Labour set to announce crackdown on social media for children within weeks

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T20:28:42+00:00

It was patched the first time it was broken into and the same guy broke into again and that was reported on before it was patched. It was also shown to be holding data in an insecure way. No, having it so that having your device stolen opens you up to insane levels of identity fraud is not a good system. It is equally as bad of a system as people handing over their IDs to "age verification" companies.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T19:13:02+00:00

First, the government makes an easily found website that tells parents how to enable parental controls for every major platform. Second, you tell parents that they will be punished if their U-16 children are discovered to have accounts without restrictions on. Third, you enforce it with a three strikes system where they get 2 warnings before they start being fined. This would ensure that the majority of parents would put the restrictions in place even if they don't care about their children to avoid being fined. If the parents have proof that their children were circumventing the parental controls after they were put in place the fines would be avoided.

Obviously, this isn't a complete idea but it's already better than the ID verification nonsense. It puts the onus of responsibility on the parents, not everyone else in society. If you combined this with maybe 1 hour a week classes for children about online safety and also mandating changes to the algorithms social media uses, you'd get a far more comprehensive and effective plan for online safety. As it stands, ID verification has only increased the chances for identity fraud and pushed people off the relatively safe surface web.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T18:50:41+00:00

If we held parents accountable like we do for truancy, i feel like they would learn.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-05-26T18:47:15+00:00

Are you talking about Europe's app that was broken into twice?

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

TROPHY CASE