Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce a ban on under-16s using social media within days, with an ‘Australian-plus’ model combining site restrictions, curbs on addictive features and tougher age verification. The children’s commissioner has called for the ban to be extended to all under-18s, while 89% of parents surveyed backed a legal minimum age of access. The Telegraph has the story:
Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to announce a ban on under 16s using social media in the next 10 days.
The Prime Minister has been considering what action to take after a three-month consultation on an Australian-style social ban on children under 16.
There is growing speculation that Sir Keir will opt for a so-called “Australian-plus” model with a ban on a wider range of sites combined with restrictions on “addictive” features and tougher age checks to prevent children circumventing the rules.
Sir Keir is said to be carving out policies to provide him with a “legacy” as he faces the threat of a leadership challenge from Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who is favourite to secure a return to Parliament in the Makerfield by-election in less than two weeks’ time.
However, the children’s commissioner has proposed that any social media ban should be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds
Dame Rachel de Souza has said that any ban must apply “equally to all children” up to 18.
She also urged Sir Keir Starmer to draw up a list of features that tech firms would be forced to ban because they encourage children to stay online, put them at risk of seeing harmful content or enable them to be contacted by strangers.
The Prime Minister is expected to announce the first stage of the crackdown on Monday with tech companies being forced to install software that makes it impossible for children to take or share nude images.
If businesses including Google and Apple fail to comply within three months, Sir Keir will say legislation will be introduced that would mean the companies could face fines, regulations on phone sales to children or criminal sanctions.
Jess Phillips, the Home Office minister who pressed for the curbs and resigned over delays in introducing them, has described it as “game changer” technology that would protect children from online sexual predators and reduce risks by preventing them from sharing nude images.
There is huge popular support for tougher action with the consultation showing 89 per cent of 9,500 parents who responded supported a ban by setting a legal “minimum age of access.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How long before it’s ALL OF US being banned from one thing or another? This is the thin end of the wedge.
Maybe kier and his colleagues could start raising kiddies when the little darlings are given their first phone. We had a 10 pm curfew in Chicago in the 60’s for under 16’s. Kids who had part time jobs had to have a city permit to be out past 10pm if working. No kid had a cell phone in the 60’s. Parents were held accountable if their kid was stopped by police for breaking curfew without a permit. Kid brought to police station, mummy and daddy had to collect them. Parents given a warning, kiddie given a punishment when he/she returned home. That is the way things used to work. Nothing has changed accept parents unwilling to set boundaries for their kiddies. How does kier write laws for all the boundaries parents are meant to set?
On right, so what will kids stare at now if they can no longer use their phones and are banned from TikTok, Facebook, WhatsApp etc. Are they all going to go back to reading real books?
Hmm? A little reality check might be needed here. My 15 year old computer savvy granddaughter will soon find a way around that. probably using VPN.
Banning something is never a good idea and will quickly lead to all sorts of criminality and work arounds. And of course for this to work we will ALL have to prove who we are and how old. So to use social media get ready for the government to vet and approve you first. Now which country am I living in? Soviet Russia, communist China? Oh no it’s worse, it’s Starmer’s all controlling Britain!
So they can vote at 16, because they are “mature” enough, but cant decide about fb, snapchat etc?, simple answer is, dictatorship,start with youngsters, then bring it in more and more, if parents support this, answers simple, dont get them a phone.
Internet providers have parental controls that can be enabled. And they are effective, but it won’t get the government in what they want.
This is the first and only time I’ve agreed with Starmer, and especially this further aspect:
Starmer vows legal ban on children being able to send and receive nude images if tech firms don’t act | Daily Mail Online
I think EVERYONE should be banned from sending or receiving naked images, and ALL PORN SHOULD BE BANNED WORLDWIDE.
Somehow we old folks managed to survive and thrive to adulthood without mobile phones, social media, “choke yourself dares” or sending & receiving naked images and porn on phones or computers.
You can let your underage kid have a mobile, but block the camera completely, to protect them from turning into Little Narcissists and Whores. They should be TALKING FACE TO FACE with their friends & family, not sharing intimate conversations with complete strangers on the internet.
Be careful what you wish for, if you’re a sceptic I would hope that you believe that adults should decide their own course in life.
No, Fenrir, I do NOT believe in helping Satan destroy humanity.
“Voyeurism is the achievement of sexual arousal in an adult by observing people who are naked, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity.”
That’s what VIEWING ALL PORNOGRAPHY IS: VOYEURISM.
It’s sick.
Obviously this has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting children as the years and years of stonewalling over the paki Rape Gangs proves so what’s it about? Quite simply this is just the gateway to further restrictions on Internet access for the general population.
No surprises.
If the children’s commissioner get’s her way 16- and 17-year olds will be able to vote but not look at a picture of a pair of tits, other than Starmer and Miliband.
Why do Google and Apple have to do anything, unless they own the social media sites? It would be like fining a motor car manufacturer because one of their vehicles was used as a getaway car. Surely the social media operators are responsible for who accesses their service, regardless of what device is used?
It’s a choke point, so much easier for the next round of censorship.
Google and Apple also have the luxury, in this case, of being American companies and can raise the time-honoured signal of non-compliance (two fingers rampant) to any efforts put in place by this government.
Most of the youngsters I know of were signed up by their parents anyway (with totally fictional DOB’s on Facebook, for instance), and if we know one thing about young people, it is they know more about how the digital world works than us old farts, so probably know at least three ways to defeat this imposition already, with loads more being built all the time.
So we can expect an increase in budget and staff from the end of 2025 of £300M / 1500!!!!!
That should help his youth vote ….. Oh wait.
Censorship.
And it won’t work. It isn’t working in Australia.
So he is happy for a 16 year old to vote and decide the fate of the country, but then doesn’t want them reading or seeing anything which might inform them as to the appalling state he has made of the country.
Let me see – they believe that at 16 you will have sufficient experience to vote in a general election, but they don’t think you should be exposed to the real world on-line until you are 16.
Oh, and you can’t drive a motor vehicle then either.
I can’t remember anything magical happening to me when I became 16, I was too concerned with O-levels and girls to worry about anything else.
Oh, and I forgot, I was a communist at the time, but I grew up quickly and became in theory a Conservative like my Dad, but in practice never voted until I was in my 30s because none of them was worth getting off my backside and going to the polling booth for.
What a kind man Mr Starmer is! He wants to make sure children are safe from any possible harm. Except rape gangs of course – he won’t do anything about rape gangs.
I doubt so many adults would have been in favour had they been told of the implications involved ie a step closer to digital id and CBDC.
Digital id – a totalitarian dream.
Even the Guardianista may not be so keen if they think say an evil right wing Hitler Fascist party may gain control.
Left wing Hitler party, some historical accuracy, please!
Nationalsozialismus
National Socialism
It breaks the Guardianistas’ brains 😂
Yes indeed, Nazi is/was totally leftwing, despite the revisionistas who pretend the opposite.
If children are to be banned from using smartphones who is going to teach us oldies how to use them?
Finally, a comment that gives me a smile.
This involves scanning every image BEFORE it’s sent. In practice it means scanning every image on your phone. There will be ZERO privacy. This is about giving the authorities backdoor access to your entire phone and dressing it up as child protection. It’s the usual big brother stuff.
Sley news had an in depth article about this legislation last December.
They describe how it will work including
https://slaynews.com/uk-lawmakers-push-mandate-surveillance-tracking-smartphones-child-safety/
Exactly.
“something must be done” by the government is no doubt something he believes in. But if something is done, they might benefit from it by presenting their performance, but with minimal practical effect, if other ways around it are developed.
They strictly must not have access to any information other then our state endorsed education/indoctrination system.
That said the internet is full of axx holes and kids are becoming just like them.
The world is full of assholes. As a not-asshole, you’d best stay at home.
Yes you have just reinforced my point.
I hope the creeping control of the online pub debate will only force the debate back into the pubs and the street, where it was always the most effective at resisting tyranny.
Oh, no, wait… Now the landlord is listening, too…
The Ofcommunists will be delighted, more censorship and adults forced to prove they are adult. Creeping digital ID by stealth.
But what do you have to fear? You must prove your identity in all other walks of life. You haven’t done anything wrong, I presume? Do it for the CHILDREN! Think how SAFE it will all be if we must have our identity checked by scanning a QR code and showing a green tick before entering a pub, or a restaurant, or the cinema, or commenting on X formerly known as Twitter, or posting a video on YouTube.
😉
Bollocks!
…or buying food?
Ban-o-mania: the belief that all social problems can be solved by means of endless and unlimited government bans.
In reality this is all about controlling the people. Children are an utter irrelevance to Kneel and most other politicians for that matter.
This is the state of politics in the UK. Ill-thought-out, idiotic, intrusive legislation, all to satisfy some t**t’s ego-desire to leave a “legacy”.
And to patronise parents who can’t say to their kids, “No. I am not buying you a smartphone, I simply don’t care that all the other kids have one, learn to resist peer pressure,”
or
“No, I have turned off the WiFi for today, mummy and daddy are going to bed now and we suggest that you start doing the same.”
Starmer could expire today ( I live in hope ) and still leave a ‘legacy’ I could list all the facets such as Two Tier Justice, Two tier policing……………. But 89% of people asked an opinion in 10 years time will remember him as the most hated British Prime Minister ever.
Although it might well be “…..the most hated British Prime Minister ever, except for ( fill in any one of probably a dozen names who have been put in post since)
Oh, People….
STOP BEGGING GOVERNMENTS TO KEEP YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN “SAFE”!
Considering that Labour want to lower the age of people who can vote then denying potential voters social media access seems a recipe for (more) Labour self inflicted problems.
I guess progressives who hate losing control become more authoritarian or even tyrannical.
Voting age will be lowered to 2 year olds – the same mentality that votes Green/Lab/LD tard.
What they hope to accomplish by banning social media for u16s is 100% unclear and as usual, inane. Wouldn’t banning porn for all ages be more of a priority?
Why would you want to do that?
No doubt your new digital ID will be part of it.
89% of parents support this apparently. If
true (and it seems plausible) I guess they all closely monitor their kids access already.
I hope this is sarcasm 😆
Indeed. It’s so depressing.
Have you taken a look at the “consultation”? It was ludicrously biased, with all the questions assuming that you already loved the idea of a ban.
The Day Today’s “Do you think the Government should tighten up the law? How tight? Look at this rubber-band… this tight? [twaaaanng]…. or this tight? [twinnnggggg]” was actually an accurate prediction.
I think I did the consultation.
I think a lot of people like being told what to do and want the state to tell everyone else what to do
We are surrounded by closet fascists
It saves the poor dears having to think.
So a lot of citizens want nanny to tell them how to raise their kids?
And it seems they want nanny to run our lives in so many ways, including how to deal with a bad flu season
Robert Mugabe style democracy.
I suspect in reality, most parents couldn’t care less, just the minority who are actually involved with their kids (ie those who don’t subscribe to the Wayne and Waynetta Slob model of child care).
89% “surveyed”. Who, how many, where?
The article says 9,500 were surveyed. Probably the usual suspects for these types of surveys.
What a load of nonsense. Parents are with their kids a few hrs a day. If they have concerns about their kid accessing whatever it is that worries the parent, take the phone away.
Absolutely – that and endeavouring to equip their child to deal with the world as it is.