Because all of us used the Internet before we were 16 and we're fine.
If the government actually cared about kids, they would execute pedophiles and deport migrants. But they don't do that, so ask yourself what an "internet ban for kids" is really about.
My first instinct was to support the UK’s social media ban for under 16s.
Protecting children from grooming, exploitation and harmful content seems like common sense.
But I’m seeing a lot of opposition to it, so I’m genuinely curious as to why?
One thing making me second guess is that platforms like bluesky are exempt, while at the same time there’s a push to let 16 year olds vote. To me that looks less like child protection and more like controlling where young people get their information.
Interested to hear other perspectives.