Starmer Poised to Ban Under-16s From Social Media
Sir Keir Starmer is ready to impose a social media ban on under-16s after dropping his opposition to Australia-style restrictions backed by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch. The Telegraph has the story.
The Prime Minister had previously expressed scepticism about copying Australian age restrictions on social media platforms after warnings that a ban could push teenagers on to less-regulated sites.
But he has now dropped his opposition to the proposal and is open to legislation that would force the social media companies to bar under-16s from their platforms.
On Thursday, Sir Keir said: “We need to better protect children from social media. We’re looking at what’s happening in Australia, but all options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place, whether that’s under-16s on social media, all options on the table.”
No 10 also signalled that the Prime Minister would not stand in the way of a Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to be voted on next week, that would bring in an Australian-style ban.
One policy expert close to No 10 said: “This has clearly become a live issue for No 10. If you had a free vote tomorrow 70% of MPs would vote yes. It would be very popular with the public.”
Last weekend Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, said that the Tories would block under-16s from social media if the party wins the next election.
Her calls were backed by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has been tipped to challenge Sir Keir for the Labour leadership.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was “in favour of action” over a potential ban on social media for under-16s. He said social media had been “unleashed without properly understanding the consequences”.
Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, introduced the world-first law last year which banned young people from platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.
If the Tory amendment is passed in the House of Lords next week, it will go to the House of Commons for a vote.
Smartphone Free Childhood, a parenting campaign group, said it had gathered 100,000 letters to MPs urging them to back the ban.
The change in approach is reflected in a series of government appointments of people who support further restrictions on social media.
Worth reading in full.
Of course, a ban on under-16s means age verification for all of us, something which critics have been quick to point out. And do bans like this really work, or are there too many ways around them?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Don Quixote ??
Windmills ?
How long to the U-Turn ?
There will be no u-turn on this because it is all about Digital ID but done by a caring, sharing Liebour government; they are protecting the children you see. Of course the paki rape gangs is another issue but even here the government is thinking predominantly about the safety of future generations of children and clearing out paki rapists now ie deportation wouldn’t be good for future community cohesion would it?
So no need to worry about adult freedoms because children under 16 – after 16, because they will be given the vote they will be sort of adults although not able to buy booze – will be protected from hurty words on twatter.
In other words it’s the adults he’s after because it is Age Verification. Digital ID by the back door.
Marvellous when a plan comes together.
The children who become mature enough to vote overnight when they ar 16.
Even though they can’t be candidates or MPs until 18.
Oh dear, never mind. 😀
Even 18 is too young.
And it’s a Conservative amendment that will enable it
Yes.
Disgraceful.
Social media or puberty blocking and transsexual experimentation on children. Which is the more dangerous? Now we know what this government thinks is the answer.
They’re only thinking of the children.
They think of all of us as children who have to be told what to do.
Like believe in windmills.
I won’t post on this issue because you have already covered what I would have said. Which is that if you want to ban children from social media (or anywhere) you need to have a means of knowing if it is children who are accessing it, by having a way to check their age. But that would mean you obvioulsy then have to check everyones age, and so everyone will need to present ID——The control freak politicians are not so daft. They all come from the “Never let a good crisis go to waste” school of thought and on this issue they use the “safety” and “protection” of children to gett heir own way and a step closer to Digital Identity for us all.
Does this include Ukrainian rent boys?
Banning it is one thing, enforcing it is another completely.
My suspicion here is that it is a move to try and outlaw VPN’s, but again how do you enforce it, how can you prove traffic is being encrypted unless you can detect the encryption and then de-encrypt to find who’s actually using it?
Apart from finding out who has a commercial VPN subscription, but savvy people, including under 16’s will find ways around that!
Our governments love claiming that they can control anything they wish, just by stating it, and I’m not sure emulating the current Australian authoritarian regime is a great look, they seem to be following the model of states like North Korea, total tyranny.
This is technically impossible to enforce. But that’s not a reason why the plan should be considered more acceptable. Starmer would probably love to ‘mullah¹’ the internet altogether if he only could.
¹ Follow the enlightened path of the enviable government of Iran and switch it off.
Brave browser even has TOR built in, there would be no need to pay for Nord or other VPN suppliers.
My neighbours children, despite being under 16 all show up on Facebook as being aged 25, I assume because it already expects you to put in your date of birth when you join and whoever set up their accounts lied.
This simply means that Starmer wants for force mandatory age checks even for sites without adult content. One could argue that this violates the human rights of young people who are even supposed to be restricted from accessing types of content they’re legally supposed to have access to.
Another way to express this would be: Starmer plans to ban 16-year olds from accessing and partaking in online communication of adults about any conceivable topic on the grounds that it’s legal but harmful.
And banning them from “harmful right wing misinformation” right up until they’re allowed to vote…
Digital ID by the back door. That’s ALL.
I’m not convinced that there’s plan behind this beyond other people have done it before, it’s probably popular and doesn’t cost the government any money. I doubt that our cherished leaders have much skill in coming up with intricate schemes.
It’s Digital ID by the back door. When has this government ever done anything honestly, apart from steal our money? And seriously… “protecting children?” If we on here cannot see the blatant gaslighting behind this what chance the dozy public?
I completely agree that protecting children is bullshit. But I don’t think the people behind this are capable of coming up with a secret plan to achieve anything by the backdoor. If they were, they wouldn’t come up with hairbrained ideas like this. I think this is about controlling children’s access to information and maybe also, to establish the notion that a beneficial government is responsible for the mental well-being of children and that it needs superbroad rights to censor what people publish online to accomplish this.
How long before the kids are using unregulated Mastodon or similar servers running in Iran or China or Russia or USA?
Edit: I believe Trump’s Truth Social is a slightly customized Mastodon service.
That’s what it’s all about. They don’t give a flying f*ck about protecting our children; if they did they’d tackle child body mutilation, child brainwashing, child obesity, child fatherlessness, and child grooming/rape – all things they’re actively encouraging in various ways. So it’s just another way to extend their surveillance and control. These creatures – I no longer see them as human – are plain evil.
Bang on.
They would also tackle child access to PORNOGRAPHY.
Oh wait…
And you honestly believe that’s what it’s about? Really?
No, I believe that banning children from watching porn will be of enormous benefit to the children and society, though it will be considered by the Communist Globalists as an unfortunate consequence of their overall surveillance aims, since encouraging porn is one of the Marxist Frankfurt School’s 11-Point Plan to Destroy the West.
Clueless Control Freak
..whilst encouraging a situation (knowingly or unknowingly, debate that) which would actually make the web MORE dangerous for minors.
Have these idiots learned NOTHING from history?
Come on M A k. Nothing to do with children’s safety. As if this government gives a flyin … about children. Digital ID by the back door.
Totally. That’s why I added the “knowingly or unknowingly” bit. Starmer would probably* love a more developed online black market in minors.
* Starmer, if you’re reading this, I am not stating that you ARE a paedophile. It’s a Joke.
Actually I believe that even Keir has realised that Digital ID for use online is never going to work. So now he is just chasing votes from stupid, virtue-signalling parents who want to blame social media for their parenting failures.
“Smartphone Free Childhood, a parenting campaign group…”
Why do these imbeciles need a campaign group? Just don’t give your kids smartphones, and teach them about the world and how to think, FFS!
Oh, of course, the problem is the parents who themselves don’t know how to think and need rules for everything and whinge that “the government isn’t doing enough to protect the kids”.
I have told my kids that they will never get a smartphone from me. If they want one, they will have to do it with their own bank account. In the meantime, they have simple mobile phones. And it may be wishful thinking on my part, but I believe they get it, and respect me for my stance on the matter. Because they see their smartphoned peers becoming automatons (or depressed).
As for internet at home, we make it available on request for a limited time.
Well done to you and your wife for being actual parents, guiding and teaching in a firm but fair manner, rather than desperately trying to be your children’s “friend”.
Exactly. I even tell them that. And that if they should choose me as their friend, so much the better.
They may have hundreds of friends during the course of their lives, but only one Dad.
Maybe depressed automatons? Marvin the paranoid androids for the 21st century.
Monkey see, monkey do…
I actually find social media to be the devil’s work, evil incarnate. With a trustworthy government and in theory, if they did ban or otherwise out law anything to do with social media I’d likely be in favour of it.
But don’t have a good government and we all know this is just another step towards digital ID. “Safeguarding”…
I think Pornography should be Banned Worldwide.
Sex is for procreation, in all species.
It was never meant to be a recreational activity, and human females were never meant to be sexually receptive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the whole of their lives, as in the unnatural modern expectation. You don’t get lions raping tiny lion cubs.
There is eating, as opposed to gluttony.
There is work, as opposed to slavery.
There is procreation, as opposed to perversion, pornography & prostitution.
There is relaxation, as opposed to indolence and sloth.
Etc.
I wonder where you learn your biology from? Not the same place that my old dog did, who when he was alive was so attracted to my leg. Humans, though, are different to nearly every other species on the planet, with sense of mortality and deriving enjoyment from many things, without needing to think only of life preservation. I wouldn’t prefer a nice steak rather than boiled rice if my only concern was preserving my life. I would be interested in your religious sources for this stand point as well, because I don’t think it concurs with Jesus who sympathised with the prostitute nor the early Christian leaders who ran houses of ill-repute as well as convents
“I would be interested in your religious sources for this stand point..” You’ll be in for a long wait…😁
Shame on you for a bold-faced liar! Jesus didn’t “sympathize with the prostitute” (in the New Testament NOT a prostitute, but an ADULTERESS). He just stopped people from killing her, and told her to
“GO, AND SIN NO MORE.”
Where on earth did you read about “early Christian leaders who ran houses of ill-repute as well as convents” ???
Yes, the Devil has always stirred up evil and sin on the earth, including in monasteries and convents, churches, Jewish synagogues, Hindu, Sikh & Buddhist temples, and Muslim mosques,
but no one needs “Religious Sources” for wanting to Ban Pornography.
Otherwise you are implying that atheists and agnostics have no sense of morality at all, which I do not believe.
So, people should only be having sex when they’re wanting to make babies ( because animals 🤔 ) and if they don’t want to be a parent they’re definitely, er..screwed, then? At all other times we must live like nuns, monks and…ahem, incels. 👀 Right, got it.🤡
A tidy world will send most mental, especially the authoritarian enforcement.
And as has been asked many times, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”?
Feel free to ban yourself and your kids from using it. Why do you feel the need to have the power of the state then force that on everyone else? Leave me and my kids alone.
“Trustworthy government” Lol. No such thing, ever, anywhere.
“Conclusions
Suicide-related online experience is a common, but likely underestimated, antecedent to suicide in young people. ”
Online harms? Suicide-related online experience: a UK-wide case series study of young people who die by suicide | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core
Cyberbullying and Adolescent Suicide | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Suicide-related online experience is a common, but likely underestimated, antecedent to suicide in young people. Although its causal role is unclear, it may influence suicidality in this population.
That’s enough BS for me already in the abstract, especially since the observation this is based on is that more than ¾ of the children who killed themselves reportedly had no such experience. Suicide is already an extreme minority phenomenon and this is about a minority of this minority.
Someone who’s serious about child suicide would try to establish what these 544 people had in common when looking for causes or triggers and not focus on something which affected less then ¼ of them (23.5%). If the remaining 76.5% certainly killed themselves for another reason, this absolutely doesn’t suggest causality. Rather, that suicidally disposed people sometimes access suicide-related content online. It’s also unknown how many of the people who didn’t kill themselves did the same.
Interesting opinion. Makes me wonder how you regard this site, where you read others opinions, interact with people you don’t know, some of whom use occasional naughty words or pictures. Does this site qualify as a form of your devil’s work, evil incarnate and if so, why are you here. Like most online, it is what you make of it and how you use it.
I am a grown man with the self confidence and intelligence enough to know that random people online talk a lot of shit and not to doubt myself.
A 12 year old girl with access to “influencers” Instagrams may have different outcomes…
It’s not the job of the government to care for people’s 12 year old daughters unless there’s a real-world emergency requiring this. Especially not when this necessarily implies implementing technical restrictions affecting everyone.
I agree with you which is why I prefaced my comment with “if the government was trustworthy”. In a perfect world I’d agree with everything the government does. That’ll never happen.
That said, I still maintain that social media has been a cancer on humanity. We’re not wired to interact with millions and see everyone’s false lives laid out. I hate it, there is no upside to it. Commenting on articles is one thing, but seeing a constant stream of hate (actual hate, not the lefty definition) is not healthy to man nor beast.
Let’s say a government comes along that YOU deem “trustworthy” and they start banning things that YOU disapprove of, for what YOU deem are the RIGHT reasons. Does that tick your box? OK, so let’s say I don’t agree with YOUR view of what should be banned. What do I do, just suck it up? Let’s swap roles – let’s say the government is one that I approve of and you don’t. Still happy?
Why can’t you just live YOUR life based on what YOU think is right and leave other people alone to do the same?
“Why can’t you just live YOUR life based on what YOU think is right and leave other people alone to do the same?”
The million dollar question for certain individuals on here, who seem very quick to judge and condemn anybody who makes different life decisions to them. Almost like they feel morally superior, want to impose their own values and opinions on others and think that grown-arsed adults making different choices about how they live their lives/view their priorities are ‘doing it wrong’, like it’s somehow any of their damn business.
I’ve never been able to fathom this peculiar behaviour as it’s just something that doesn’t occur to me. I’m a “live and let live”, as opposed to “sticking my oar in to other people’s affairs” type, though.
As for the topic of this article: we just have parental controls, where we can choose how much time ,( or none at all ) kiddo can have for various apps via our phones. There’s different ones available and it’s very easy. No reason for governments to be overreaching and playing ‘parent’ yet again.
Indeed
For what it’s worth I agree that many aspects of “smart” phones and (anti) social media are harmful not just to children but to adults, but as you and Marcus set out, there are ways that we can choose to deal with this that don’t involve governments
Hear, hear!
Does Starmer think he is King Cnut.
I made that joke (or a similar one) the other day and it was removed by the mods.
Almost correct! 😂
Can I have a guess as to where ‘Smartphone Free Childhood’ get their funding from..?
More freedom traded for ‘safety’.
“If you had a free vote tomorrow 70% of MPs would vote yes.” That’s the Labour and Liberal turnips, who’s only motivation is self-preservation. Have we seen any studies of what has happened in Australia since the ban there, rather than just ‘they’ve done it. We can do it too’.
I’ve never heard of “Smartphone Free Childhood’’ but it’s an odds on bet they are a charidee.
We all had one, I guess.
It’s never about what Chairman Sir Two-Tier says it’s about.
So they will be ably to vote immediately they become eligible to use social media. A sudden maturing literally overnight. As with all things thought up by Starmer’s crack policy team it strains credulity.
I can only see a hardware ban working.
i.e. you make it illegal for children under 16 to own or operate a smartphone.
It is illegal to buy alcohol less than 18, with a threat of premises license being withdrawn for premises which flout the law.
Have a buy back scheme for all smartphones currently owned by under 16’s. Buy back scheme limited to 6 months.
…. of cause the minimum voting age should be 18.
Let’s link the voting age with physical and mental maturity. I propose thirty.
“I can only see a hardware ban working.”
In the same way, I suppose, that people stopped being killed by other people shooting bullets at them with guns, because guns were uninvented the moment murder was made illegal.
Right.
In other news, the ban on cigarette sales to minors has resulted in there being absolutely zero minors smoking.
😂
No, no, no. It’s up to the parents.
If ‘It’s up to the parents’ was the only policy, it does leave them isolated, with little influence, especially as so much is government controlled. Questioning what’s pushed out by schools could be considered a form of pornography, or is that OK? It’s the chat rooms, where posts get approvals, or not, that cause so much depression, especially among girls. Boys are more likely to be playing computer games, but that’s another topic.
Aren’t we supposed to have discussions about it? I seen reports of parents in a school getting together to keep smartphones from younger children, but the schools, state schools, would need to comply. At least it wouldn’t be top down enforcement.
I presume, then, that the Labour party will not proceed with any plans to reduce the voting age to 16. After all, how can a child aged fifteen years and 364 days old be trusted to vote the following day but can’t read any messages from political parties that are put out on social media? Cliff face age restriction imposed by Government is totally inappropriate and the only people who should decide what age a child uses the internet or any online content should be parents. A few years ago, I would accept the concept of children running rings around parents with modern technology, but unless parents are having children in their fifties or later, the adults should be technologically savvy.
Most adults are clueless about anything STEM. Just look at the NET Zero momentum!
The problem is that we used to have a private sphere, which was private, and a public sphere, which was kept respectable, and mostly self policed. It was the sphere that children knew. It was why it was respectable. And now, we don’t.
If that was sorted, the Technology would follow.
So who is really behind this?
The good old PTB.
The Bankster families/Soros/neocos – see Australia and Canada.
Need to indoctrinate the kids aka preventing them from thinking for themselves – so they can willingly become cannon fodder in the war with Russia – which has already started but the sheep don’t know it yet.
The only hope is Trump and others who haven’t yet abandoned Christianity.
They used to describe this dribbling, cretinous clown as, ‘forensic’.
Ah so digital ID to show you are old enough. Got it.
This ‘read more’ trick is pretty annoying. Chopping off one of the 6 inch essays that crop up might make sense but hiding as little as half-a-dozen words is senseless – I can decide what to skip quite easily all by myself.
Agree
So is the new ‘View comments’ button.
And having to ‘view replies’. Isn’t much help either.
Agree – at least make it 7-8 lines minimum – most people on here I would guess don’t need protecting from large amounts of text!
Preventing our children from learning about the world transparently simply ensures that our lords and masters can rely on a supply of compliant canon fodder when the idiots in charge decide to fight the next pointless war.
But it’s quite possible to “learn about the world” on the internet WITHOUT ever having your own social media page.
Now, that information needs to be kept in a secure area. 🙂
That’s a relief, the government just want to “protect the children” and I thought it was mostly about rolling out ID cards for us all.
The slippery slope to us all having social media controlled by Nanny.
I suggest that, at the very least, they wait a year or two to see how the Aussie experiment goes.
Brilliant idea. Ban under 16’s from antisocial media and then they can scrap the Online Safety Act as there will be no need for it.
Under 16’s banned from soshal meeja as their poor little minds will be corrupted as they can’t tell truth from mischief.
Yet, in another move, 16-year-olds are old enough to vote.
Which planet to we occupy?
I guess he’s also planning to scrap the “promise” to give 16 yr olds the vote then.
If you can’t be trusted to use social media when you’re 15 years and 364 days old, you really aren’t mature enough to vote one day later.
“On Thursday, Sir Keir said: “We need to better protect children from social media.”
But not from Pakistani Muslim raie gangs, and other Muslim immigrant rapists and molesters.
Got it.
No Social Media for under 16’s but 16 year olds are mature enough and ready to vote?