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 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 threadGin Kangaroo

@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.

Jun 15 at 11:38pmWeb