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 BaillieJun 15
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.
Show threadNuwagaba GiftJun 15
@JubalBarca
Is this really about protecting children?
Show threadJames Baillie
@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.
Jun 15 at 10:50amWeb
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?