Of course, we should prioritise the safety and security of our children - but not via legislation which uses the vulnerable young as a Trojan horse to further this government's systematic defenestration of adult rights and freedoms,
This egregious Bill should be scrapped and replaced by one specifically designed to protect children, while enabling their mums and dads to be treated as adults - much as this may go against the grain of the arrogant paternalists now running our benighted country.
Lest anyone accuse me of political bias, I should point out that from the antics of His Majesty's Opposition, it is fairly obvious that free speech would be under even greater threat with a twerp who can't even identity what a woman is ensconced in No. 10.
Whilst I can see the point being made here, and empathise with the situation, ultimately, children’s habits are formed by modelling those of adults around them.
If we don’t want our kids to access social media, then we have to model this behaviour ourself and present examples of better uses of time.
Very fair point, yes, although I suppose I'd just add that there are examples of behaviours and activities (smoking, drinking) where we tolerate adult usage but still restrict or outright ban that of kids.
Last I checked, crack cocaine is illegal for all ages. Thus, that is not really a good analogy. Alcohol or tobacco would be better analogies for the headline.
I find the Molly Russell case tragic as it was is being used as an excuse to bring in more draconian legislation to limit freedom. Looking for someone to blame is a natural response to a tragic death particularly suicide but th figures for suicide in the UK are thankfully falling in the same period of the use of social media rising.
Blaming Tech undermines parental rights & responsibilities to control their children’s online activities and to allow freedom and experimentation for young people. Being young is a wonderful thing we should avoid trying to make our children fearful & weak but encouraging strength and resilience.
Agree with that in theory, but there is a mountain of evidence which suggests that in reality parents find it almost impossible to protect their young - Glow Kids and the work of Jonathan Haidt is a good place to start if you're interested.
The ‘ best thing about being a parent is showing our children how to be an adult’ , parenting has become a contentious topic, where for previous generations it was less so. Any amount of psychobabble has been written about parenting but in reality the environment our children have grown in is overwhelmingly cautious, it has created a generation of fearful children and the suicide of one young girl( thankfully a rarity in modern Britain) is being turned into a moral panic about Social Media. We must allow our children to experiment and to experience lots of things but it is parents who decide. Take the phones off kids, stop them endlessly watch Tik Tok , talk to other parents, schools clubs to emphasise balance.
We do our kids a disservice if we blame the media, or tech giants for what our children watch. In my opinion maybe nothing could have stopped this tragedy, that’s something an adult society should accept not add more restrictions to young peoples lives. Children today have never been safer, less challenged, wealthier than today . One tragedy should not shake this fundamental understanding.
“though when peers are all on social media this places parents in an invidious position“. So it’s not easy being a parent but being one is the parents choice. As a parent you should protect your children not expect the state to take over responsibility.
Agree - but it's very hard to do in practice with social media as parents aren't given access. Also, whilst I agree with you generally on the need for less state interference, as a society we do seem to agree there are times when the state has a role to play in protecting, in particular, young people - e.g. surely it's for that reason that cigarettes and booze can't be sold to kids?
I agree. I would much rather live in a society with too much liberty than one with too little, even though both pose their own set of problems. After the debacle of lockdowns and other COVID mandates, I now tend to knee-jerkedly oppose ANY new restrictions until they are proven conclusively to be absolutely necessary.
If they ever do put an age ban on social media, it should not be any higher than 16, and there should be a reasonable grandfather clause too. Because you know once they set it there, there will be people trying to raise it even higher still, because reasons. Especially here in the USA, where we have already ridiculous laws like the 21 drinking age, set a full three years higher than the age of majority.
To be brutally honest, the whole smartphone and social media thing is indeed a distraction from the group's mission. Having said that:
What are your thoughts about this recent hypothetical idea of mine? Declare a state of emergency, on the grounds that Big Tech and their antisocial media is an existential threat to civilization itself. Impose a "quarantine" on them for "just two weeks" (right!) wherein all antisocial media are frozen and archived during that time, so they cannot be used, and everyone is logged out simultaneously and cannot log back in during that time. During that time, We the People can then re-evaluate our often unexamined and unquestioned relationship to Big Tech, and in conjunction with our elected representatives in government, decide what the next steps (if any) will be.
I guarantee you, that would have saved FAR more lives than the Covid lockdowns, as the latter saved statistically zilch in the long run in terms of all-cause deaths.
And a (voluntary) smartphone buyback for all ages would save FAR more lives than a gun buyback as well. Something to think about.
Another idea: Nationalize as public utilities all tech companies larger than a certain size, while banning any ones that are already nationalized (in theory or in practice) by hostile nations (TikTok and the CCP, I'm looking at you!). Just like we should do with the "too big to fail (or jail)" banks.
Of course, we should prioritise the safety and security of our children - but not via legislation which uses the vulnerable young as a Trojan horse to further this government's systematic defenestration of adult rights and freedoms,
This egregious Bill should be scrapped and replaced by one specifically designed to protect children, while enabling their mums and dads to be treated as adults - much as this may go against the grain of the arrogant paternalists now running our benighted country.
Lest anyone accuse me of political bias, I should point out that from the antics of His Majesty's Opposition, it is fairly obvious that free speech would be under even greater threat with a twerp who can't even identity what a woman is ensconced in No. 10.
Agree - the Bill is a monster
Whilst I can see the point being made here, and empathise with the situation, ultimately, children’s habits are formed by modelling those of adults around them.
If we don’t want our kids to access social media, then we have to model this behaviour ourself and present examples of better uses of time.
Very fair point, yes, although I suppose I'd just add that there are examples of behaviours and activities (smoking, drinking) where we tolerate adult usage but still restrict or outright ban that of kids.
THIS. Especially in the USA, where we tend to scapegoat young people for adult problems. Such hypocrisy.
Last I checked, crack cocaine is illegal for all ages. Thus, that is not really a good analogy. Alcohol or tobacco would be better analogies for the headline.
Yes I take that point
I find the Molly Russell case tragic as it was is being used as an excuse to bring in more draconian legislation to limit freedom. Looking for someone to blame is a natural response to a tragic death particularly suicide but th figures for suicide in the UK are thankfully falling in the same period of the use of social media rising.
Blaming Tech undermines parental rights & responsibilities to control their children’s online activities and to allow freedom and experimentation for young people. Being young is a wonderful thing we should avoid trying to make our children fearful & weak but encouraging strength and resilience.
Agree with that in theory, but there is a mountain of evidence which suggests that in reality parents find it almost impossible to protect their young - Glow Kids and the work of Jonathan Haidt is a good place to start if you're interested.
The ‘ best thing about being a parent is showing our children how to be an adult’ , parenting has become a contentious topic, where for previous generations it was less so. Any amount of psychobabble has been written about parenting but in reality the environment our children have grown in is overwhelmingly cautious, it has created a generation of fearful children and the suicide of one young girl( thankfully a rarity in modern Britain) is being turned into a moral panic about Social Media. We must allow our children to experiment and to experience lots of things but it is parents who decide. Take the phones off kids, stop them endlessly watch Tik Tok , talk to other parents, schools clubs to emphasise balance.
We do our kids a disservice if we blame the media, or tech giants for what our children watch. In my opinion maybe nothing could have stopped this tragedy, that’s something an adult society should accept not add more restrictions to young peoples lives. Children today have never been safer, less challenged, wealthier than today . One tragedy should not shake this fundamental understanding.
We need less government interference not more.
“though when peers are all on social media this places parents in an invidious position“. So it’s not easy being a parent but being one is the parents choice. As a parent you should protect your children not expect the state to take over responsibility.
Agree - but it's very hard to do in practice with social media as parents aren't given access. Also, whilst I agree with you generally on the need for less state interference, as a society we do seem to agree there are times when the state has a role to play in protecting, in particular, young people - e.g. surely it's for that reason that cigarettes and booze can't be sold to kids?
I agree. I would much rather live in a society with too much liberty than one with too little, even though both pose their own set of problems. After the debacle of lockdowns and other COVID mandates, I now tend to knee-jerkedly oppose ANY new restrictions until they are proven conclusively to be absolutely necessary.
If they ever do put an age ban on social media, it should not be any higher than 16, and there should be a reasonable grandfather clause too. Because you know once they set it there, there will be people trying to raise it even higher still, because reasons. Especially here in the USA, where we have already ridiculous laws like the 21 drinking age, set a full three years higher than the age of majority.
Thankyou for this thoughtful, balanced piece.
That's a pleasure, glad you enjoyed it.
To be brutally honest, the whole smartphone and social media thing is indeed a distraction from the group's mission. Having said that:
What are your thoughts about this recent hypothetical idea of mine? Declare a state of emergency, on the grounds that Big Tech and their antisocial media is an existential threat to civilization itself. Impose a "quarantine" on them for "just two weeks" (right!) wherein all antisocial media are frozen and archived during that time, so they cannot be used, and everyone is logged out simultaneously and cannot log back in during that time. During that time, We the People can then re-evaluate our often unexamined and unquestioned relationship to Big Tech, and in conjunction with our elected representatives in government, decide what the next steps (if any) will be.
I guarantee you, that would have saved FAR more lives than the Covid lockdowns, as the latter saved statistically zilch in the long run in terms of all-cause deaths.
And a (voluntary) smartphone buyback for all ages would save FAR more lives than a gun buyback as well. Something to think about.
Another idea: Nationalize as public utilities all tech companies larger than a certain size, while banning any ones that are already nationalized (in theory or in practice) by hostile nations (TikTok and the CCP, I'm looking at you!). Just like we should do with the "too big to fail (or jail)" banks.