James BaillieJun 15

A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.

Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.

Show threadJames Baillie
But also, for child protection, this is a double-edged sword. Yes, social media exposes some children to things they should never see, but it also exposes children who've been brought up in terrible situations to the possibility that what they're facing is wrong and an alternative world exists. Britain has for decades been obsessed with the danger of strangers, but statistically it has always been the case that more children are under threat from members of their immediate family and community.
Jun 15 at 8:36amWeb
Show threadJames BaillieJun 15
That's such an unimaginably horrible realisation that we shy away from recognising it, but it's true and we have to confront it if we want to keep children safe. Locking them out of online contact is likely to isolate that block of vulnerable children to a worse degree. Furthermore, when children go on social media anyway, which they will do, they're now doing something illegal, which makes it much *harder* for them to ask an adult for help when something goes wrong online.
Show threadtoerrorJun 15
@JubalBarca The main thing it achieves is to scratch the English itch to ban something when unrelated things seem to be slipping out of control. It's the equivalent of stress eating for the British establishment.
Show threadJames BaillieJun 15
@toerror I wish they'd just go and do actual stress eating instead honestly. I will happily personally send Keir Starmer several packets of snacks and a large box of tea bags if it means we get better governance.
Show threadGin KangarooJun 15

@JubalBarca Off the top of my head I know 3 friends who were sexually abused as children.
One by a (church) babysitter.
One by their uncle.
One by their grandfather.

We HAVE to acknowledge it. We have to give kids ways to contact adults outside their immediate families.

Show threadNuwagaba GiftJun 15
@JubalBarca
Is this really about protecting children?
Show threadJames BaillieJun 15
@nuwagaba2 I think a lot of its advocates earnestly believe that it's about protecting children: I think the growing awareness of social media related harms is genuinely the most important driver behind the government deciding they need to do something. But a bad solution won't help: it's taking an approach which isn't based on the evidence, and won't work, and some people definitely cynically know that but think this is a better public relations exercise than doing something more effective.
Show threadNuwagaba GiftJun 15
@JubalBarca
Now I understand the reason behind it. Protecting children is another excuse towards taking people's liberty slowly without them realizing. What would be the way out of this?