My 9 year old just learned 3D raytracing in Blender himself from YouTube tutorials. He wants it because he’s hanging out with his friends in VR. But I’m sure reading MSM and that geography homework will be much more useful in his lifetime. I don’t think understanding social media will be important in the future at all. Let’s wind back the clock to the good old days and I’m sure all this annoying new stuff will go away. Great policy work guys. Again! Keep up the good work.

The ban will fail. But the privacy loss will be permanent. Long after UK teens have bypassed it (just as Australian kids did, by the way)... ...the British will be stuck self-doxxing to surveillance gatekeepers to use the internet. Embarrassing legacy for Starmer, who should know better. And a daily reminder to Brits of government overreach.

The degree to which the UK is an authoritarian regime that despises its citizens is so astounding…rivaled only to the degree to which non-online Americans have no idea it’s happening Median voter thinks it’s just “Cheerio mate!” & tea time

The social media ban is the perfect example of idiotic policy being implemented because it is 'popular'. So much wrong with it that's already been well highlighted, but here's my own personal objection. My son is obsessed with classical music. He is a gifted cellist who wants to be a professional musician. He spends hours watching performances on @YouTube - learning so much about the profession he hopes to pursue. To carry on watching these performances and lectures that can be found nowhere else, he will have to break the law. It's utterly mad.

What a boast. IMO "a law’s ineffectiveness should not prevent its introduction" could be Starmer's total legacy. He could add to" ineffective", with unintended (?), counterproductive consequences.

Pretty sure this is all coordinated between key Western states that want to end online anonymity

Instead of banning kids from social media how about we ban politicians from our lives instead.

I hate you

It's not an under-16 social media ban, it's digital IDs with better marketing

Unfortunately, they are doing what the British public wants; that is the problem.

Australia’s own regulator found that 70% of children who had social media accounts before the ban still have those accounts: - Facebook (63.6%) - Instagram (69.1%) - Snapchat (69.4%) - TikTok (69.3%)

Banning social media for teenagers only puts them in greater danger. Teens are forced to switch to VPNs — and unlock far worse illegal content. We’ve seen this before. When the Russian government banned Telegram, 95% of Russian teenagers kept using it. They just moved to VPNs.

Banning under-16s from YouTube mostly means banning them from logging in, which means YouTube will treat them less like kids and more like anonymous adults. Great job, UK.

We are ruled by idiots. Do they not know every 15 year old revises GCSE’s on YouTube? Do they not know that teenagers track their friends are home safely on SnapChat? Do they not realise that - especially in rural areas with no transport - teenagers social lives are on… social media. Do they not know that teenagers will find ways round - as has been shown in Australia. This ban is illogical and damaging. If I hear another parent say “it’s so hard to police them” I’ll scream. It’s a parent’s job. Take responsibility the children you are meant to be bringing up. It is not the government’s job to look after your children. But the government will now insist all adults provide ID to prove we are over 18. 😡

UK is a police state

Bans always, without exception, create illegal markets. Sometimes the positives from a ban may exceed the negatives from a criminal or unregulated marketplace. But mostly they don't. Britain has through the deliberate actions of the state, egged on by media nannies, fuss buckets and worrywarts, helped to created a multi-billion pound criminal market that is destroying our high streets, increasing violent acquisitive crime, raising risks for children and young people, and increasing social tolerance of crime and antisocial behaviour. Yet each new social malaise - today it is kids and social media - results in the same response : a ban. Followed by the inevitable, dangerous and profitable black market. And when it doesn't work the state will extend the ban, introduce new controls and make the criminals even richer and more violent.

This is similar to Sunak’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill during his final months. A PM that knows the clock is ticking, so rushes through poorly thought-out policy to create a “legacy” - all at the expense of individual freedoms.

Beyond just how terrible and authoritarian an idea this is in the first place, this policy will be a complete and utter legal nightmare to try and implement, on a scale of dysfunction never before seen.

Child safety starts with parents, not the state Children do not independently acquire smartphones These devices are bought, configured, and managed by parents or carers No child enters the online world without an adult making that decision first And parents already have tools available to them A parent who wants a child-lock on a phone can switch one on today - for free It is already built into modern devices Screen-time limits, app restrictions, and content filters exist right now and are widely available Despite these basic facts, the appalling Starmer is trying to rush in measures that would almost certainly mean EVERYONE has to provide ID to get online

Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs said: "We must stop judging new legislation by the good intentions of its advocates rather than its likely consequences. We know from Australia that most teenagers will get around the ban and that those who are not able to do so will suffer from social isolation. There are legitimate concerns about screen addiction among both children and adults, but parents are already able to restrict what their children see online and limit the number of hours they can use a smartphone. These guardrails are removed when kids log in via VPNs or sign up to platforms as adults. What the government is trying to do is reminiscent of attempts to ban the printing press. It is similarly impractical, illiberal and ultimately undesirable."