this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
178 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

85420 readers
3751 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
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 1 hour ago

"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.

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 hour ago

The streets are getting dangerous, it's forbidden to go outside

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour 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 12 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 30 points 3 hours ago (2 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.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

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.

When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it's the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn't have to ID people. Except most people don't make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you'd be consistent.

If a kid gets onto social media and does stupid things there

The stupid thing is using it. It's bad for kids development. It's not dissimilar to drinking. You could blame the parents if the kids got into the alcohol in their own home, but the same would also go for kids using their parents social media accounts.

Empower parents with better supervisory tools to be more involved, no need to violate the rights of everyone else.

I know I have been playing devil's advocate for online ID, but I think it will be implemented in a way that is a privacy nightmare and am not in favor of the way it's being done. However, is anonymity a right? Before 1980, nobody really got anonymity unless you authored something under a pseudonym, which we can still do. When people were outspoken about civil rights violation, they were often just out there in the public as themselves. Sure they could wear masks, but you couldn't hide like you can on the internet.

The internet has allowed both for more anonymity than ever and also more tracking of people than ever. I do think it's coincidental that this is coming at the same time as the birth/growth of AI, but it does kind of serve a convenient second purpose of validating humans (or at least you know that a person is using an AI to post on their account). It's unfortunate that it's a benefit, but we live in an age where people using social media/the internet now have to constantly question their reality and if people are even real. I don't see a good solution to that without violating our previous expectations of privacy.

If age/human verification going to be done, I think it should be done correctly. Age verification could be done through Zero Knowledge Proofs where it only verifies your age and nothing else. I think one day our ID's will have rotating security keys built into them that will be used both for in person and online verification. You'd be able to decide what information is provided to the website, so that if they only wanted to know "Are you 21+" it would only provide a YES or NO, and that's it. I'm sure there will be some online method for doing the same thing before then, but it'd need to be tied to some form of biometric verification like a fingerprint or else it could be used maliciously. The most likely scenario is we start off by using phones to tie the ID to the person, and have the phones require some form of biometric lock.

All that to say, we are realistically headed towards a future where the the anonymity we were used to will be no more. At least for any website that doesn't want AI spam. While just uploading pictures of our ID's to websites is a terrible idea, it's what the idiots in charge will likely have us do as this new process starts. If they'd let the smart people take their time to do it right, the whole thing wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 1 points 48 minutes ago

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.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 points 1 hour ago

When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it’s the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn’t have to ID people. Except most people don’t make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you’d be consistent.

One could argue that kids can go to shops that sell also alcohol, but I can get the logic.
Problem is that a parent cannot check on their kids 24/7, so maybe having a check other than the parent could be a good idea.
Stores should absolutely check for ID since there is no way for them to verify that the parents did their job.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

But scientific studies suggest alcohol physically toxic to kids! Social media is…

Well…

Also shown to be toxic.


(And I agree about the IDs. Honestly this should be done for alcohol too).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone 55 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Oh the hypocrisy.. The fascists live on it, and no one bats an eye.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

When has banning something never not worked?

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 37 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] a_good_hunter@lemmy.world 19 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Pove you're not a child so your data can be sold to advertisers so they can continue to sell you stuff.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

It's not just advertisers by a long shot, they aren't even the main customers in most respects now. Governments want all of that information and buy it, as do other commercial interests, including security consultants and contractors like Palantir.

Governments can use go betweens to buy the information too, China for instance, is likely getting every single piece of information sold by data brokers. The entire thing is a joke, on us, because it's not about the kids, it's about locking down the internet and crafting social scores based on everything we have said or done online and off run through half baked ai threat detection.

Starmer is a fascist cunt that will hand the government to openly fascist cunts, but yay, go team! /s

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 80 points 6 hours ago (17 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.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

Next 20 years? Next year pal. Not just the police either. Just because they don't tell you about it doesn't mean it won't happen sooner. You could organize to try and stop it, just a thought.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 16 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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”.

And then from there to you must provide ID to use your device and eventually you can only run (state-approved OS) on your device, assuming thin clients tied to rented servers, which would be then tied to your ID, don't take over and kill off personal computing first.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I'm in Australia and it's shit for everyone. The whole thing was basically conceived by SportsBet so they could advertise on social media with impunity.

My kids are on more social media platforms than I am. So are all their friends. It hasn't slowed anything in that regard.

I can say, none of the shady bootleg porn sites have implemented blocking. So there's always that.

I've survived so far without doing a face scan or ID check. Most of my social media accounts are over 16 years old anyway.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, there's pretty solid data about Australia. A large percent of kids are still using social media because the ones who no longer use it are the ones whose parents won't let them use it, which is of course the same group as the ones whose parents always had that power. But we have heard from some vulnerable minority kids who now no longer get access to the support that they used to have. And that's really f***** up.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

those kids socialising other ways. social media isnt socializing anyway

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Quokka@quokk.au 10 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Queer Harmer doesn’t seem to care about making trans children unhappy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›