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
 

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
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

My country had digital ID for 20 years. You're saying they introduced it only to force age verification decades later? Because they want to do age verification using the EU proposed method, not using our digital IDs.

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

Your country clearly doesn’t have the type of digital ID that we’re talking about, does it?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What digital ID are you talking about? I have the type which I can import into my browser and use it to identify myself when accessing web sites.

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

Is it mandated that you use it on every social media site, like Lemmy or Reddit or YouTube?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No. Because digital IDs are not used only for that. So you, like everyone else, are not really against digital ID but against universal identification?

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Universal identification via digital ID is what this is about. You’re trying to split hairs.

These laws are going to require you to verify your identity using a government issued digital id.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not splitting hair. People are demonizing digital ID without understanding what those do. Like for many other things, there are good and bad use cases for digital ID. "Digital ID" is not a synonym for "universal identification". I'm just making sure people understand that.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

That water you’re sitting in is getting warmer isn’t it?

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why does it have to be originally introduced with oppression in mind? Why not realize it provides a nice framework for it and use it instead? US toyed around with the idea of ID verification for anything that connects to internet. It is probably not going so smoothly. This could as well be a smaller experiment. We are talking about a goverment that jails eighty year olds for saying free palestine, not hard to imagine them wanting to do the same in the internet. It is crazy how far rabid zionist lobies can push goverments into oppressing their citizens.

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

Many things can be used for online identification and oppression, for example credit cards or cellphones. Why singe out digital ID? Are you going to fight against credit cards and cellphones as well or just digital ID?

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Neither credit cards nor cellphones can not be used for the particular kind of oppression mentioned in my post definitely not en masse. They definitely can not be as efficient as ID verification for any kind of oppression. So cellphones and credit cards actually add some value to your life while NOT being very efficient oppression tools. ID verification won't add anything to your life while harboring capacity for being a very efficient oppression tool. Bad apps in cellphones can violate alot of aspects of your privacy but still not nearly as efficient as a goverment having direct access to online activity tied to a digital ID. So your examples aren't really relevant.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 3 days ago

You're just scaremongering. You're equaling digital ID (which is a very useful tool) with universal online ID verification. Those are not the same things. You can have digital ID without mass ID verification (like I do) and you can have age and ID checks without digital IDs (like in UK). It's like being against law enforcement because police is used to create police states. Yeah, it's hard to create a police state without police but not every country with police is a police state.