Feels heavy handed, but the brain-rot seems to be quite real, so I don't see a better option.

▲ m000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is heavy handed on the wrong side. How about heavy-handed regulation of the Social Media platforms? Not content regulation, but operations regulation. I'm pretty sure bots and ai-spam can be both easily flagged and banned, something that would have a positive impact for minors and adults alike. But the platforms won't do it, because these drive engagement and keep their stock value up.

Also, including the mid-teens (15-16) into the regulation may have a generational negative effect. This is the age you start to get interested in the world and how it works. Social Media is the primary medium teens use to get this information, having eclipsed traditional media (magazines, tv shows, radio shows etc.) Banning Social Media for these ages leaves a gap in newer generations maturing to adults.

But maybe that's by design? I.e. make new generations indifferent to the world around them, and also prevent them from building resistance to (home) propaganda spread through Social Media.

▲ s08148692 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Parents taking responsibility for what their children can see and do on their devices is an option. Maybe free classes for tech-illiterate parents?

There are options that don't involve forcing everybody to prove their age and provide ID verification to access social media

	▲	wallaBBB 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not when big tech is doing everything they can to bring harmful content to kids while pretending to sincerely offer guardrails.
	▲	hugh-avherald 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Parents do not have infinite resources to 'take responsibility'. I do not think that is a practicable option, let alone a serious or optimal one.
	▲	shevy-java 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> There are options that don't involve forcing everybody to prove their age and provide ID verification to access social media Indeed. Assuming this is the real goal. That would require of people to trust the government. I in general trust no government.
	▲	Delphiza 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What kind of class teaches 'tech-illiterate' parents to help their children not succumb to a multi-trillion dollar industry pushing out addictive and damaging content? It should be easy to develop such classes right? Maybe dust off the classes for 'health-illiterate' parents that were needed to stand up to the tobacco and alcohol industries? </s>

▲ dryarzeg 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The only thing that worries me here (although I'm not in UK; but if this practice will get adopted worldwide...) is how exactly the social media platforms will verify the age of their users. Pretty common worry these days, I guess, but I would rather not use any social media, including "needed" ones like LinkedIn, than give my passport to hell knows which third party or parties.

Oh yeah, and what about BlueSky, Mastodon and similar? Can they afford age verification? I'm pretty much sure they will be considered "a social media platforms" as well.

▲ oneeyedpigeon 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm in the UK; BlueSky already requires age verification for DMs, which I can no longer use.

▲ dryarzeg 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Wow. Sorry to say that, but a few more steps in that direction from UK government - like blocking "non-compliant" platforms and/or banning VPN services and blocking VPN protocols entirely - and you will have a Western Russia here in terms of censorship. Maybe even worse... I'm feeling sorry for you; no irony or sarcasm intended, honestly.

▲ n4r9 9 hours ago | parent [-]

How does it benefit the UK government to block social media for children?

▲ pjc50 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More votes from the Daily Mail section.

Fewer voter from young people, though. The proposed curfew is even more stupid: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/how-uk-social-media-ban-wo...

Which would mean that a sixteen year old would be able to stand in a polling station and vote at 9pm but not then go on Tiktok once they'd left.

(yes, the same government which doesn't trust children with social media has also lowered the voting age. No, this makes no sense. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/representation-of... )

▲ dryarzeg 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not the UK government, so how would I know for sure? I'm just making some assumptions, no more than that.

One common route that comes to my mind is this: block [something-dangerous] for children, then implement age verification for [something-dangerous], then use it as a tool of censorship. It's way easier to identify and track individuals based on their passport/ID/driving license than based on their email, IP address or even phone number. And then you're getting jailed for posts somewhere on BlueSky or X or on any other social platform because they were hate speech/disinformation/discrediting the armed forces (the last one is the real thing in Russia, and I just see the UK as the country which goes the same path) - while actually you was just criticizing the actions of people in power.

And you can also legally ban and block platforms, services and even software which doesn't satisfy the requirements of age verification.

That's how I see it; that is, I repeat, my assumptions and thoughts. I have never, never in my lifetime (which is rather short though) seen such proposals turn out to be good.

▲ n4r9 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it's absurd to say we're anywhere near Russia, a literal dictatorship. Russia blocks almost all Western and independent media, blocks or throttles Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and WhatsApp. People who discredit the military can be jailed for 15 years. This is all based on the Russian government's own opinion on what is "dangerous".

Conversely, social media is widely established as posing severe risks to children and teens. Heavy use is strongly linked to mental health issues, addiction, and disrupted sleep. It's not that different from banning the sale of hard drugs.

▲ defrost 6 hours ago | parent [-]

There is a lot of concern, yes, and no shortage of correlational type anecdata, sure.

Caution is well advised ... but hard drug equivalent causal effect? Not so much.

Scientists pour cold water on claims phones are rewiring kids' brains

  Appearing before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee this week, three researchers spent much of the session explaining that concern and evidence are not quite the same thing. 

  Asked what evidence exists on the impact of digital devices on infants and young children, Professor Denis Mareschal, director of the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development at Birkbeck, replied: "There is very little, if any, causal research in the early years. Almost everything is correlational."

  MPs kept coming back to the question – and the experts kept coming back to the same answer.

  When questioned about social media's impact on adolescents, Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of the University of Cambridge was equally cautious. "What evidence do we have of the impact of digital devices or social media on the adolescent brain?" she asked. "Almost nothing. There are a few small studies, but they haven't been replicated, and they're purely correlational."

~ https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/14/scienti...

▲ philipwhiuk 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Mastodon instances will probably block the UK if they are asked to implement it.

▲ oneeyedpigeon 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One 'better option' would be to hold parents more responsible for crimes that their children commit. And to broaden the types of abuse that the state can respond to—if parents let their children habitually drink alcohol to excess or smoke tobacco underage, social services tend to get involved.

Another 'better option' would be to prosecute tech companies that intentionally create addictive, harmful content.

Banning social media use for anyone unwilling to hand over their secure information to private third-parties seems like one of the 'worst options' to me.

▲

9dev 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> hold parents more responsible for crimes that their children commit.

Oh yeah, punishing children for mistakes they need to make to learn not to make them and moving responsibility from parents to the government sounds like a great idea.

▲

pjc50 8 hours ago | parent [-]

They were talking about actual serious crime, like the 13 year old knife murderer in Glasgow, who will undoubtedly have "previous".

(There's a bottom 5% of kids whose parents are basically completely negligent or actively abusive, and they end up causing basically all of the problems)

	▲	oneeyedpigeon 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think that person was agreeing with me, sarcastically, because they're putting forward the opposite points to the ones I was making.

▲ pjc50 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A significant part of the brain rot involves full adults. Elon Musk is openly advocating riots in Northern Ireland; several people have been firebombed out of their houses.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/belfast-riot...

Targeting kids is a distraction from making the difficult choice of confronting powerful adults.

▲

majorchord 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Musk wrote, “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!”

I'm certainly not defending the man, but that comment to me is definitely not plainly seen as "advocating riots"... I'd call that a very disingenuous stretch of the truth.

If we're going to criticize people, I think we need to do it for the right reasons.

	▲	pjc50 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY For what outcome though, hmm? The exact opposite logic gets applied against supporters of Palestine such as Sally Rooney, who was threatened with a total ban on her (unrelated) work until the High Court ruled in her favor.
	▲	roryirvine 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And what the fuck does he think a protest on the lower Newtownards Rd looks like, given the complex history & social context? He's not thick, he's (at best) reckless.