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...