Discussion

• @douglascarswell Douglas Carswell on x

  The party that gave us the Online Safety law has learned nothing.

• @charleshymas Charles Hymas on x

  Banning social media for under 16s will not work and could put children at greater risk of harm, the father of Molly Russell has said @leicesterliz @Keir_Starmer @KemiBadenoch @mollyroseorg @_andyburrows @NSPCC @5RightsFound @PoliceInspForum @DamianCollins @DannyShawNews

• @kemibadenoch Kemi Badenoch on x

  I'm calling on Keir Starmer to do one of his famous U-turns. Next week, Parliament will vote on whether Britain should get children off social media. Until now Starmer has opposed this, but this is yet another example of him getting things wrong. And he now has the chance to put

• @defossardf Fred de Fossard on x

  The way the Tories' amendment is written appears pretty wide, appearing to apply to all “user-to-user” services regulated by the Online Safety Act. Would this include WhatsApp and iMessage? Do they not see the problem with this? [image]

• @samanthataghoy Samantha Smith on x

  Social media ruins kids' self-esteem, exposes them to online predators, destroys their attention span, and is a cesspit of violent and pornographic material. There is literally no downside to banning children from social media.

• @bambosmp Bambos Charalambous on x

  I have received over 500 emails from concerned constituents calling for a ban on social media for under 16s. I share their concerns and support the call for the minimum age for access to social media to rise to 16. Read the letter below 👇

• @jackguyanderton Jack Anderton on x

  Banning under-16s from social media would shove Britain's young people backwards while the world moves into the future. It's an attack on freedom and parents' right to raise their own kids. Both Labour and the Conservatives back this attack on youth.

• @lauratrottmp Laura Trott MP on x

  Momentum is shifting fast towards a social media ban for u16s. The Government should act. Credit to the Labour MPs calling for action, alongside parents, teachers & health professionals who want change. We can do this. Labour must back our amendment on Wednesday.

• @richardwellings Richard Wellings on x

  A reminder that Britain is effectively a one-party state on the agenda to impose digital IDs, destroy online privacy and undermine freedom of speech. Similar policies are in the pipeline across the West, so this has been ordered from above and they're just the puppets.

• @davidghfrost David Frost on x

  All the worst decisions in this country get taken when Govt and Opposition agree and actual debate is squeezed out...Can't we at least pause and learn from the Australian experience rather than rushing in ourselves to do exactly the same thing?

• @mavenpolitic @mavenpolitic on x

  Age 15 & 364 days: “You aren't mentally mature enough to go on YouTube, twitter or boomerbook” Age 16: “You're mature enough now, so let's also allow you to vote and decide what happens to your country”

• @kemibadenoch Kemi Badenoch on x

  It tells you everything that Labour MPs support Conservative plans to restrict social media for under-16s. The evidence is clear. The harm is real. And yet Keir Starmer still doesn't have the backbone to act. Parents need our support in protecting children from adult spaces.

• @prestonjbyrne Preston Byrne on x

  Very strange seeing myself and the Molly Rose Foundation on the same side of a political question, but they're right: a social media ban doesn't make anyone safer.

• @landeur @landeur on x

  What the British State is doing is very obvious here. They are building problems, deliberately, that require a Digital ID to be the solution. It's called manufacturing consent. Illegal working? If only we had Digital ID. Proving you're 16 for social media? If only we had...

• @sophielouisecc Sophie Corcoran on x

  UK parliament set to debate social media ban this week It's absurd nanny statism. We need parents to be better parents Not more state overreach

• @rupertlowe10 Rupert Lowe MP on x

  I absolutely back a ban on social media for under 16s, IF the parents agree. It's not for the Government to decide, it's for mums and dads. Here's a mad idea. Why don't we let parents parent? THEY know best. A ban is unworkable and total state overreach. AGAIN.

• @mollyroseorg @mollyroseorg on x

  Molly Rose Foundation is one of 42 child protection and online safety organisations, with academics and bereaved families, to say we must do better than a social media ban that risks creating greater harm for children. Read the full statement here: https://mollyrosefoundation.org…

• @alanvibe Alan D Miller on x

  Banning Under 16s from Social Media will infantisle the entire a public. It then forces everyone to Digitall Verify & de facto Digital ID to participate. No! This should be challenged Oppose Children's Wellbeing Schools Bill, stop One Login #notodigitalid #together Get [video]

• @russellquirk Russell Quirk on x

  This is the responsibility of parents. Not the state.

• @astor_charlie Charlie Bentley-Astor on x

  They'll love to ban it because it seems virtuous to ban it but it would be utterly unenforceable.

• @togetherdec @togetherdec on x

  @LauraTrottMP Not even kids safety organisations think banning social media for U16s is a good idea [image]

• @ellymelly Alexandra Marshall on x

  Social media is the ONLY place children hear an opposing view to their far-left woke education. Banning social media has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with keeping kids in the Labor/Greens/socialist bubble. And of course, Kemi - like all modern conservatives -

• @anglofuturist Will on x

  Once again, social media bans do very little to “protect” children and are just a convenient way to mandate ID verification for internet access. If you value liberty and anonymity, you should oppose this.

• @fredthomasuk Fred Thomas MP on x

  We all know the harm social media causes to young people's mental health. The Labour Govt has acted in recent months. Today, 61 Labour MPs have written to the PM urging him to go further. We back an Australia-style model with the onus on tech firms to block under 16s access. [ima…

• @tomhfh Tom Harwood on x

  What if we had ‘child safe’ social media - which is what I enjoyed growing up.  No addictive algorithm, chasing you down rabbit holes.  Just a chronological timeline of people *you* choose to follow.  A compromise for u16s could be this: no algorithmic feed and no third party DMs…

• @richardwellings Richard Wellings on x

  Age verification is being used as a pretext to impose digital IDs and to crack down on online anonymity. They also want to stop children seeing viewpoints that challenge the propaganda they learn at school and from establishment media. So it's yet another assault on our freedom.

• @lukeaaronmoore Luke on x

  This is literally the least controversial policy available to the government at this point, and they should just get it done, post-haste. Seriously, tell me a single argument against it.

• @lukeaaronmoore Luke on x

  There is no argument against banning social media for under 16s. None whatsoever. The fact that it's even a debate is symbolic of the unacceptable power that lobbying groups have in our politics as well as our political class being simply unable to lead from the front.

• @k2mey Dr Katie Twomey on bluesky

  I know I'm late to the party on this but I don't see how it can work, because how do you define what social media is?  Also in the early days of the internet, little undiagnosed autistic me made friends from all over the world and it was a template for the rest of my life [embedd…

• @goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC on bluesky

  The deplatforming of the Molly Russell Foundation, whose raison d'etre is the harms done by social media, but which inconveniently opposes a ban, has been an especially illuminating feature of this ‘debate’.  —  The media is not interested in what experts think.  It just wants vo…

• @katebevan.com Kate Bevan on bluesky

  Let's hope they speak to some actual experts and not shitwits like Jonathan Haidt.  [embedded post]

• @goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC on bluesky

  Very good piece, this, with much of the nuance that has been absent from the debate.  Worth noting in particular, the NSPCC does not support a ban.👇🏻 [embedded post]

• @dorianlynskey Dorian Lynskey on bluesky

  I oppose a U-16 ban but I think a consultation is legitimate and far preferable to the kneejerk demands of Haidt-brained hysterics who want to copy a law Australia introduced literally last month [embedded post]

• @sophiasgaler Sophia Smith Galer on bluesky

  They'll ban teens from social media and realise they forgot to fund what young people always deserved anyway: third spaces, well funded community services, high quality media education...  [embedded post]

• r/LabourUK r on reddit

  More than 60 Labour MPs urge Starmer to back under-16s social media ban

• r/technology r on reddit

  More than 60 Labour MPs urge Starmer to back under-16s social media ban

• @acerbialberto.com Alberto Acerbi on bluesky

  A social media ban is a decision that we should evaluate carefully (and at the moment there is not, as a minimum, a strong empirical support).  Using the murder of a teenager with mental health problems to defend it is inappropriate and ethically wrong. www.theguardian.com/uk-new…

• @parismarx.com Paris Marx on bluesky

  The part about restricting addictive app features is far more important than the ban on youth.  —  To be honest, I find the framing of the teen social ban so odd.  It should have been messaged as just raising the existing age limit by a few years and improving enforcement rather …