this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
510 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

85574 readers
4255 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
510
UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 5 days ago by Tarambor@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
310 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.

Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is "designed to be addictive". A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.

"That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance," the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.

Starmer adds that the government is "not prepared to compromise" on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you use it to access government services it's a thing, but using it to block the underaged from accessing social media it's a very different situation.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you use credit cards to block underage from accessing social media it's also a different situation. Do you have a credit card?

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, but i dont use it to open up an online forum. The problem isn't the identification itself but when and why do i need to be identified. I thought this was clear.

This conversation is becoming silly. If you dont value your privacy online, thats your thing. I would drop internet usage to the minimum if i ever need to identify myself to use trivial shit like gaming or accessing social media.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And I don't use my digital ID to open online forums.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, i edited my comment on the way and didnt thought you would see it so quickly.

But we arent debating the existance of IDs but their implementation for accessing social media. Nobody would argue the usefulness of credit cards identifying who is doing the purchase, or as you said, using it to validate a signature.

The problem is the usage not the IDs themselves

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 3 days ago

The problem is the usage not the IDs themselves

I agree but the general attitude seems to be "digital ID bad!", without ever going into any details. People on lemmy are simply scared of digital IDs without understanding what those do.