FireNeslo
126 posts
If banning social media for U16s means linking a profile to an ID to verify age then I think that's all the more reason to do it. If you are worried about legal repercussions of what you are saying on SM then that's a pretty good hint that you probably shouldn't be saying it.
JUST IN: UK Government clarifies adults will still be able to use social media by verifying their identities with digital IDs, facial recognition, passports and credit cards.
Following the announcement that under-16s will be banned from social media in the UK, we spoke to our digital safety expert, Jeffrey DeMarco to get his thoughts on this and what children's rights look like in the digital age. He explains that protecting children online is not simply about restricting access to technology or social media, but about building digital resilience, strengthening support networks and ensuring that technology companies design products with children's wellbeing in mind. To find out more about how can we ensure children are able to benefit from the opportunities online platforms create while remaining safe, informed and empowered, watch the full interview on YouTube here: bit.ly/49Y9fe4
Kids should not spend hours on their phones every day, exposed to self-harm content, pornography, violence, and extremist or hateful material. Yet that is the reality today. Parents alone cannot solve this, so governments should enforce age limits. Let kids be kids.
Kids should not spend hours on their phones every day, exposed to self-harm content, pornography, violence, and extremist or hateful material. Yet that is the reality today. Parents alone cannot solve this, so governments should enforce age limits. Let kids be kids.
My timeline is full of these types of posts which is surprising because the majority of parents want a ban. Makes me think the algorithm might be prioritising anti-ban posts, which kind of proves the Govt’s point about how bad algorithmic cultures are for kids.
