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

Technology

85515 readers
4329 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
507
UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 2 days ago by Tarambor@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
307 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
[–] ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As you say, the government already has that information, so while people might not be happy about that, it does seem a semi-reasonable way of confirming age. But the current plan is the reverse of that, with the government asking companies to conform age using a third party, which not only will definitely be using it for advertising purposes, but is more likely to get hacked, and all the information make it into even worse hands.

The problem with a ban in response to poor parenting is that it just disincentivises both the parents and children who have been doing it right until now, because if they'll lose access all the same then what was the point of doing otherwise until now. And what would be the point of doing it right in future.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

And what would be the point of doing it right in future.

I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.

In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don't give a damn will continue to don't give a damn about it.

[–] ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

As do many people, but there are plenty others who will see this as being punished for doing the right thing, and will be less inclined to do so going forward. Whereas if this was addressed properly, it would continue to incentivise people who need that nudge to keep doing the right thing, whilst also pushing those less inclined to do the same.

I guess what I'm getting at is, this is just a terrible way to address a legitimate problem. Which seems to be the way this government operate.