this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
313 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

85461 readers
4865 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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 20 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

" designed to be addictive ". So you think adults are somehow magically exempt from addiction?

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 hour ago

All drugs to be legalized when?

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Cowards. Ban it for everyone if you think its so bad, like you have tobacco. At least be consistent with your completely wrong draconian police state loving boot sucking prohibition ideology.

[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 hours ago

Thousands of people are already getting arrested every year in the UK over social media posts. Good thing the government cares so much about “protecting the children”, because their parents won’t be able to from jail if they say anything the Epstein class doesn’t like, especially now that every post will be conveniently linked to a verified identity. 🙄

[–] network_switch@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

Now how does banning social media give children a fairer chance growing up and adulthood. It's just putting blindfolds on children so they it takes longer for them to learn what they should be complaining and uncooperative with

[–] bumbling_bee@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They learned from countries like Australia huh? Australian here, did they learn how much its not working 😂🙄! None of my kids have anything other than YouTube, but my 9yo knew how to get around it. He doesn't because he just watches in a browser with ad blockers and we monitor it. My high schooler reports the many and varied ways kids just changed where they go online to continue their crap. Do I think under 16s should be on social media, no. But identity verification is not going to fix that.

[–] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

This was never about protecting the children. That's just an excuse to further promote mass surveillance and to exempt companies from responsibility for the additive design of their products and services. It's easier and more rewarding to penalize the users.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 28 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (3 children)

Social media is absolutely addictive and making people unhappy.

But how do you enforce this without removing anonymity?

Once again, they're going the corporate/government friendly route of surveillance. Ban VPNs, age vefification, soon we'll be required to use biometric checks to access the internet.

These chucklefucks will do anything other than attempt to solve the problem. Which is more education and help for parents while holding parents and the corporations accountable. But that would cost money rather than having lobbyists and donors fund them even more so 🤷‍♂️

It all comes back to capitalism.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

First step would be to ban social media from using algorithm suggestions all together.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe ban algorithmically-delivered content? So, for example, consider YouTube. The only way to get content would be to search for videos or to subscribe to individual channels. You can still have a user-curated experience, but that curation must be actively done by the user. This would at least prevent feed algorithms selecting for engagement and rage.

I would rather target the worst practices of social media companies in general, rather than try and keep kids from them. It's not like adults aren't harmed by this stuff either.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

As I said, hold the corporations accountable. It was never about children in the first place.

[–] nuggsy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is my biggest issue with it.

Social media has become a blight on society on all levels. Not just children.

But, there's a lack of education or push for children, and adults too, to be smarter online. They're just instituting laws and legislation and pushing the onus on corporations to comply.

Sounds good at face value but doesn't factor in smaller companies who are unable to afford the changes needed to comply (resulting in the pulling out of a region) or they institute dodgey 3rd party verification systems that will just on-sell your data.

Then, there's the world of dodgey VPNs that kids and people have rushed to. Also, as other people have said, children have found work arounds for age verification.

So, what's the point? What did we actually achieve? I sometimes defer to the old addage of never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Sometimes I feel it's more like naievity or good intenaions being controlled by malicious forces.

I don't know.

What I feel though is that it just doesn't feel like it's truly about the children. If it is, there should be a whole lot more factored into this.

Instead it feels like a half baked plan being sold to us as being for the children.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It's a moral panic being co-opted by those in power. (Ironically, many of those in power being predators themselves, especially here in the US where they're a major political party 🙃)

Some I can think of off the top of my head:

  • The Patriot Act
  • COINTELPRO
  • The Satanic Panic and resultant legislation
  • The War on Drugs

Legitimate concern gets amplified to a moral panic and then legislation is quickly put forth but is never tested or thoroughly understood. And given that most legislation today is written by lobbyists...well 🤷‍♂️

I'm sure stupidity is a part of it, but that might be a bit too convenient. It's usually some genuine intention that then gets swept up and captured by malicious infrastructure. They know what they're doing. They're narcissists, unempathetic, and the most willing to exploit. Capitalism in a nutshell.

That's why I'm saying hold the parents and the corporations accountable. Peel back data collection and restrict algorithmic content altogether. Enforce/provide parental education for online technologies and children. Basically, pay attention to your kids, be interested in them and their lives. The infrastructure exists on these social media platforms to restrict and monitor access, as well as it exists at the router level and at the device level as well. It's the parents who purchase the device and provide internet access. Would we be ok with in home governmental inspections on all of us so that kids can't have access to a gun or alcohol? No, it's up to the parent to protect their child from danger. Why is this any different? Why should we all give up our privacy?

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago

what are you smoking bro? you sound like a meta and google simp

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Typical. Punish the individual, but don't ever address the underlying social causes.

[–] lavaparrot@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Where and when can I protest this in-person?

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

What about if social media takes personal responsibility for what their platform does and stop making it addictive? Stops pushing anger inducing stories?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 51 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

"Oh no, this is terrible" cry the social media sites, while working out just how much your passport details and home address are worth to advertisers.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

...and certain government agencies using corporate fronts.

And that fucking Eye of Sauron.

[–] logicslayer@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Great. Now how are you going to do that without violating anyone's privacy?

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 hours ago

That's the neat part - they don't.

[–] Kuma@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I think this is a very interesting topic. How can you verify that someone is of age without the problem with privacy?

Would you go to a kiosk or something and buy a code that is not bound to you as a person but the person who works there have verified that you are over 16? So it will kinda be like a steam code except they need to check your actual age with a valid identification (that is only shown to the person) and that code will be bound to an account when claimed. If it is per account then that could also make it annoying for kids to create multiple accounts if they aren't of age.

How else could you do it without needing to trust someone to keep your identity safe?

Throw your ideas at me!

And we do not need perfect, look at alcohol consumptions, that is illegal for kids but some find their ways anyway. It just needs to be annoying so most don't do it or do it less

[–] Buckshot@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

A better example for me is driving, we don't let children drive, millions of children have access to cars, there's no age gate on the ignition.

Ultimately its the parents that stop kids driving.

Ban kids from using it. Then treat it like a public health problem and educate everybody on the problems, how to identify misinformation, keep themselves safe etc. And require the companies to provide the tools parents can use to protect their own kids. Parental controls exist but i feel they aren't widely used because it's difficult and complicated.

I'd go further and start regulating the use of algorithmic feeds for everybody but that's probably harder to achieve.

[–] Domi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 10 hours ago

give children more time, security, and freedom to go up

So can trans kids access puberty blockers now or nah?

[–] abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone 88 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

... Announced on a social media site owned by a man who encouraged Pogroms and generates CSAM for profit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 46 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

I am in favor of keeping kids off of social media, but I think the method of ID verification as default is entirely wrong.

Parents should ultimately be responsible for the activity of their child. If you can't trust your child to use the internet/social media responsibly, they simply should not be given access to smart devices.

If a kid gets onto social media and does stupid things there, go after the parents for neglect. The same would happen if I wasn't supervising my 8-year-old and they sneak off to vandalize someone else's property.

At most, maybe conversations could happen with ISPs to standardize an optional whitelist system for home consumers with children to block access to key social media domains for unapproved devices, but that's as far as I'd go. Empower parents with better supervisory tools to be more involved, no need to violate the rights of everyone else.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours ago

The voters need to understand they aren't doing this to "protect children". They're afraid to vote against it because they'll look like they don't want to protect children. We need to let them know we see through the ruse, and we won't punish them at the polls for voting against this shit, but we will for passing it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago

Well, if they just ban the over 16s as well, then we’ll have something.

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 117 points 17 hours ago (32 children)

I'm not entirely sure how that's panning out in Aus (a quick search suggests it's a flop, but the sources aren't great). I think the general consensus is that it's not as enforceable as they hoped.

We are moving towards an era of a more locked down web in the UK. The main flag here is "robust age verification" - i.e. we're moving from "you must provide ID to view adult material on social media" to "you must provide ID to use social media".

One can quickly see "your id must be retained and linked to your account to reduce crime" and "any officer of the law may view this ID to better support crime reduction" slipping in over the next 20 years or so.

Overall, this feels like another Trojan horse to move towards a China-style de-anonymised web. Bad move all around really.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 48 points 16 hours ago

UK assuming everyone online is a child unless they are willing to have their passport leaked.

load more comments
view more: next ›