screen time if they want to raise responsible humans.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But being a parent is haaaaaaaaaaard! Why can't the government and tech companies find solutions so I don't have to?
Re: US needs to do the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it is.
I'm not a parent, neither do I play one on TV, but it's obviously really hard.
As a parent it's more or less impossible to compete with essentially infinitely rich companies who can spend arbitrary amounts trying to get kids addicted. And doubly so now the cost of living has risen such that very few can afford to be stray at home parents.
All sorts of things are regulated to be unavailable to kids. It's not practical to watch kids 24/7 then kick them out into the world age 18.002 and expect them to
Re: (Score:2)
Sure many parents would if they could find enough time instead of having their eyes glued to their phones screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, parents should take some responsibility and limit their kids' screen time if they want to raise responsible humans.
Parent? Oh, you mean the grown-ass screen junkie?
Just in case we forgot about the cause, the root cause, the core cause, the ongoing cause, or the future cause..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, parents should take some responsibility and limit their kids' screen time if they want to raise responsible humans.
But that is a vote loser... Blaming the "Yoof of today" for all societies ills is a vote winner... Of course every breeder assumes it's not their "yoof" that's the problem, it's everyone else's.
Might actually work. (Score:3)
Now if you try to block a 16 year old from accessing, say, porn... well, you can't possibly block it well enough to prevent them from finding a way. But with social media a significant annoyance might be enough to send teens elsewhere. Now, where they end up may be less than healthy. It's kind of like driving the drinking underground... unintended consequences abound. But I think it'll have the intended effect of keeping them off the major above-board players.
Detox Social Media by Removing the Ads (Score:3)
The influencers preaching fear, hate and and controversy as 'free speech' for ad revenue will go back to pulling the legs of spiders. (sorry spiders, evolve fangs and powerful neurotoxins )
The most important thing about the legislation is that a state is trying to protect its citizens and acknowledges social media is a toilet, says don't live there, it's where people go to shit and piss, our enemies spread disinformation and weirdos and criminals prey on you.
They'll never (Score:2)
What's Social about Social Media (Score:2)
What is social media, anyways? Maybe I'm out of touch... Are these laws trying to address the problem of algorithmically-driven gamified attention-seeking brain rot that we can't look away from? Or is there still an actual "social" component to this that I'm missing?