Seeking out those most harmed by any one thing and then forbidding or censoring that thing doesn't seem like great reasoning.
Their suffering is real but no basis for modern governance.
this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
11 points (92.3% liked)
United Kingdom
6708 readers
202 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Jimmy was tragically killed and his parents are crying on TV and saying it could have been avoided if Jimmy had been legally required to remain indoors. Playing outside is child abuse.
I’m not British, but from the outside it seems the meeting could give an unpopular Starmer a saviour story he desperately needs, and an ID-based system would let big tech have its way with citizens: the algorithms tearing our societies apart remain unchallenged and profitable.
Politicians love the idea of a social media ban for kids because they don't have to do much, but it looks like they're doing a lot.
I'm concerned that a ban is one of the likely outcomes of the consultation. I don't think it's the right way to tackle this. It's not only children who are victims in this, although they are the most tragic ones. Social media platforms affect us all. Regulation of functionality and design patterns is in my opinion a better option, although the optics of such doesn't give the picture of a decisive government in quite the same way as a ban.
Requiring ID to use social media puts the onus on the users. The onus should be on the platforms.
Requiring ID makes people happier with ID docs overall, so that they can still swipe through TikTok or whatever they do these days.
Asking change and responsibility of the companies might lower shareholder value.
Requiring ID also vaporizes more of the rights to privacy online for the entire rest of the population, and if you are against that, then it must be because you don't care about child safety.
Has anyone tried talking to the children - y’ know, asking them if they’re ok and stuff - instead of just kneejerk legislating even more of their childhood away?
I feel sort of ambivalent about the whole thing myself. Yes, it is yet again surveillance state crap being pushed onto all of us under the THINK OF THE KIDS umbrella and keeping them off social media is rather difficult if the desire to go there is strong enough. So the kids might begin delve into the less corporate depths of the web such as here in their search for ways around the restrictions, which wouldnt be bad either i would say.
On the other hand, social media is a cancer on society and the mental wellbeing of (not just) young people. If this somehow led to the kids collectively returning to the real world, meeting and interacting like it used to be common, that would be fantastic. Could even inoculate them against the right wing propaganda machines at work online.
This isn't going to bring back third spaces. This isn't going to make "loitering" the sort of thing police come over to bother you over. This isn't going to help children stuck in suburbs or ones stuck with parents who think everybody is out to rape them because of the yellow press.
They could make social media less of a hellscape - ban advertisements, hold them accountable for misinformation, set minimum standards for user control over feed algorithms, that sort of thing.
They could make existing in public as a child more viable - restrict cars, expand public transportation, add child friendly bike lanes and pedestrianstreets, subsidize third spaces for unaccompanied children, make the outdoors more pleasant to exist in by adding so many more (homeless-friendly) benches and hangout spots that the homeless can hang out in some spaces and kids in the others, etc.
But no, they just ban the place sympathy for Palestine came from by expanding the surveillance state.
Disclaimer: i am arguing from a European perspective. Living in the suburbs around here means 20 minutes into town by bike or public transport.
So the kids might begin delve into the less corporate depths of the web such as here
So they'll be exposed to ill-thought out extreme reactionary leftist positions instead.
But only when the material conditions are right of course.