📱 Banning social media for under-16s helps no one A proposed ban on social media for under-16s sparks debate: will it protect kids or push them toward greater loneliness and isolation? By Olli Watkins @olliwatkins.bsky.social - ThreadSky

yorkshirebylines.co.uk • 85 days ago

📱 Banning social media for under-16s helps no one

A proposed ban on social media for under-16s sparks debate: will it protect kids or push them toward greater loneliness and isolation?

By Olli Watkins

@olliwatkins.bsky.social

Comments

lacemuse.bsky.social•85 days ago

How could it even be enforced?

yorkshirebylines.co.uk•85 days ago

Good point. A lot would rely on teenagers being honest about their age, and on schools and parents!

lacemuse.bsky.social•85 days ago

It's not workable. If parents want the internet time limited then let them. It's part of being a parent. I wish I had for my daughter but her father had different ideas.

christymc.bsky.social•85 days ago

I guess there are lots of other things kids aren’t allowed to have and adults are - so it would be similar - buying alcohol, watching adult films at the cinema, getting into clubs…

I think it’s a good idea but stopping too short - I’d ban smartphones for younger kids.

lacemuse.bsky.social•85 days ago

I'd say modified ones. So they can call parents. And maybe Wikipedia and some games help kids learn.

And tons of audiobooks to get them into stories!

christymc.bsky.social•85 days ago

Yes that’s a great idea. I think the actual devices need to be physically different so it’s obvious what’s an adult device and what’s a kids device. But you’re right having restricted content is good.

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

At the very start, the author dismisses as inconclusive the studies that link social media with harm, completely missing the point that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be experimenting on whole generations of young people with something for which there is a significant evidence of harm.

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

Precautionary principle, we used to call this. You have a new technology with potential highly damaging impact, and you introduce it slowly, assessing the impact as you go. You don't release it into the wild and wait until it all blows up in your face.

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

For example, we all (with the possible exception of the US future Secretary of Health) agree that medicines should be tested first, even though the evidence of potential harm is inconclusive at that point, and only then released, with suitable warnings and caveats for their use.

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

Can we imagine doing something this irresponsible in any other area apart? Just let it go wild, and potentially ("the evidence is inconclusive") end up with depressed, traumatised, brainwashed generations of young people, and with society in ruins? Talk about conclusive evidence!

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

Yes, there were moral panics before, and they were always largely unjustified. But we never had a tech or, indeed, phenomenon of any kind that was so pervasive, targeted such young minds, caused such obvious changes in society and was so completely out of control.

cmrlj.bsky.social•85 days ago

Or maybe we did, with printed press. Which resulted in one hundred years of the most vicious wars all over Europe over the dumbest possible nonsense. And we didn't have tanks, rockets and nukes then, nor were we threatened with environmental collapse that required urgent global action!

transcommiescum.bsky.social•85 days ago

Instead of regulating these companies, fuck dem kids

christymc.bsky.social•85 days ago

I think many of us who have migrated to BlueSky from ‘the other place’ have experienced first hand how emotionally detrimental social media can be - and we’re adults. It can pull you in and aggressively bombard you with negative content that slowly wears you down. Kids shouldn’t have to face that.

meteorgirl.bsky.social•85 days ago

This is so typical of politicians trying to treat the symptoms, not the cure. The cure is to crack down on the social media sites, and bring them under meaningful control. If they fail to behave they get switched off until they comply. But politicians are too terrified of the billionaires.

ziggyman.bsky.social•85 days ago

Need to watch 'Swiped' with Emma Willis - clear positive physical, mental and social benefits of removing smart phones from 12/13 yr olds.

yorkshirebylines.co.uk•85 days ago

To be fair, there are clear benefits to removing them from 50 year olds too. Though perhaps that's just personal experience 😉

sophebc.bsky.social•85 days ago

Interesting to hear your perspective and be reminded of the benefits of social media of young people. What would your proposal be for limiting the harmful content/the negative impact that has caused young people's deaths such as blackout challenges; sextortion?

olliwatkins.bsky.social•85 days ago

That requires stronger regulation, and actual consequences for tech companies that fail to comply

three-edged-sword.bsky.social•84 days ago

I'm very far from convinced we shouldn't just ban social media for everyone.

billybeans.bsky.social•85 days ago

It's a stupid concept. Social Media will ask age at sign-up and kids will lie. Kids can manipulate social media.

christymc.bsky.social•85 days ago

I think the concept is good. The effective implementation is the challenge - there are more ways to approach it than just asking for age at sign-up.

jonty24.bsky.social•85 days ago

This worries me a bit as its only really been in the last 15 years or so that social media has become more of a factor. Before that, we had to do without it. And there were lots of things to do outside of school, such as sports, hobbies etc.

jonty24.bsky.social•85 days ago

I appreciate this probably sounds old fashioned. But if restrictions are introduced, I do think there needs to be significant investment in youth clubs, sports facilities etc. to give people options.

jonty24.bsky.social•85 days ago

And we should definately look to see how we can make the range of options / participation a lot more inclusive, ensuring that there is scope for under 16s to shape what is available. The government cannot simply introduce restrictions without helping to provide good quality alternatives.

megancyber.bsky.social•85 days ago

It's cover to govt track people online 'Think of the Chilrin!'
People need to monitor their kids fill question on age, if found out parents can be fined than force people giving private personal info to be filed and hacked to whatever is called a social media site

splootman.bsky.social•85 days ago

Maybe it will mean they will leave their bedrooms and actually spend time with people IRL instead of on a bloody screen.

yorkshirebylines.co.uk•85 days ago

School's a pretty good way to achieve that too. Young people aren't sat in their bedrooms playing computer games all the time! And even those who enjoy that, can do so with a healthy balance. Let's not generalise and write off all the teenagers just because some do this 😉

splootman.bsky.social•85 days ago

Young kids spend far too much time in their bedrooms these days and, not only does that increase their isolation, it means they lack the social skills that we all develop growing up imo

olliwatkins.bsky.social•85 days ago

But why do you think that is? What spaces do kids have to socialise that are safe, accessible, and free?

lawrenceg2.bsky.social•85 days ago

I’m interested why your article didn’t reference Jonathan Haidt (The Anxious Generation). IMHO it’s the best researched narrative on this whole subject and has the empirical data you’re looking for.

olliwatkins.bsky.social•85 days ago

I'm planning on writing another article that will in part examine The Anxious Generation, so look out for that when it's published 😊

lawrenceg2.bsky.social•85 days ago

Totally agree that banning it for to under16s who already have access to Social media will be painful. But protecting future cohorts from the atomisation of truth must surely be worth the initial pain.

splootman.bsky.social•85 days ago

Apart from a youth club once a week we had nothing either. We 'hung around ' chatting, playing games, kicking a ball. We just socialised.

olliwatkins.bsky.social•85 days ago

Streets and parks etc often aren't safe enough for younger kids to do that anymore, and when older kids do then posts go out on local Facebook groups complaining about teens loitering or causing mischief when often their only crime is existing in public in a group. They can't win.

jmc123.bsky.social•85 days ago

Often kids today hang out and socialise on their phones. It's not always bad!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply