this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
400 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

85461 readers
4008 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
400
UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 1 day ago by Tarambor@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.

Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is "designed to be addictive". A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.

"That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance," the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.

Starmer adds that the government is "not prepared to compromise" on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You only get ID'd for alcohol if you look like a kid. I haven't been carded in years. And when you do get carded, they look at your license, check the date, and hand it right back. No copies are saved to a database that could get leaked who-knows-where.

If a social media site is concerned that a user may be underage, I'm fine with them asking for some sort of verification. But a blanket request on everyone to ID themselves by default is just not the way.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago

You only get ID’d for alcohol if you look like a kid

Depends on the place

And when you do get carded, they look at your license, check the date, and hand it right back.

This is true for most places. There's nothing stopping a creep from memorizing more than they should, but that's of course an edge case.

While uncommon, there are places such as casinos that take everyones ID and use an ID scanner to add them to a local, or not local, database. Places that do that really are no different from websites that want to ID. Except with a website you'd provide it once, and at those facilities you have to have it scanned each time you go in.

But a blanket request on everyone to ID themselves by default is just not the way.

I couldn't agree more. It's a terrible idea and is going to spell disaster for many people. I am not arguing we should have websites collect IDs, my argument is about whether age verification on websites should exist in any form, even if it's securely setup. Many people here think age verification is strictly a problem of parenting, and I think that's an absurd argument.