In the 90s, when I was a queer teenager, it was often legally risky for queer adults to even speak to queer teens.

Just to be clear, this was NOT put into place to protect us.

I mean, lol, imagine, its like getting protection from section 28. Indeed, it's exactly like that since there was nothing remotely accommodating at school either.

When I came out, I literally did not know any other out queer person. I knew no queer adults. This was because of several policy decisions. I later saw one of my teachers at pride. She didn't know if her job was safe if she got found out. (How do I know? I waited for her after school one day. This is one of the questions I asked.)

What I had was a few very dated library books and the ability to watch a public broadcasting TV station in San Francisco during pride month.

Again, I want to be very clear: the enforced isolation was not remotely a safe situation for me.

The US backers of social media bans are extremely open about their desire to isolate queer teens. Keir Starmer is quoting from their rhetoric and appropriating the dog whistles their corporate partner monopolists sometimes use. So what's his goal?

The UK social media ban for under-16s does nothing to sort out the harms caused by platforms.

Harmful content is a product of a business model that uses data to drive engagement and target users with ads.

Digital ID checks feed more data into this system, while leaving the engine for harms unchecked.

Read our response ⬇️

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/starmers-social-media-ban-fails-to-address-root-causes-of-online-harms/

#socialmediaban #socialmedia #stopkillinginternet #ukpolitics #ukpol #onlinesafety #ageverification #StopKillingInternet #StopKillingTheInternet