Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to ban social media for under-16s and will make further announcements within the next week. The Government has also unveiled plans to extend the age restrictions to 17 year-olds or even 18 year-olds. This process began in January after 61 Labour MPs called on the Prime Minister to impose a ban on social media for under-16s and a rebellion threatened in the Lords. Members of the party claim that successive governments have ‘failed’ to protect young children on social media platforms and have persuaded Starmer to take urgent action. This comes amid concerns from families who have lost their teenage children to suicide linked to social media, who’ve formed an effective lobby group.
As a 17 year-old social media user, this feels absurd and insulting. I have benefited from social media, and while I may have paid the price in terms of social exclusion because of my Right-wing political views, an outright ban would be a hindrance to me rather than a help. I have grown up with social media, and my life has been heavily influenced by it. In addition, approximately 95-99% of teenagers in the UK use social media, meaning millions of teenage lives have been shaped by it. The Government wants to snatch this away.
There are many positives to social media. As an avid reader of the news, I rely on social media to keep me updated and informed about what’s happening around the world. As newspaper readership dwindles, with 80% of teenagers using online platforms or social media as their primary source of news, these platforms are an essential resource, particularly as the Government wants to lower the voting age to 16. Yes, people must be careful about what they read, as some of it will be propaganda shaped by certain algorithms – but even the main newspapers have their own social media-friendly platforms now, which are more accessible and reliable for teenagers my age.
Moreover, social media is a platform to voice political opinions and directly contact local MPs and public figures. Sites such as X are excellent for debating high-profile people, and it‘s easier for these figures to see your posts than it is via email. I have greatly benefited from this when publishing articles and tagging prominent individuals. Many have responded, which has helped me gain attention from people well placed in the journalism world. Only recently I wrote a review of Comedy Unleashed and after posting about it, the comedians – including Andrew Doyle – got in touch, inviting me to be a guest at their next gig in Leeds.
Social media is also the primary means of keeping in touch with peers and friends, especially those who do not live nearby. Emailing and letters are outdated now, and without social media there would be few other ways to contact people. I have family who have moved across the Atlantic, and these platforms are the main way of staying in touch. Can you imagine what would happen if teenagers lost contact with their friends and family? It would be deeply damaging.
Admittedly, I’ve paid a price for using social media. Since I began posting my articles publicly, it has inevitably led to peers and teachers reading them – and this has caused complications. As a conservative writer, I’ve experienced some pushback from my Left-leaning classmates. For example, I posted about the tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk last year, saying he didn’t deserve to be killed for his political opinions, and criticised those on the Left for celebrating his death. I had people insisting I take the post down, and some were utterly aghast. I instantly had a label on my back as a Nazi or fascist.
People have also managed to access articles I’ve published on personal social media accounts. At my secondary school, peers spread negative comments about me and mock me for what I write. I’ve also had teachers telling me not to write about certain topics and to take my articles down.
But enduring these labels and this backlash is just part of the cost we pay for being on social media – and it’s outweighed by the benefits. I would rather have access to social media and face these consequences than see it banned altogether. Starmer has held recent meetings with campaigners and bereaved families and has vowed to act, claiming clear action must be a “game changer”. But the Government will be making a mistake by trying to ban people my age from platforms like Instagram and SnapChat. We’re big boys, Prime Minister. We can navigate the perils of the online world without your help.
Jack Watson is a 17 year-old schoolboy studying for his A-levels. Read his Substack about being a Hull supporter here.
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.
Whenever somebody cries “We must protect the children!”, especially from the left-wing parties which are notoriously hostile to children, a strong smell of “rat” emerges. Whatever Starmer really wants to accomplish (we can only guess at that), he certainly doesn’t care for other people’s children. Not to mention that “internet” has been widely available for more than 20 years and apparently, didn’t need any special “children protection measures” before this “ban under 16s from social media” idea started to circulate earlier this year.
That’s because children haven’t been sending naked pictures of themselves until recently. No one could have imagined this 20 years ago.
It’s like social media has become a Paedo Paradise.
There is no empirical evidence of “harm” from social media or on-line content to under 16 year olds as a group, or anybody.
It an assumed problem by people who have nothing better to do and like intruding into the lives of others.
It is also another excuse to justify increasing State control of the Internet… and of course us.
PORN IS HARM. It actually causes ADDICTION and twists the mind.
Sending & viewing naked photos is HARM.
Satan wants the whole of humanity to be obsessed with SEX and the NAKED HUMAN FORM, to lure them away from Almighty God.
I don’t think you should be debating the point on merits… Whether social media is the greatest thing on earth or the worst, I am fundamentally opposed to the government intervening in what should be an individual or parental choice. I personally think it is crap and it shouldn’t be used by anyone.
I’m afraid you’re wrong Jack. Putting aside the states lies as to why they’re introducing this (sweet FA to do with protecting children), I can guarantee that your life would be better by every single meaningful metric if social media never existed. With all due respect, and you’re a bright, well-balanced young man, you’ve never experienced a world where this form of communication never existed. Many of us have, and I doubt there’s very many people that have lived in both worlds that would choose the world we live in now. The mistake people make is to conflate technical progress with human/societal progress, and to mistake convenience for something that is inherently good. Life was significantly better without the insidious ‘progress’ of the smartphone. This technology, which includes social media, has built a series of invisible prisons around our life and relationships, and introduced virtual realities and virtual personalities – many people choosing to prefer their virtual life and disconnecting from everything and everyone that really matters. That’s not to mention that these things we gleefully carry around are the tools of state oppression.
I’d go back to the 80s or 90s in a heartbeat. No, life wasn’t as easy.… Read more »
Excellent post.
Life was a lot better in the 80s and 90s in terms of people interacting in the real world, forming proper friendships, really getting to know people rather than the persona someone projects online etc.
In terms how much easier it is to find information, reach as many people as possible with your views etc I’d say that life is a lot better with the internet, including social media.
When considering the positives and negatives I’m not sure if overall the internet and social media has made life better or worse. One things for sure, there’s no going back to pre-social media days.
Agreed, Matt.
It’s not what you do it’s the way that you do it, and that’s what gets results!
I fancy that Jack still knocks on doors and picks up the phone. But he also uses social media (whatever that actually means) to improve his life, in the balance.
I manage to make the wonderful harmony of inventions that is the modern motorcar improve my life, too.
Doesn’t change the fact that (in my honest opinion) most people use it at the wrong time, in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong manner. Still, it’s their lives, and I wouldn’t dream of trying to force them to do otherwise. I might (and do) ask them a few questions, if our paths cross and I think I might like them.
Likewise, Jack, you are making the tech work for you. You and I, we’re living life on our terms. And if there is even the slightest justice in the world, you have much, much further to go. Don’t rest on your laurels, tho 💪
And don’t stop writing awkward truths. It’s a hard path, but it’s the high road, and the high road is best, because it has a lot less traffic. And some cracking views.
Crack on, Cracker Jack.
Cheers 🥂
Yet the claim 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. How does that work, Starmer?
Vote, yes! But they must not talk to each other, because someone might say something nasty or hurtful or dangerous. Remember, being offensive is an offence, and we MUST protect the children from these offenders who are everywhere. Really the children should stay at home inside a lead box, with a cable that feeds in videos of Starmer telling them how to vote. Much safer.
Not to worry. The NEU will ensure the kids are taught how to vote.
Because Trump and Farage have been particularly successful at using social media to engage with young people who are not easy to reach by politicians via other media.
Reform UK has been far better at this than the other Parties and been able to gather significant support among young people.
It would be a terrible shame if Labour having given the vote to 16 year olds in order to Gerrymander, they voted instead for Reform UK because it was far better at communicating with them via social media.
Brilliantly. If we assume this international project (making rounds in the complete angloshpre plus associated satellite states like the FRG) is about children at all, it means they can vote but must not partake in online conversations with other young people outside of their local area or – heaven forbid – government-unvetted adults. They’ll be strictly fed a diet of climate fear, anti-whitism, anti-rationalism and the necessity of achieving social justice by selective unfair treatment, that is, mistreatment of member of groups lefties dislike and favourable treatment for those they do like.
After all. democracy just isn’t fun anymore if voters keep voting for the wrong things. Eg, parties whose MPs fly national flags from their offices, something which has just been prohibited in Germany.
“But the Government will be making a mistake by trying to ban people my age from platforms like Instagram and SnapChat.”
Sadly I do not believe you could characterise this as a “mistake”. It’s part of an agenda to control the narrative. Socialists hate freedom of speech.
I took that to mean that it will backfire and negate their intended outcome.
Possibly, and let us hope that is the case.
Well, they lower the voting age to 16 and ban social media for …. under 16s.
We can safely say that introducing the ban for under 16s rather than under 18s is no mistake. Which they could have done if their alleged reasons were to be believed. Unless, of course, it is government policy that the sending pornographic pictures by 16 and 17 year olds is perfectly ok.
But not to worry if all this is somewhat incoherent. There are enough useful idiots out there willing to take the government’s motives at face value or overlook the long term tyranny they’re ushering in because they really, really, really don’t like social media.
Really, in the end it’s quite easy to divide and conquer the masses.
Indeed. I think social media is harming a lot of people but I believe in allowing people to go to hell their own way.
Does that include children? Allowing children to go to hell in their own way, when their brains are not even fully formed until they are 25 years old, according to some research?
The default should be that parents, not the state, are responsible for their children. I think there are established cases where the state can step in – severe neglect or abuse – but I don’t think allowing your kids to use social media falls into that category.
I’ve no issue with anyone advocating that kids (and people in general) should use social media less, but that should be done with persuasion and not state enforced bans.
Totally agree
It’s not clear to me that social media is a net harm and not a not benefit. The author thinks it’s a net benefit.
I think it’s fair to say that at this point in time it remains a matter of opinion.
In any case, you don’t think the government intervention whether we’ll intentioned or not (it isn’t, but let’s say it is), does more harm than good?
British Patriot Jack Watson wrote,
“Social media is also the primary means of keeping in touch with peers and friends, especially those who do not live nearby. Emailing and letters are outdated now, and without social media there would be few other ways to contact people. I have family who have moved across the Atlantic, and these platforms are the main way of staying in touch. Can you imagine what would happen if teenagers lost contact with their friends and family? It would be deeply damaging.”
“Outdated”??? There is also the old-fashioned invention called The Telephone, which nowadays is cheap and easy even for international calls.
I hope the excellent young British Patriot agrees that people of any age should NOT be sending or receiving naked photos or other pornographic material, because THAT is the main concern of the proposed ban: to protect children and teenagers from Evil Sexual Predators, and to protect them from A Lifelong Addiction to Voyeurism.
They know who most of these evil predators are, they sit amongst some of them in HoP, HoL, councils, police and judiciary. Yet they do nothing. When one of these gets caught they are immediately let off.
As for ‘any age’, anyone of age is free to send whatever photos and other material they wish to by email or social media. It’s none of your business or anyone else’s what pictures they send of themselves. MP’s do it all the time
It is VOYEURISM, added to EXHIBITIONISM, which quickly becomes an ADDICTION TO PORN, and I have every right to express my opinion on any topic.
It’s called “Freedom of Speech and Thought”.
Furthermore, a ban would help PROTECT THE WONDROUS INNOCENCE OF CHILDHOOD, a precious quality all too often robbed from children, which is a heinous atrocity.
Remember what Jesus said about those who harm children:
that a millstone should be tied around their necks, and they should be thrown into the sea.
I was talking about adults, if they have any fetishes that’s their business, you are free to say whatever you want, just as others of age are free to engage in what ever floats their boat. It is for adults to take charge of their children educate them and place safeguards on them.
If adults are scared they cannot contact their kids, give them an old style dumb phone, which does nothing apart from txt and calls. Adults give them these toys to keep them occupied, enslaving their own offspring, instead of spending time with them, playing with them and doing things together like visiting places..
Hear hear
Freedom of speech and thought for you but not others.
Well said.
It really isn’t. The purpose of the ban is two-fold:
1) Surveillance. Introduce mandatory digital identification checks.
2) Indoctrination. Minimise children from being exposed to views that run contrary to the state narrative.
It’s nothing to do with protecting children – the mass rape of our young girls, and the subsequent state coverup, is all you need to know.
Nevertheless, IT WILL PROTECT CHILDREN, and that is vastly more important than adult perverts drooling over child porn.
Children will still be FREE TO READ NEWS WEBSITES SUCH AS THIS ONE, and to read the comments for alternative points of view.
But they won’t be able to set up their own Little Narcissist Social Media Website or view or send naked photos of themselves. What’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong with that? You’re only looking at it from one narrow perspective. What the state wants is to own your children – their thoughts and their behaviour. You might stop the odd pedo and some silly pubescent behaviour, but you’ve just handed over the steering wheel to a state that is hellbent on the indoctrination of children into a Marxist ideology that will remove the ability for them to speak or think freely, and will likely result in a state of being that is barely human. That’s the price your children will pay for being ‘safe’. Be careful what you wish for.
Absolute cobblers! No child NEEDS to have their own social media page to tell the world what they had for breakfast.
And no child NEEDS to send and receive naked photos to schoolmates or strangers or “Uncle Ernie” !!!