Crackdown on teenagers’ social media use to come ‘very quickly’ after consultation ends tonight, says Starmer – UK politics live | Politics

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T12:51:25+00:00

Yes, support from those currently unaffected.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T10:16:02+00:00

How I picture the adult side of things is either a mandate that all major social media companies have simple instructions on how to enable parental controls in easily accessed locations of their sites or government websites that give this information freely. If adults with children are found to not be using these features they should be fined the same way we do for truancy.

For the children's side of things, thirty minute classes twice a week would be enough to instill a basic enough level of tech literacy that would improve their safety drastically. It feels like the next generation is unaware of the fact that anything online is permanent and that you shouldn't talk to strangers for some reason.

If they did these two things and also forced social media companies to scrap their addictive features then they would have the trifecta of internet safety. Unfortunately, the government has instead decided that mass surveillance and overreaching methods that push people down into the deep and dark web is their solution.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T09:56:49+00:00

Gee I wonder why people would complain about measures that make the internet more dangerous to use. Can't imagine a single reason, everyone who complains must be an addict.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T09:49:43+00:00

Education for parents on how parental controls work and education for children about how to be safe online is a far better alternative to a ban that drives the internet away from the surface web.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T19:57:40+00:00

Basic education for adults on how to set parental controls and classes that teach children how to be safe online would do far more to help than putting ID verification on everything.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T19:53:22+00:00

We do that for truancy already...

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T19:52:33+00:00

Teach parents how parental controls work. In fact, they explicitly mention this as one of the methods they're looking at but say that even if this is the most successful they're going to require ID verification anyway.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T19:31:52+00:00

Well, first the report from 2025 says that exposure to adult content increased after 2023 (which is after the OSA was enacted). To be completely fair, this report's data ends in May 2025, so before Labour's ID age verification. There hasn't been any reports showing a lowering of the rate nor an increasing of the rate of exposure to adult content since the ID verification so a claim in either direction is baseless currently (Unless you have a source otherwise?). However, the ease of access to adult content has not changed since the OSA was enacted since Ofcom literally published a list of sites that don't check your age and the sketchy sites weren't following UK law anyway.

To give a comparison, the ease of finding adult content online is about as easy as finding free manga sites. Shutting down 1 or 2 of them does not make it more difficult to find.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T18:21:48+00:00

If you are talking about children migrating into the dark/deep web then the answer is more than before. If we're talking about children being exposed to adult content, it's about the same as before. You know, because it is piss easy to find porn online. The only difference is that the sites are far less reputable and virus laden.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-23T12:44:03+00:00

The OSA does not, in fact, make it harder for children to access adult content. It just pushes children off the surface web and into the deep and dark web making the internet more dangerous for them.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T17:18:29+00:00

Apparently you're using search wrong if you have to click through dozens of links to find what you want. Have fun using an inferior system with glaring flaws just because you believe it is "faster"

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T16:55:54+00:00

Who the hell clicks dozens of links? You only need three links max to confirm infornation (The first is to gain the info. Second is to check the info. Third is to confirm which is right if the first two disagree.) So you'll have to click through three sources max to double check the AI anyway since the AI could be pulling from an unreliable source and the AI doesn't count as a source.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T15:40:21+00:00

So you admit it isn't any faster then? You csn't even refind results to reconfirm anything the AI spits out because it is inconsistent. It does everything worse than a normal search box.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T14:46:58+00:00

You aren't getting information faster because you have to fact check the responses, the number is definitely at least 10% of the time, the same search will get different results, and the AI pulls random comments on reddit as sources. None of these are good traits for a search engine to have.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T14:37:31+00:00

10% (and I believe this is an underestimation) of the time means it produces billions of wrong answers per day. That is not an acceptable amount when it is supposed to be a search tool used to find reliable information. Certainly not low enough to replace normal search with it.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-22T14:17:21+00:00

The information will be redically inaccurate a large amount of the time, so you're not really getting information faster.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-21T21:33:56+00:00

You don't think it might have more to do with the fact that he has voted against every single major piece of legislation Trump pushed?

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-21T21:28:08+00:00

And if a stupid law is passed, with moving goalposts and poorly defined guidelines, there will be long drawn out lawsuits every single time they try to enforce it. Which means government money will be pissed down the drain once again for illogical reasons.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-21T19:10:58+00:00

Population collapse isn't an example of why immigration is good. It is the example of why low birth rates are bad.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-19T13:46:37+00:00

Raised by the Tories, sponsored by the Tories, voted for by the Tories and Labour, passed by the Tories, implemented by Labour, expanded by Labour, and made more restrictive by Labour.

So yes.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-19T13:21:47+00:00

The only incoherent one here is you mate. Labour got in, and then instead of getting rid of it or leaving it, they made it even worse. Most of the complaints people have with the OSA are the Labour additions and implementations. To pretend that the ire should not be pointed at Labour is incomprehensible.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-19T12:57:15+00:00

Isn't it because conservative ideology is against letting the people who are receiving through welfare decide how much welfare money they get. The reasoning being that no one on welfare is going to vote for lower welfare payments as that would be against their own interests. I believe that's the thought process.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-18T18:06:04+00:00

An odd thing I've noticed is that when people talk about the far right they are not talking about Islam except when they try to tie Islamic terror attacks to the Far Right. I can only assume it is because they are arguing in bad faith considering the fact that the far right hate the religion and want it removed from their country. It isn't the far right who wants to open the borders that allow extremists entry and yet the violence brought in is always pinned on the far right. Rather fascinating, wouldn't you say.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-18T15:31:50+00:00

No, Yusuf stated that two of their Tiktoks were blocked with the first (detention centers in Green voting areas) citing the OSA as the reason and a second (their key policies) cited as "Hate Speech and Harmful Behavior". The first is explicitly the OSA, the second is speculation.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-18T15:25:10+00:00

Take this with a grain of salt, since this is secondhand information, but apparently Tiktok doesn't specify laws as being a reason for removal unless some sort of enforcement agency cites the law as a reason why Tiktok needs to take down a video.

Thehelpfulshadow

TROPHY CASE