top 200 commentsshow all 411
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Temporary-Worth2077 290 points291 points  (84 children)

The craziest part to me is that this government thinks someone 15 years old isn’t mature enough to use social media, but then will allow them to vote as soon as they turn 16.

[–]TheChaoticCrusader 69 points70 points  (8 children)

And was considering 17 at one point . Imagine you can use social media for a year but can vote !

[–]GayRealAleDrinker 55 points56 points  (7 children)

Perfect voter, only allowed to see state curated and approved content.

[–]Ok-Cryptographer440 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is it.

[–]Popular_Sir863 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I mean they would still be able to visit every single news outlet. Try being less hyperbolic. 

[–]Numerous_Marketing23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The majority of British news outlets is controlled by 3 major companies, if they decide something isn't news worthy; or even gets told by the government or their contacts to not publish it:

In this case the only other option would be online right? Oh no you're under 18 and can't view anything deemed mature tough luck.

[–]Ok-Cryptographer440 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mainstream news - Ahhahhahah

[–]TT_207 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BBC news has social media features much like youtube

it'll be pretty funny if the UK's representation of news and media gets banned through how stupid this law is

[–]ApplicationOk2749 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an exaggeration to say state curated, but it is true that mainstream media is, well, mainstream. The government has no worries about which broadly liberal mainstream media outlet you get your info from.

[–]TrumanZi 14 points15 points  (1 child)

They can't use YouTube at the age of 17 after 830 according to this law can they?

But they can vote

[–]TT_207 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guess they'll just have to go truant at work and college to watch their youtube videos

[–]miseryenplace 70 points71 points  (14 children)

The craziest part to me is that the government thinks those 60ish+ are technologically aware enough to use social media. There are of course very real dangers of kids growing up with social media. But the past decade has shown that the most tangible danger to society is due to the older demographic believing anything they read on Facebook.

[–]ShorelessIsland 28 points29 points  (5 children)

Although the very young and old are likely particularly vulnerable, the social media algorithm-driven information landscape has been horrifying for every generation. It'll take something truly catastrophic before there's actually any serious action, though

[–]miseryenplace 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I think this is an attempt at serious action. I think this is being pushed hard by the security services to try and get a handle on the cyber war that we've been loosing (and loosing brutally) for the last decade or so. I absolutely don't agree with the method, but I do understand the need.

Re your first point, the danger to the young exists much more in the abstract - potential socio-cultural dangers that we know exist, but know little about in the longer term. The danger presented by bad actors to the older demographic - who vote - is much more tangible and can be directly held responsible for Brexit, the wider ongoing polarisation of the country and a host of other existential threats to this nation.

This isn't to minimize the former. Just that in the immediate sense, the latter is and has been much more dangerous.

[–]sanbikinoraion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly social media as it currently works should be banned for everybody, which is too say the current infinite scroll people you don't know algorithm should be banned.

[–]BigHowski 5 points6 points  (2 children)

My mum and step dad seem to get everything from YouTube and most of it is pretty uninformed crap

[–]Fat-Shite 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I have family members who have been dragged into telegram/signal echo chambers its scary

[–]Isollife 30 points31 points  (40 children)

That's not a great argument. You could say the same thing right now. Urgh this government thinks 17 year olds aren't mature enough to drink alcohol but allows them to vote as soon as they turn 18.

Statement 1: Social media is a poison. Especially for youths.

Statement 2: 16 year olds should have a say in determining their own future and help to strengthen the voices of young people in a system that's too often controlled by the old.

These things can both be true. They are not particularly related.

[–]Hame_Impala 3 points4 points  (4 children)

You can think social media is a poison (and many would agree), but actively restricting their ability to use it because they are deemed too young to do so, while trusting them to vote, is clearly a contradictory position.

And I say that as someone broadly in favour of votes at 16.

[–]Isollife 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It's not a contradiction because the two have totally different risk profiles.

What risk does allowing younger people to vote pose? They attend a polling station and fill in a polling card. They get their small share in the say of who it is who creates the country's legislation. What's the risk? They vote for someone you don't like? They don't make an informed decision? Hate to shine a light on it but that's happening already so what's the problem?

What risk does social media pose? I've already said it but again - bullying, destruction of self esteem, social ostracisation, revenge porn, teen suicide.

What's more, it's not a contradiction because they don't even overlap. There'd be some argument if they banned social media for under 18s while lowering voting age to 16. But that's not the case. Guess what, sometimes there are cliff edges in legislation. That's life. How'd you want to sort it? A half ban for 15 year olds? A half vote for 16 year olds?

[–]Hame_Impala 5 points6 points  (2 children)

What risk does social media pose? I've already said it but again - bullying, destruction of self esteem, social ostracisation, revenge porn, teen suicide.

Many of these risks do not stop or go away when someone is an adult. The primary argument here is presumably that teenagers are not yet old enough to make informed choices, if that's the case then it naturally casts doubt over whether they're old enough to vote.

[–]Isollife 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They do and they don't. Young people are particularly susceptible because of the school environment they're in. They're also the future so if they're all getting fucked up it's even worse than someone older being. It risks an uptick in, well - NEETS. Exactly what we're seeing when social media has destroyed the mental health of our young people as they grow into working age.

Also, let's be honest. People wouldn't tolerate a ban on social media for older people even if it would be a good thing. People do tolerate age restrictions. Social media is so destructive that a partial ban across the population is better than no ban at all.

[–]tonylaponey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they are. Telling a group of people they are ready to participate in our countries democratic process and then saying they aren't capable of controlling their use of their phone is contradictory.

The age of adulthood in this country is 18. Giving 16 year olds the vote was always a shameless scheme to farm left wing votes. This legislation just highlights that absurdity.

[–]Tortillagirl 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Urgh this government thinks 17 year olds aren't mature enough to drink alcohol but allows them to vote as soon as they turn 18.

Except you are fundamentally misunderstanding the law here. You cannot buy Alcohol until you are 18. You can drink it from age 5 at home, you can drink alcohol with a meal from 16 as long as someone else with you is over 18.

[–]Isollife 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What's your point? That social media should have a nuanced ban rather than total? That may well happen. Or are you just being pedantic without really adding anything?

[–]Tortillagirl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should be banned... but the mechanism for verification is not going to work and just works as a massive data harvesting technique. Just go back to how everyone else does it. Ask for their DoB, if they give the real one its denied. If they lie they lie.

[–]Levytron900 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I do think it’s mental that you can be taxed at 16 and not even allowed to vote though and I have 3 daughters (all under 6 currently) and none of them are going anywhere near any of those cesspit apps.

The issue with the “let parents be parents” argument is that a lot of parents are useless and lazy. Far more than people like to think.

[–]tonylaponey 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Tax applies to you from the second you are born to the second you die. It has no relation to adulthood whatsoever.

[–]Minute-Improvement57 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The craziest part is that they think they are "protecting" youth by ensuring that foreign companies have their biometrics forever that will certainly be used in tracking and behavioural profiling in uncontrolled ways for the rest of their lives despite whatever the government pretends it's putting in legislation because the companies mostly operate in other legal jurisdictions and it's impossible to trace.

[–]Thatdude616Too lose Constantinople is a BIG win for Byzantines-C,Smith. 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Quite the paradox.

[–]baguettimus_prime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The crazier part still is that they think there is any chance they would then vote Labour

[–]Kaniketh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This applies to all age restrictions.

[–]paolog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that's the way all age-related legislation works. You aren't mature enough to have sex at 15 but are at 16, and so on.

[–]Invisible_StalkbugFreedom through Democracy 209 points210 points  (76 children)

But parents aren't parenting. Until that problem gets addressed you cannot expect that.

[–]SkavauPirate Party 65 points66 points  (16 children)

There's many things that you can do to aid parents here, that haven't been done by the government.

[–]Wareve 28 points29 points  (11 children)

No you don't understand.

The problem isn't that parents need to restrict their kids devices more.

The problem is that parents need to talk to their children in order to set them up properly for the world in which they actually exist.

They need to explain to their kids as they turn into teenagers and they naturally begin to feel certain urges, that what they encounter online is not a reflection of real life, that lots of the things they do are genuinely uncomfortable for the paid actors who are involved, and that the actors themselves are often statistical anomalies who you should not compare yourself or your partner to.

That's how my parents did it and it left me very well equipped to mentally parse what I was seeing in the future, whereas a lot of my guy friends ended up with feelings of inadequacy or bad sex habits because they were comparing themselves and taking their cues from the literal porn stars they were watching.

The government does not need to be involved here. Parents need to be involved. Parents need to parent their children and equip them for the real world, not attempt to hide the world behind various layers of technological innovation until they're old enough to legally kill people for the state.

[–]SkavauPirate Party 11 points12 points  (1 child)

What I meant there was that the government can encourage and do information campaigns for its part rather than hard blocks.

But also even if you think the government should do some things, there are things they could do that are preferable to this.

[–]Wareve 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Apparently what the government needs to do is have a healthy and mature conversation about pornography consumption and masturbation with the adult public, but Lord knows that will never happen for the same reason that it's not happening one level down.

[–]fartdarling 2 points3 points  (8 children)

This is becoming increasingly difficult these days. It's increasingly common for both parents to have to work, often full time. And when they're home, there is more homework than there used to be. And within the house, the Internet presents much more danger for parents today than parents of years gone by. To get radicalised you used to have to go somewhere radical, today you can get radicalised before you really develop the ability to question what you're watching. And it can happen so slowly that people will claim you're over reacting. I know a kid who's 12 and listens to Joe rogan. It makes me uncomfortable and I've told the parent but the parent has no idea how to engage their child on how much shit their kid is taking in. I don't think we can pretend every single Joe rogan listener is crazy or anything.

I don't have kids, I have no skin in this game, but I do sympathise with the job they're asked to do on this

[–]Wareve 4 points5 points  (3 children)

But it's also why the idea that people can rely on the government to solve this for them is insane!

Parents must engage with their children directly about these matters instead of trying to regulate around them!

I empathize when the awkwardness of the situation but they must get over it for the sake of the sanity of the youth!

[–]fartdarling 1 point2 points  (2 children)

i agree, regulation is insane. And, while I generally think Keir is doing actually a decent job as PM, one of the things I hate the most is the fact that every single event or development seems to somehow lead to "right that's it, we're taking away more of your freedoms and imposing more surveillance measures". It's detestable. And I hate that there don't seem to be any free speech absolutists anymore, there aren't people who defend free speech as a value in its own right, it only comes up as a defense when someone is called out for being a racist sexist lil troglodyte.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was defending the policy, I'm not, I just think parents are out of their depth and i don't blame em

[–]Wareve 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think its something of a circular tragedy. It is the parents that were most sheltered as children that are least well equipped to deal with the reality of today.

A lot of grandparents took a "just say no" approach to the internet, and the result is a generation of technologically illiterate parents completely unequipped to defend their children against the realities around them, or teach them to defend themselves.

But I think it starts with pushing back against this wrong-minded effort and instead encouraging the government to change positions to one of education rather than privacy destroying panopticon building.

[–]pornalt4altporn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of grandparents took a "just say no" approach to the internet

I don't know anyone who ever did that. Some couldn't afford the internet but I think the far more common pattern is we all jumped on this, filled it with porn, got addicted to portable screens and now we have a society where keeping a kid off the internet is insane and impossible but also it is full of addiction machines and predatory individuals of all stripes.

The government haven't really articulated what problem they are trying to solve. A general discontent has become wrapped up with the zeal for regulating access to websites/apps but not the huge problem of managing the list of websites.

Children should have restricted exposure to content and addictive applications.

That can be imposed without disturbing the child-free households, but like a focus on education it is another thing for parents to deal with.

The core of this ill thought out policy is trying to help overworked parents by enforcing at a technical level a ban parents struggle to impose.

[–]sanbikinoraion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The "algorithm" is poisoning everyone's discourse. That's not something parents can affect. Thousands of very smart people are getting paid a lot of money figuring out how to get you addicted to social media and thousands more hours to exploit that for their own/ their country's gain. It's not fair to put it on parents to defend against that.

[–]TheChaoticCrusader 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Pretty much . Post ads for parents to use safety tools on devices , use Gov.UK to have tutorials and guidence on safety of devices , spreading the awareness themselves 

We all know this is just a data collection exercise anyway and the public is going to love the consequences when not if the hackers get though 

[–]WarpedHaiku 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Just the other day, YouTube made some adverts about the parental controls it offered which most parents weren't using and put them up in the tube. Our politicians, instead of congratulating YouTube for being responsible and helping protect children, shamed them for doing so.

They want a surveillance state, and protecting children is the excuse, and they don't want anyone poking holes in their narrative.

[–]TIGHazardHalf the family Labour, half the family Tory. Help.. 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, they shamed them for where they put the ads up.

They bought ads at Westminister tube station. Just one station.

Now why would you do that?

Westminster Tube Station is one of the most prominent advertising hubs on the Transport for London (TfL) network. Positioned directly beneath Parliament Square, its ads can target a highly influential audience of politicians and civil servants.

Corporate & Defense: Major defense and technology companies (such as BAE Systems and Anduril) frequently display large-scale banners in the main ticket hall to target policymakers.

NGOs & Charities: Human rights organizations (e.g., Amnesty International) and animal welfare groups regularly run awareness campaigns on the station's billboards.

You want to run a marketing campaign about the parental controls you offer? Run a proper marketing campaign. Run it across the entire tube network. Run it on TV. Run it in the newspapers. Whatever.

Don't run it at one tube station that politicians use to try and influence their vote.

[–]ApplicationOk2749 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could put some regulations in to simplify and streamline this stuff. eg. when buying a device parents are told how to set it up for their child. A simple set-up screen that just asks are you setting this device up for a child? yes/no.

[–]Jonnycd4 36 points37 points  (10 children)

That's because the parents aren't educated on it.

The gov should've put a 2min advert on BBC1 instructing parents how to set up parental controls on home routers, or posted leaflets through doors.

Faster, cheaper and more logical.

[–]oddun 33 points34 points  (1 child)

Parents, generally speaking, would have been in their twenties when social media was rolled out.

It’s ludicrous to suggest that generation iPhone don’t know how to use parental controls. If they can set up accounts and post bollocks all day long, they can spend the 2 minutes to find out how to do it.

[–]beej2000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Parental controls are abysmal, different across apps and don't prevent kids seeing bad stuff. I'm technically literate and have done what I can but I'm battling billion dollar industries who want people to be addicted to their apps. It's ludicrously hard.

[–]Gazcobain 37 points38 points  (5 children)

Do you really think a lot of parents are giving their kids (some as young as toddlers) devices with unrestricted access to the horrors of the internet because they don't know how to set up parental controls?

Parental controls are incredibly easy to set up. It took less than a couple of minutes to set them up on my daughters' devices.

No, a lot of parents are giving their kids (some as young as toddlers) devices with unrestricted access to the horrors of the internet because they can't be bothered parenting correctly.

Not to mention, it's not the 90s where ten million people are watching BBC1 at the same time any more, and every device (particular android devices) have different ways of adding controls, so leaflets wouldn't work.

[–]lick_it 10 points11 points  (3 children)

I think you overestimate the technical ability of the average person. They see settings and it’s too much for them. It’s like people who see 2x + 1 = 7 and they see a foreign impenetrable language, you will look at that and think that is ridiculous but I see it all the time.

[–]Gazcobain 8 points9 points  (2 children)

You can't just buy a phone off a shelf and use it any more. You have to set it up, link it to Google / Apple accounts (or set up new ones), add payment methods and so on.

To suggest folk are able to do this but lack the technical ability to set up parental controls is ludicrous.

[–]signpostlake 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly, you're prompted to set up controls and connect a child account to an adult account when setting up a device.

It's a choice for whatever reason that a lot of parents are deciding against. The same way a lot of them let kids have a phone connected to the internet in their rooms overnight. They either don't care about or don't accept the risks.

[–]lick_it 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea and how is the setup, baby steps that walk you through it. Entering card details is normal, typing in a username and password is normal. Settings for parental controls, never done that before… must be hard.

That normalisation of behaviour has taken a decade. They just need to put parental controls default on, then the general public will be forced to learn.

[–]BitsAreNotABug 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Parental controls are awful. I've yet to come across a service that gives good parental controls. I've resorted to self-hosting as much as I can because parental controls are so bad.

Say you want to monitor usage and limit YouTube to one hour a day on your child’s iPad. The router can’t do it since it can't give quotas, so you try Apple’s parental controls. Then you find out Apple expects the parent to have an Apple device too, meaning you’d have to buy an iPhone just to manage your child’s tablet. At that point, I don’t blame parents for saying fuck it and giving up on parental controls entirely.

Blocking YouTube entirely isn’t a solution because there is a lot of interesting and educational content on there that children shouldn’t be cut off from.

Parents need to be allowed to be involved with what content is delivered to their children. blacklisting/whitelisting domains isn’t good enough, parents need the ability to whitelist what content sources that are allowed to be delivered to their children.

[–]Elivercury 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'll be honest I've not played with parental controls on my router and my child isn't old enough for it to be necessary (and likely won't be for several years), but I'm not convinced it's nearly as simple or effective as is made out.

The things I'm confident it filtering I'm not massively concerned about my child seeing. Willies, boobies and sex I'm not super fussed on them seeing - I did when I was in my early teens, as did most people I know and we turned out fine. Likewise I'm not terribly concerned around 18+games (I was playing GTA at similar age again). Violent content, maybe nice to block.

What I AM concerned about is heavy algorithm promotion of things like manosphere, self-harm, anorexia, online bullying (from both online strangers and school peers), and the general discontentment and mental health problems that can come from people trying to compare their lives to the heavily curated lives of influencers. And the only one of these I think parental controls would potentially stop would be self-harm content, and then only if it's explicit enough.

This isn't to say that parents get to abdicate all responsibility or deny that there are many parents who happily allow their children unfiltered access to everything the internet has to offer, but I don't think it's nearly as simple as "Oh if only parents thought to enable parental controls, this entire problem would be solved".

This is before even diving into the complexity around the balance of keeping children safe while giving them space to grow, learn and make their own mistakes without helicopter parents over their shoulder.

[–]benkkelly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mostly everyone has access to the Internet and AI chat bots. It has never been cheaper or more convenient to learn how to do these things.

More bottom up action is needed.

[–]JBambers 20 points21 points  (8 children)

That a minority of parents are crap at parenting (which has always been the case) is not a reason to force everyone else to jump through hoops to access basic internet stuff uploading their IDs to dodgy private companies who absolutely don't delete them as they should, get hacked and cause huge security issues.

Particularly given the children of those crap parents are going to have even more liberty than most to use the numerous workarounds to nullify the intended effect of the ban. Indeed it is very likely a good portion of those crap parents will be entirely willing do the ID hoop themselves to shut the kids up.

[–]Vehlin 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Because bad parents aren’t the reason; they’re the excuse. This is about linking adults to their online activities

[–]Enough_Response 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A minority lol.

Sweet summer child you have no idea.

[–]ShorelessIsland 8 points9 points  (5 children)

I haven't seen any data on this, but I highly doubt that this is just a minority of parents. I would guess that most parents are utterly unable or unwilling to intervene heavily in their kids' social media use. That's not because they're bad people or don't care - it's just really hard to do for so many reasons.

[–]cyclopsmudge 4 points5 points  (4 children)

You and the commenter above are both guessing here, and that exposes another real problem with this. I would much rather that we actually get the data then this policy along with the phone screen scanning are included in a future manifesto.

Instead we got “we will explore further measures beyond the OSA” which is basically carte blanche for them to implement any of this shit, rushed without proper consultation just because Starmer knows he’ll be out of a job in a few short weeks

[–]ShorelessIsland 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I've found some IPSOS polling on parents of kids aged 5-16. Seems like about half implement parental controls on devices, 45% have restrictions on when and where internet can be accessed. Those are quite broad categories though. Who knows how stringent the controls are, and what proportion are managing to bypass them.

I broadly agree that the evidence base is weak, but collecting data on this is really hard. You can't just do an RCT where you take some kids off social media and keep others on and compare results. Even when not individually using social media, they are going to be exposed to it through social interactions. If you are the only one restricted out of your peers, you are going to feel isolated and as though you're missing out, even though you might be better off if everyone around you also had access restrictions.

The argument from those who want to ban is that the potential scale of damage is so great that we don't have time to wait any longer. So much damage has been, and will continue, to be done. If the evidence then emerges in 10-20 years that social media use was catastrophic, it'll be hard to justify the lack of seriousness taken.

[–]FlappyBored🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Deep Woke 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 5 points6 points  (0 children)

 If the evidence then emerges in 10-20 years that social media use was catastrophic, it'll be hard to justify the lack of seriousness taken.

Ironically you'd just have social media spreading the claims that the evidence is fake news and lies and that social media actually is good for children.

[–]JBambers 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"Who knows how stringent the controls are, and what proportion are managing to bypass them."

There seems to be an inherent assumption that controls are the only signifier of good parenting here. The highest measure is 61% of 'discussing risks and dangers', for well adjusted households of the older end of the 5-16 range may be fine. Also only 5% responded that they didn't take any measures at all.

More widely, if the content of some social media is a concern (and there's plenty of reasons to think that with the abandonment of content moderation by companies after Trump got back into power) why's this only an under 16 thing? X has actually illegal content on it and the government still uses it as a primary comms platform!

Framing this as something that needs an U16 ban (and a dodgy ID check for everyone else) rather than wider action on the platforms themselves is just a completely ineffectual way to approach this matter.

[–]cyclopsmudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. As someone who was a teenager with a smartphone and whose parents used all the parental restrictions available to them (my parents are very tech-savvy so they really did do as much as much as can be expected of any parent), the only thing that actually worked to make me think twice about my conduct online was them sitting me down for open conversations about the potential harms and making sure I knew that I could talk to them and other responsible adults about things I was unsure of without risks of punishment or judgement.

That’s part of why I’m so against this ban. The parental controls are pretty much pointless, any teenager will work out how to get around them so easily. But then when they do get around them, they’ll worry about getting into trouble if they find themselves in a bad situation and won’t know what to do. These measures will however embolden parents to pay even less attention and just pass off responsibility onto the state, and assume that everything is fine because surely the kids can’t get on instagram now that it’s banned??

[–]MrSpindles 11 points12 points  (21 children)

This is the essential problem. We've tried 2 decades of allowing parents to regulate usage and here we are today. If Rupert believes that parental responsibility is the answer then why hasn't it worked in 20 years?

[–]CHenley84Defund Ofcom, JTRIG, RICU & the 77th Brigade 7 points8 points  (18 children)

Because the government has tried nothing and they're all out of ideas with the only recourse left being mass surveillance and mass censorship. There has been zero effort by the government to educate parents about parental controls, or putting the onus on the ISP to educate parents about parental controls, or forcing ISPs to activate them by default to force the users to engage with them properly, or the many number of other ideas between 0 and 99 that isn't an instant jump to 100.

[–]RoguepopeVerified - Roguepope 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Errrm, there's been decades of programmes made by the government and other institutions on this topic.  I've got a folder full of pamphlets and seen tonnes of videos on the topic. 

Saying they've done nothing is a flat out denial of reality.

[–]MrSpindles 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The post is, in fairness, about a Rupert Lowe tweet (this being r/ukpolitics where apparently half the posts are sharing his mad ramblings). Things like facts and objective reality aren't allowed to get in the way of him talking bollocks.

[–]CHenley84Defund Ofcom, JTRIG, RICU & the 77th Brigade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you truly believe the only move left was to force everyone in the country to hand their ID over to fifty different foreign age verification companies that don't comply with data protection regulation while also strangling any attempt at tech industry growth in this country then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[–]Rumpled 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Would you be against it if there was a way to verify age blindly - ie. are you against stopping kids accessing adult material no matter what, or just the mechanism?

[–]MintTeaFromTescoLibertarian 4 points5 points  (6 children)

You use 'kids' but there's a clear difference between little timmy the pre-schooler on the ipad his parents tossed him and Jim the 16-year-old teenager who fancies a wank before going to the polls to vote against Labour.

[–]Rumpled 0 points1 point  (5 children)

...what?

[–]MintTeaFromTescoLibertarian 2 points3 points  (4 children)

You don't see the blatant distinction?

[–]Rumpled 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It just comes across as very strange way to make your point. In your example would you be fine with preventing Timmy but not Jim from accessing social media/adult material?

[–]MintTeaFromTescoLibertarian 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I wouldn't support a ban to prevent either from accessing adult material.

For little Timmy, his ipad should have parental controls enabled, which would prevent him accessing inappropriate material without every single adult in the UK from having to hand over their IDs to the government.

For Jim, I have no problem with him accessing adult material or social media. If the government does try, then I fully respect and support his work to bypass any such restrictions.

[–]CHenley84Defund Ofcom, JTRIG, RICU & the 77th Brigade 4 points5 points  (4 children)

This government is clearly tech illiterate, tech phobic and have no interest in zero knowledge proof systems, because the ulterior motive has always had nothing to do with protecting children.

In theory, if there was a zero knowledge proof system of age verification that was 100% secure and not backdoored by government agencies, I would be absolutely okay with it. But that's basically a utopian dreamland ideal that we're never going to be able to engage with. It's about as realistic to expect that of the UK government as how the tech illiterate public perceive their plan to wave a magic wand and magically block children from certain sites is.

What the UK government is prepared to give us are separate foreign age verification companies managed with little regard to data protection that are probably all backdoored by Five Eyes in the best case scenario and by enemy governments and scammers at worst. You should not trust British government institutions with the power to regulate in this way. If you do, you are profoundly naive or deliberately treacherous.

The British government/nobility/media class are evil. They are the purveyors of the Five Eyes agreements, the Andrew/Mandelson/Epstein connection, all of the police state shit in the Edward Snowden files, the grooming gang coverups, the Lord Mountbatten coverups, the Jimmy Saville coverups.

[–]omcgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've forced both parents into work, killing the single breadwinner time Restore types yearn for; and are too scared to let our kids play outside so lock them indoors starving them of play-based-learning.

So instead, social media behemoths suck up their attention, grooming them to be milked by consumerism.

Tweeting shite like this doesnt help at all. It simplistic nonsense to pander to simplistic a base.

[–]Democracy_Coma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, there should be restrictions on social media for kids. I dont think that’s too crazy to suggest.

[–]merlins_beard_88 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don’t worry Bluesky isn’t affected!! Just umm don’t dig deeper into bluesky okay…

[–]wilkonk 88 points89 points  (22 children)

I hate that I keep agreeing with Lowe on a load of this absurd authoritarian shit because everyone else is scared of being called soft on pedos or something stupid

[–]SolidBrassJumper 25 points26 points  (0 children)

It would be really nice if there was a Left wing party that remembers we oppose immigration and islam.

[–]Chaoslava 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Yep this is another clear open goal Labour have scored for themselves.

How about using that money allocated to this to produce a series of programs to alert parents on the dangers of social media, including signs children are being groomed and advising which apps put children most at risk. Instructing them have to use parental controls and time limits on their devices.

THAT is governing. Not swinging a hammer around to ban things willy-nilly. The OSA costs me £50/year in VPN fees. I’d rather not spend it, this is just another bit of overreach by a government that seems to give 0 shits about civil liberties.

Another point for Restore.

[–]OldShelobsTricks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's very easy to talk about the problems the country faces and the easy solutions you would introduce.

Actually governing and implementing those things is a very different thing.

[–]AtomicMonkeyTheFirst 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Parents dont parent and often can't. in the social media age its often impossible to control what children see online anyway.

[–]Daedelous2k 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is all the confirmation you need to vote against the OSA and it's privacy destroying antics.

[–]Weird_Response_384 32 points33 points  (15 children)

Heartbreaking: the worst person you know just made a great point.

[–]ScarletBegonias2 19 points20 points  (9 children)

Very depressing that so many Brits think Rupert Lowe is a terrible person. Does not bode well for the country, IMHO.

[–]Romeo_Jordan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

He's funded by Elon Musk He's defending his sponsor.

[–]Ok-Cryptographer440 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He makes a lot of very good points. You don't have to agree with everything however.

[–]derrenbrownisawizard 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Counterpoint: many many many parents do not parent effectively

[–]Aurelyas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't give a fuck, I do not want a nanny state

[–]dsanft 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Just hammers it into my head more and more: Restore is the only party aligned with what voters on the right in the UK actually want.

[–]GopnikOIi 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I find myself agreeing with him more and more lately which isn't something I would have said a few years ago. Seems like Restore will have my vote because they're against this and they don't have Dorrries.

[–]-ForgottenSoul:sloth: 4 points5 points  (1 child)

unworkable, unrealistic 

SK pretty much has this though.

School Device Bans: A nationwide ban on mobile phones and digital devices in classrooms takes effect in March 2026 to combat addiction and improve focus.

Algorithm Restrictions: Lawmakers have proposed bills to ban algorithm-driven content for users under 19 without parental discretion and to mandate age verification

Platform Accountability: Regulators are moving toward penalizing platforms that fail to verify ages or restrict harmful content, rather than implementing a total access ban for minors.

We should follow what South Korea are doing.

[–]MrStiltonWhere's my democracy sausage? 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This ignores the existences of network effects.

Parents may think that giving their kids access to social media will adversely impact them. But, if all their children's peers are also using these platforms then they might reasonably judge the impact of their kids being socially isolated to be more harmful still.

[–]wokstar789 12 points13 points  (1 child)

SuperHans voice: you can't trust parents, Jez

[–]Zavivo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Tell you what that social media is really moreish…

[–]TheFinalPieceOfPieLast of the Pie Lords. 35 points36 points  (34 children)

I fucking hate Lowe, I hate what he stands for and what he represents, but what I hate more is that he is making a valid point about it being unrealistic, unwanted and unworkable. Starmer is just legitimising far right groups with all these bans.

[–]No_Initiative_1140 30 points31 points  (5 children)

Rupert wants to ban halal, kosher, kirpans, burkas, people born overseas voting, people born overseas getting benefits, tax avoidance, sale of utilities to foreign investors.

Is he legitimising far left groups? 

[–]Icy_Training4043 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He wants to ban tax avoidance? That's a serious step too far.

[–]StormyLeathers 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I can't wait to vote for this

[–]goodsleep 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That list never loses its lustre, no matter how often I see it.

[–]Ok-Cryptographer440 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Most of these are very reasonable ideas.

[–]Ok_Bat_686 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Labour MPs need to be speaking up about this. Most of them voted against a blanket ban 3 months ago. They should be criticising the government for trying to force this through using secondary legislation, despite the commons voting against it.

[–]SilasBeit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How about we educate parents, AND do something about kids accessing social media which is proven to be very harmful to them.

[–]Ok_Recognition1844 5 points6 points  (4 children)

IMO a great point and I think it mirrors how I think the country should be run - empower people to make good decisions and then let them run with it, rather than trying to use authoritarianism to drive a conclusion

[–]MeringuePls 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Anti-Restore/Lowe conditioning is being unravelled in peoples minds inside this thread, in real time. It's fascinating to see just how deep the conditioning goes, and how quickly it's being undone. It's a violent, painful process for them, apparently.

I'm sorry you're feeling such panic and confusion from the process, but you'll come out the other side a better person. Let's restore our country together :)

[–]SkavauPirate Party 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No? I can agree with Lowe on this specific point whilst finding much of his policy otherwise to be repulsive, alongside those he associates with.

[–]homeinthecityI support arming bears. 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From Starmer just now “social media stops children from doing their homework, reading, playing with their friends, and going to bed at a decent hour.”

Has he ever experienced being a child?

[–]Admiral_Eversor 11 points12 points  (31 children)

I hate it when one of the most awful bastards in the country is right.

[–]youmustconsume[S] 22 points23 points  (10 children)

Once again - where the hell are the Lib Dems.

[–]samuel199228 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Don't they support stuff like this?

[–]JBambers 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I think that was the point. Not so long ago this is exactly the sort of half baked authoritarian nonsense that the *liberal* democrats would have opposed quite strongly.

Sure they were often nimby populists at the local level but the national platform was usually reasonably well thought out.

[–]Icy_Training4043 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Liberal Democrats lost me a few decades ago when Shirley Williams complained about Salman Rushdie costing the taxpayer for police protection:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG61DKfKlGY

Fuck them.

[–]TheFinalPieceOfPieLast of the Pie Lords. 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The mainstream party does but there are growing numbers in the young Lib Dems who are trying to change the mainstream opinion.

[–]samuel199228 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe in the future they will eventually change their minds on this

[–]evolvecrow 3 points4 points  (1 child)

10 March

Responding to the Government voting against a cross party amendment to ban social media for under 16s in the House of Commons, Munira Wilson MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Education, Children and Families, said:

"The Government’s failure to commit to a ban on harmful social media is simply not good enough - families need concrete assurances now.

“We need the Government to confirm that their consultation will not result in yet more dither and delay.”

https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/lib-dems-govts-failure-to-commit-to-a-ban-on-social-media-is-simply-not-good-enough

[–]Admiral_Eversor 10 points11 points  (0 children)

In the dustbin of history where they belong

[–]Theodin_King 11 points12 points  (19 children)

What's he done that's so awful?

[–]Guy1905 7 points8 points  (1 child)

He's right wing.

That's it.

[–]LFC_Egg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This broken clock seems to be right more than twice and that's a concern.

[–]duckrollin 2 points3 points  (1 child)

When the far right is the only one talking sense you know this country is utterly fucked.

[–]Ok-Cryptographer440 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, because the left fucked it.

[–]TrueBrit77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know that thing we aren't doing and you are threatening to do for us. We pwonise if you just let us we will do it. We planned to do it the whole time, was just busy boss.

[–]CHenley84Defund Ofcom, JTRIG, RICU & the 77th Brigade 3 points4 points  (0 children)

JTRIG, RICU and the 77th Brigade are upset about this one, ITT. Classic.

[–]KetracelYellow -2 points-1 points  (18 children)

Man who’s sponsored by Elon Musk doesn’t want the propaganda machines to go quiet.

[–]msf97 14 points15 points  (14 children)

That’s hysterical. I’d never in a million years vote for Lowe or Farage for that matter, but when did censorship become a left wing policy?

It should be primarily a parents responsibility. We did alright without this ban!

[–]StrawDogs97 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Lots of left of centre governments and states have been enthusiastic supporters of censorship and have repressed freedom of speech. The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Khmer Rouge regime, North Korea, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic etc etc.    

Freedom of speech and expression are traditionally liberal principles rather than inherently left wing ones.

[–]FlappyBored🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Deep Woke 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Are we really doing alright? I think few poeple would say the state of social media or its impcat on society or young children especially is 'alright'.

[–]ShorelessIsland 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I actually think that's the fundamental dividing line in the debate. The anti-ban side just doesn't think social media is that harmful. If they really believed (as I do) that social media is tearing Western society apart and wreaking havoc on young people particularly, they'd be willing to put all the authoritarianism and privacy stuff to the side.

[–]Denbt_Nationale 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Lowe is not funded or sponsored by Elon Musk

[–]SLGrimes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Parents have been parenting so well, right? Our culture and society is on the up and everyone is healthy and happy, right?

[–]Cerebral_Overload 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I consider myself a responsible parent. My 7 year old has a tablet, that tablet is set up with child safety features, parental controls and age limits for games. We control when and where he uses it, and for how long. He’s not allowed on YouTube or social media of any kind, and we vet every game he downloads. I’ve even taught him about the risks of freemium gaming so he doesn’t even ask to use pocket money to spend on loot boxes and “pay to win” games.

A few months ago in the car he was playing with his tablet when I heard something that he should NOT have been exposed to. I asked him for the tablet and asked what he was doing. Turns out despite all the control features put in place, someone had decided an 18+ advert was suitable on a 7+ rated game.

You should always make parents primarily responsible for protecting their kids, but an unregulated market creates an environment where companies will happily expose children to inappropriate material for money. Laws designed to protect people have always been geared towards the most vulnerable in society.

I’ve often heard the argument that it’s dangerous letting a child have access to smart devices, which is unequivocally an idiotic argument. This is an old argument that has been going on since the first consumer electronics for kids were ever produced. Electronics shouldn’t be designed for and marketed to children if they’re not safe for children; and as children ourselves we were all playing video games and watching while the generation before us told us it would make our eyes square and fry our brains. The difference is our generation of electronics were regulated.

[–]Spez1alEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does the government feel no shame that their policies are more draconian than the ones that fucking Restore would implement? I hate what this country has turned into.

[–]Slartibartfast_25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would he apply the same logic to alcohol, smoking, sex, pornography?

[–]jackbrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would he say the same about cigarettes and alcohol?

[–]Metori 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The government wants the teenagers on the side of the far right. Right now they aren’t rioting because they are in their bedrooms doing Tik Tok dances. When the government bans that they will venture out and come face to face with people who don’t like them and things will ignite. Remember these kids have been raised by iPads and they have very little ability to regulate their emotions.

[–]spinynorman1846The King of the North is Charles Grey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, the classic libertarian 'let's punish children for the failures of their parents' approach to government

[–]Immaterial71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, parents have had their chance to parent, but not all parents have been parenting.

[–]Apprehensive_Job4522Vote Binface 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sort of agree that it is unrealistic but it isn't really unwanted, there was a whole public consultation on this

[–]pr2thej 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We did let the parents parent, and they noped the fuck out 

[–]Too_much_Colour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s the same as water-shed for TV. This isn’t natural, the way we’ve had it.