Err... okay, how are they going to stop them? 🤔

The UK has announced landmark legislation to ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms. Led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the government plans to target interactive sites like TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube, with the ban expected to take effect as soon as Spring 2027

Edited yesterday at 01:40 PM1 day by martin-w

That topic title is slightly misleading, Martin. They are not going to be banned from the internet.

Edited yesterday at 01:35 PM1 day by Christopher Low

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That topic title is slightly misleading, Martin. They are not going to be banned from the internet.

Well done young Christopher, you passed the test. One cat point allocated!

😼 X1

I've given this some thought and while I'm against this on the principle that it isn't actually anything to do with protecting the kids (it's to enforce digital ID by the backdoor ... "login to prove you're not a child") I can actually understand why it's beneficial for some young people (even if they don't see it).

1) They're kids. They don't know how vulnerable they are because they think they're invincible - of course they're going to complain; you don't know what you don't know about so how can they foresee the issues?

2) I was bullied at school. In person was bad enough, but potentially having hundreds of people talking about me on social media posts while my brain is incapable of dealing with the mental load? No thank you. I can opt-out of participating, but I cannot opt-out of other people participating and it then carrying on into my "real life" with an army of people behind it.

3) When I was a kid I did some things I'm not proud of - I'd hate for there to be a permanent video gallery of all of the things I got up to while having fun with my friends. Actually some things I am proud of too are best kept in my brain and not on YouTube 😆

4) The dopamine/chemical effect of being "always on" is a major issue. I spend a LOT of time on my computer as an adult but it's how I earn a living. If I were doing it for no recompense and had zero other skills it would be a huge problem. You learn a lot by being outside, doing other hobbies, sports etc with other people - a lot of things that transfer into adulthood and help form the basis of your social standing and capabilities as a person.

5) They can choose to participate once they're 18 - it's no different to not being allowed in a pub or to buy certain magazines until you're an adult.

6) The classroom benefits ... no notifications / disruptions / inability to concentrate due to thinking about social media posts

Quite honestly it should be down to the parents to enforce this ban, but that is obviously an impossible ask - so I find myself supporting the government's stance on it even if I disagree with their motives. I believe kids will benefit from it over time and maybe society too - anyone who's spent any time on X since Elon took over it will know children should be nowhere near it.

43 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

I've given this some thought and while I'm against this on the principle that it isn't actually anything to do with protecting the kids (it's to enforce digital ID by the backdoor ... "login to prove you're not a child") I can actually understand why it's beneficial for some young people (even if they don't see it).

1) They're kids. They don't know how vulnerable they are because they think they're invincible - of course they're going to complain; you don't know what you don't know about so how can they foresee the issues?

2) I was bullied at school. In person was bad enough, but potentially having hundreds of people talking about me on social media posts while my brain is incapable of dealing with the mental load? No thank you. I can opt-out of participating, but I cannot opt-out of other people participating and it then carrying on into my "real life" with an army of people behind it.

3) When I was a kid I did some things I'm not proud of - I'd hate for there to be a permanent video gallery of all of the things I got up to while having fun with my friends. Actually some things I am proud of too are best kept in my brain and not on YouTube 😆

4) The dopamine/chemical effect of being "always on" is a major issue. I spend a LOT of time on my computer as an adult but it's how I earn a living. If I were doing it for no recompense and had zero other skills it would be a huge problem. You learn a lot by being outside, doing other hobbies, sports etc with other people - a lot of things that transfer into adulthood and help form the basis of your social standing and capabilities as a person.

5) They can choose to participate once they're 18 - it's no different to not being allowed in a pub or to buy certain magazines until you're an adult.

6) The classroom benefits ... no notifications / disruptions / inability to concentrate due to thinking about social media posts

Quite honestly it should be down to the parents to enforce this ban, but that is obviously an impossible ask - so I find myself supporting the government's stance on it even if I disagree with their motives. I believe kids will benefit from it over time and maybe society too - anyone who's spent any time on X since Elon took over it will know children should be nowhere near it.

Great write up. I agree with all points. One question I have is why do you say it’s an impossible ask to have parents enforce this? Wouldn’t that be the easier way to enforce this? Isn’t it the job of a parent to monitor things like this? Law or not, in my opinion, the fact that a law has to be enacted shows a miserable failure on the part of the parents to well….be parents.

As long as it's not banned for over 90s.

Noel

Because a lot of parents are lazy and if one doesn't do it....

1 hour ago, FPVSteve said:

(it's to enforce digital ID by the backdoor ... "login to prove you're not a child")

You are correct. This is the real reason.

The authorities like to use "the children" to enact and enforce all manner of restrictions on freedom(for the little people, that is) and this is just the latest example.

What's really pathetic is that the parents aren't performing their duty to protect their own children, so the government feels justified in stepping in.

Dave

"Enforcing a total social media ban for under-16s will be a monumental and complex challenge, but the UK government plans to enforce it by penalizing big tech companies rather than individual children or parents. Following Prime Minister Keir Starmer's June 15, 2026, announcement, tech firms like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat will face multi-million-dollar fines if they fail to take "reasonable steps" to block underage users.

While the policy aims to alleviate the burden on parents grappling with online risks, cybersecurity experts and tech platforms argue that total enforcement is nearly impossible with current technology.

The Core Enforcement Mechanism

The government is shifting the responsibility of policing the internet onto the tech platforms themselves.

• Corporate Fines: Rather than criminalizing children or parents, the law targets tech giants. If platforms allow under-16s to create or hold accounts, they will face massive financial penalties.

• Age-Assurance Mandates: To avoid fines, companies will be legally forced to deploy advanced age-verification methods.

Technologies Slated for Use

Because simple "tick-box" age declarations are easily bypassed, tech platforms will have to implement stricter measures:

• Facial Age Estimation: Using AI to analyze a user's facial geometry via a selfie or video scan to estimate their age.

• Identity Verification: Requiring digital passport, ID card, or credit card scans to authenticate the user's date of birth.

• Third-Party Providers: Offloading verification to accredited age-assurance companies to avoid storing sensitive identification documents directly on social apps. "

39 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Third-Party Providers: Offloading verification to accredited age-assurance companies to avoid storing sensitive identification documents directly on social apps. "

Follow the money on that one.

So the poor kids will be unable to watch Intelligent independent media on YouTube and build their own opinions, instead they’ll just get drip fed the approved narrative by the BBC and school teachers.

Well for instance, on Avsim there are sometimes pictures of planes without skins. Do we really want children to see naked planes ?

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Err... okay, how are they going to stop them? 🤔

The UK has announced landmark legislation to ban children under 16 from accessing major social media platforms. Led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the government plans to target interactive sites like TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube, with the ban expected to take effect as soon as Spring 2027

It’s a back door to force EVERYONE to adopt Digital ID.

“For the children…!”

How very Orwellian/PRC Social Credit of them.

4 hours ago, FPVSteve said:

I've given this some thought and while I'm against this on the principle that it isn't actually anything to do with protecting the kids (it's to enforce digital ID by the backdoor ... "login to prove you're not a child") I can actually understand why it's beneficial for some young people (even if they don't see it).

1) They're kids. They don't know how vulnerable they are because they think they're invincible - of course they're going to complain; you don't know what you don't know about so how can they foresee the issues?

2) I was bullied at school. In person was bad enough, but potentially having hundreds of people talking about me on social media posts while my brain is incapable of dealing with the mental load? No thank you. I can opt-out of participating, but I cannot opt-out of other people participating and it then carrying on into my "real life" with an army of people behind it.

3) When I was a kid I did some things I'm not proud of - I'd hate for there to be a permanent video gallery of all of the things I got up to while having fun with my friends. Actually some things I am proud of too are best kept in my brain and not on YouTube 😆

4) The dopamine/chemical effect of being "always on" is a major issue. I spend a LOT of time on my computer as an adult but it's how I earn a living. If I were doing it for no recompense and had zero other skills it would be a huge problem. You learn a lot by being outside, doing other hobbies, sports etc with other people - a lot of things that transfer into adulthood and help form the basis of your social standing and capabilities as a person.

5) They can choose to participate once they're 18 - it's no different to not being allowed in a pub or to buy certain magazines until you're an adult.

6) The classroom benefits ... no notifications / disruptions / inability to concentrate due to thinking about social media posts

Quite honestly it should be down to the parents to enforce this ban, but that is obviously an impossible ask - so I find myself supporting the government's stance on it even if I disagree with their motives. I believe kids will benefit from it over time and maybe society too - anyone who's spent any time on X since Elon took over it will know children should be nowhere near it.

The various govs are messing with our lives way too much as it is.

“Sensible” stuff like this needs to be resisted at all costs.

42 minutes ago, Fielder said:

Well for instance, on Avsim there are sometimes pictures of planes without skins. Do we really want children to see naked planes ?

Disgusting. What are the links so I can avoid them?

Children might be exposed to sexist nature pictures like this "guess which one is the male partner"