A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice.
-
A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.
Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.
-
A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.
Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.
But also, for child protection, this is a double-edged sword. Yes, social media exposes some children to things they should never see, but it also exposes children who've been brought up in terrible situations to the possibility that what they're facing is wrong and an alternative world exists. Britain has for decades been obsessed with the danger of strangers, but statistically it has always been the case that more children are under threat from members of their immediate family and community.
-
But also, for child protection, this is a double-edged sword. Yes, social media exposes some children to things they should never see, but it also exposes children who've been brought up in terrible situations to the possibility that what they're facing is wrong and an alternative world exists. Britain has for decades been obsessed with the danger of strangers, but statistically it has always been the case that more children are under threat from members of their immediate family and community.
That's such an unimaginably horrible realisation that we shy away from recognising it, but it's true and we have to confront it if we want to keep children safe. Locking them out of online contact is likely to isolate that block of vulnerable children to a worse degree. Furthermore, when children go on social media anyway, which they will do, they're now doing something illegal, which makes it much *harder* for them to ask an adult for help when something goes wrong online.
-
A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.
Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.
@FreakyFwoof @JubalBarca i actualy don't no what will tackle the problem, ban the content and it gos underground ban the people and they lie or cheet to gain acceess to all of the content on the plantform. its a nice idea in thery the practice is circomventable
-
A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.
Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.
@JubalBarca what is happening in practice in Australia atm?
-
@JubalBarca what is happening in practice in Australia atm?
@temptoetiam In general the Australian ban is just failing on a technical level. Per ABC (link below), the effective implementation rate is that it's blocking under a third of under-16s.
-
That's such an unimaginably horrible realisation that we shy away from recognising it, but it's true and we have to confront it if we want to keep children safe. Locking them out of online contact is likely to isolate that block of vulnerable children to a worse degree. Furthermore, when children go on social media anyway, which they will do, they're now doing something illegal, which makes it much *harder* for them to ask an adult for help when something goes wrong online.
@JubalBarca The main thing it achieves is to scratch the English itch to ban something when unrelated things seem to be slipping out of control. It's the equivalent of stress eating for the British establishment.
-
@FreakyFwoof @JubalBarca i actualy don't no what will tackle the problem, ban the content and it gos underground ban the people and they lie or cheet to gain acceess to all of the content on the plantform. its a nice idea in thery the practice is circomventable
@liseo @FreakyFwoof I think things have to be tackled more at the content and algorithms level. The problem differs for different kinds of content: scams and political disinfo don't tend to get "driven underground" for example because the underground doesn't have enough marks to make those things viable. Illegal harms type content does go underground, but in some cases just reducing public exposure there is a net benefit. There are more complex cases though.
-
@JubalBarca The main thing it achieves is to scratch the English itch to ban something when unrelated things seem to be slipping out of control. It's the equivalent of stress eating for the British establishment.
@toerror I wish they'd just go and do actual stress eating instead honestly. I will happily personally send Keir Starmer several packets of snacks and a large box of tea bags if it means we get better governance.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
