Mike

@PiggyKropotkinn @Keir_Starmer My account was verified a while ago yet I can't chat after today's change... and reporting to support has done nothing.

@TonyGoldSE @MazderVerhal @KirstieMAllsopp Is Mumsnet the most harmful part of the internet for being horribly misinformed?

@MazderVerhal @KirstieMAllsopp It was Mumsnet that drove this. I wouldn't assume any knowledge from them, just reaction to the guff that is posted on their forum.

So you aren’t worried about the kids, you’re just worried you’ll be questioned regarding what you want to see on the internet?

I’m actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this. The groomer problem is real but it’s also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home. There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered. What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand it’s so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business. Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when he’s not. This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure it’s not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy. That’s how you know this law isn’t about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids. What’s really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes. Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer won’t even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britain’s neighborhoods but he’s worried about online grooming? No he’s not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.

To the idiots celebrating government controlling kids, you just agreed to adults having to hand over facial recognition, digital ID, passports and/or credit card details to prove you are not a child. Your stupidity is immeasurable.

@Pinotnoirgirl @badgers_back All those things happened before social media existed, I know, I've been there. This ban won't help kids, those things will still happen.

@badgers_back What about when another child: - shows your child harmful content? - takes a photo of your child and sends it to other children - sends a photo to your child which is for harmful content I can stop my child accessing. I can't stop other children showing them without consent.

I have put restrictions on my kids phones so they can’t use them before 7am or after 8pm except to make calls/send texts. They can’t download apps without me approving and they’re not allowed: WhatsApp Instagram TikTok Snapchat X It’s called parenting, some should try it.

@sciantificnew I'm not at all worried about what I say on social media, I'm worried about what will happen with the data I have to provide to be able to continue to use what the government considers to be social media. Worst part is parents can already stop their kids, parental controls exist.

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.

@notkatbaker You're making 20 year predictions? I've got one too, before the end of the year people in the UK won't have to worry about phishing emails/texts anymore, scammers will have access to all our personal data and it will have made 0 difference for kids.

I don’t understand how you could be angry about banning under 16s from social media. I think in 20 years time when more research has come out about the health implications of habitual social media use we will realise it is deeply damaging for your mental health.

30+ years in technology here. These politicians and their advisors are dangerously ignorant. They know nothing about how the internet, devices, networks, or age verification actually work. Armed only with soundbites and lobbyist talking points. When you interview them, push hard on the how, not the headline. This “ban” will mean mandatory facial scans or ID uploads for every user, VPN circumvention on steroids, black-market accounts, and unprecedented privacy invasions (for everyone). Platforms can’t enforce it without breaking end-to-end encryption or becoming state surveillance tools. Exemptions for WhatsApp, Discord etc. make it pure theatre. Kids already bypass school filters in minutes. Real protection needs parental tools, education, and targeted fixes, not grandstanding legislation that treats the entire internet like a 1990s TV remote. Enforcement by 2027? They’ll still be arguing over what “social media” even means while the tech has moved on. This is performative governance at its worst. Tech veterans - chime in:

@ZeroRegrets3 @matthewdmarsden You're right, it's the same thing, I've had to give every shop owner a copy of my ID every time I bought alcohol.

@matthewdmarsden the UK and Europe have multiple laws protecting children and children’s rights, such as making it illegal to sell cigarettes to children, or illegal for children under 16 to be served alcohol, or making it illegal to force children in to work, there are many laws where the state has stepped in to protect children. Are you suggesting that in the lone star state, you don’t pass legislation to protect children?

Backed by 9 out of 10 parents. Says a lot. They aren’t parenting and expect the state to raise their kids. But hey, at least with both of them working they can go on a nice vacation to Europe.

@PauletteHamilto This is a big step towards everyone getting their personal data stolen and not helping any kids at all.

I welcome the Government’s plans to ban social media access for under-16s. Too many young people are being exposed to harmful content, online bullying & addictive algorithms. This is an important step towards giving children their childhood back & putting their wellbeing first.

@MicrosoftUK my Minecraft account is almost old enough to be allowed to chat in the UK ruled by an incompetent and draconian government yet somehow I still have to verify my age, I tried, it said I was already verified....yet I still can't chat. Make that make sense!

@KirstieMAllsopp It's not about keeping children safe, it's about having more of our personal data and (ab)using it. This ban won't help kids, the worst of the internet isn't even on social media. This government is either horribly incompetent or lying through their teeth.

I hadn’t understood why so many people were getting their knickers in a twist re having to prove they were over 16 to use social media, after all we do it all the time for driving, alcohol & cigarettes, it’s about porn isn’t it?

@its_Lexieroy All of the above, without a doubt. I'm also wondering if he's corrupt and will be getting some money for all the data he's forcing people to share.

How would you describe Keir Starmer? 1️⃣. Dictator 2️⃣. Traitor 3️⃣. Deceitful 4️⃣. Incompetent 5️⃣. All the above

@harrystabbings "Britain is safer for it." biggest load of shite I've seen in a very long time. It didn't work in Australia and won't work here. It's actually making the internet much more dangerous for anyone in the UK uploading personal data that WILL get stolen.

What you need to know about the new Social Media Ban in the UK: 1. All persons under 16 are prohibited from accessing social media platforms without verified parental supervision. 2. Parental supervision must be logged digitally through the UK. gov app. 3. Parents must approve each post, comment, like, or share in real-time. 4. Failure to supervise constitutes negligent digital guardianship. 5. Penalties for negligent digital guardianship include fines up to £10,000 and potential removal of devices from the household. 6. Educational use is not exempt. 7. Mental health considerations are not exempt. 8. Checking the weather on a browser that could access social media counts as attempted access. 9. Screenshots of banned platforms are treated as contraband. 10. Discussing banned platforms in school counts as conspiracy to access. 11. Parents who express disagreement with these rules online will have their supervision privileges revoked. 12. Any family member can report violations anonymously (encouraged). Compliance is mandatory. Britain is safer for it.

@leicesterliz Can we have someone in government that knows about technology because it's clearly not you @leicesterliz Anyone that gets scammed in any way after this horribly misinformed change will have you to thank for it.

Parents have been crying out for support when it comes to their children being on social media. So that’s why we’ve made this big decision – to put power back in to parents’ hands, and to give children their childhood back.

@leicesterliz A ban won't help, the most dangerous information kids can access isn't even on social media, all this does is harm EVERYONE by forcing us to upload personal data that WILL get hacked.

@JayDarkmoore The idea that it's to help kids is a massive fucking lie, it's about data and about having everyone's data which is a risk for everyone because it will get stolen and abused (probably before it gets stolen).

I don’t see the problem with why stopping under 16’s using social media is a bad thing. Can someone please tell me what the counter argument is? Why are people upset / concerned?

@Keir_Starmer I don't believe you're so gullible or stupid to believe this will help children, how much money are you getting from this? Who's paying you? Is it @palantir because they want more than just our NHS data?

I am simply not prepared to be a bystander when the safety and happiness of our children are at stake. We will ban social media access for under 16s, and give children their childhoods back. Read more about it here: keirstarmer.substack.com/p/giving-child…

@jeremycorbyn Rename personal data to public data with Palantir having access to it, this is a huge problem and the current biggest parties won't do anything about this, Reform is also too much of a $$$ first party to care about our rights and security.

Palantir has been granted “unlimited access” to NHS patient data. This is the same company that is involved in mass surveillance and genocide. We did not consent to this. Get Palantir out of our NHS, now.