Post

Since the government is about to introduce a social media ban for under-16s based largely on vibes – and Jonathan Haidt's shitty book – in the hopes it boosts its popularity (it won't), I'll re-up this. If we're banning under-16s, why not over-60s?

James Ball@jamesrball.com

On almost everything – fraud, polarisation, radicalisation, misinformation – evidence suggests that over 60s are in much more urgent need of online protection and education than teenagers. But that issue gets zero political attention, and is a total non-starter. Nothing good will come of it.

215 reposts790 likes

OI! Can't we at least take some sort of online exam about disinformation before us crinklies are booted off? Q1. Should we believe r/w journalists who rely only on unnamed sources? Q2. Should we believe a news outlet who base their assertions on what a government minister didn't say? And so on.

Alcohol can be a problem for older ppl, but we don't ban it for them because as a society we recognise adults have to take responsibility for themselves. We have a duty to protect kids. Hence why they can't drink, can't drive, can't marry, can't go traveling alone etc

While I don't have any perfect answers myself, it feels like society hasn't caught up to the technology we have available to us. I think we need a shift in our fundamental thinking. For one, we need to be teaching better critical thinking skills in school.

Online safety shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be part of school curriculum and needs to include identifying misinformation. We also need to make it easier for parents to guide their kids, though i don't know how you accomplish that.

And the reason banning over-60's is a non-starter but banning under-16's isn't is because under-16's don't have voting rights to ensure their point of view is taken into consideration. See John Wall's excellent books arguing for their voting rights.

Just ban the over-60s from voting or holding office, then it doesn't matter how easily they're duped by far-right media (including newspapers and the like). Maybe they would still get to vote if they passed some kind of cognitive test? Like spot the AI slop or explain what working class means?

It’s just another example of at a wider level it feeling politically comfortable to punch down on younger people.Great example is the discourse on introducing all sorts of restrictions on younger drivers, which if you truly solely cared about the data would also introduce to drivers above 80 as well

There should be like an 'Online Safety Course' we all have to go through every 5 years or so, to help make us aware of the new threats (AI videos, password safety, meme quotes aren't always real, etc.). On a more serious note though, I do support restricting social media use to the U16 cohort...

These companies have spent billions hacking the human mind (dopamine) etc. Not only can it negatively affect mental health in crucial years, it's (I think) been shown to be bad for memory and cognition. Older people - its their responsibility. Younger people shouldnt have to make that choice yet.

I'm over 60 but have complete sympathy with this. Have just finished a book which describes societal insiders and outsiders - us oldies are largely insiders & get listened to; kids/teenagers are outsiders and largely don't - although it'll be interesting to see impact (if any) of votes at 16.

Its a sticking plaster when what they really need to do is regulate social media properly for everyone. Clear guidance on who has legal responsibility for hate speech and misinformation - it can't be no-one - with real regulatory power to fine and suspend.

Ban the middle aged. They keep having a go at both the old and the young while they have all the political and social power and writing these sort of articles. Curfews and internet bans for 35-65 year olds needed now.

the direction of travel from my dad who had a Private Eye subscription 25 years ago to spending his morning being outraged by everything the Mail Online shoves in front of him is terrifying - you can see how conspiracy stuff is catching

Wonder how long any Government would last if it tried to apply this thinking to the offline world: if they said they were banning a group of people from going out because they couldn't make the streets safe enough for them.

We all know that there’s no magic point when a child becomes an adult based on age. So if there’s any argument that social media is harmful to U16s it’s also implicitly harmful to *at least* some adults.

It's working fine in Australia, in the main, and will roll out across many EU countries. It's the start of push back against the platforms and will save kids lives. I work in this area. It's needed.

Social media bans don’t work- it’s not hard to get round a social media ban especially for young people. We should be educating young people about social media not banning them. The government could just be tougher on social media companies but won’t in case they upset the twat in the White House.

Disagree without social media I would not be getting real news from independent journalists only corporate media propaganda. I’m 72 and maybe before we start worrying about social media we need to put a ban on certain guns amount of ammunition you can purchase etc. What happens if house is on fire?

The government has discovered regulating social media is Hard (it's good at passing Tough Laws and then useless at enforcing them), so it's now going for the much easier job of just restricting the freedom of teenagers.

Life is lived online now. Instead of encountering the Internet and growing up with it with parental supervision, the new plan will just drop them online at 16, and this will mysteriously fix things for them because ????

I’m going to guess you don’t have kids. Your point is otherwise excellent, logical and reasonable and something I would probably say if I didn’t have children coming of age in the social media shitshow we currently have (group chat bullying, nudes, revenge porn, etc etc).

I agree with all the problems you identify for over-60's online, but I would like to point out that the problems you seem focused on are all sociological, whereas I think social media's harms to children are primarily psychological (attention span, self image, behavioral) and matter for development

Like it's straightforwardly obvious at this point that short-form video destroys attention spans, and letting kids in particular center their lives around it is a moral failing on the part of adults because it robs *them* of something. It's not about what their phone does to the rest of us

Not going to dismiss the representations of our educators and SEND specialists as 'vibes'. Like the gambling lobby, there's interests lined up to fight this. Australia will be an interesting test case, will we see less instances of suicide and depression? Will learning outcomes show improvements?

I'm not sure this is your strongest argument tbh. The risks facing teens and the risks facing pensioners online are extremely different, and we give adults plenty of freedom to dumb shit we can't do as kids. (I'm not saying the ban is a good idea, just that this isn't going to convince people.)

I'm not trying to make a strong argument. I've grown so completely contemptuous about this issue that I just don't care to engage with it beyond the level its proponents do. Especially because it just doesn't matter what I say.

Also, doesn't matter how good my arguments are. The legislation will pass, it won't work, there'll be no reflection, and a quick demand to ban something else as well to make the first ban work. Like with age verification and VPNs. I know how this goes, I'm not gonna waste time arguing in good faith.

Why not ban social media all together? Social media is just about the worst thing to have happened to our civilization. It's destructive, it's fake, it's addictive, it's dumbening, it wastes people precious time, it's bad for the environment etc. It's the worst, a ban for up to 16 is a good start.

I'm bookmarking this thread... as I have a meeting with my #NWRUK group next month... where the discussion topic is the ripple effect... and they have bewilderingly chosen to focus on why under 16s should be banned from social media...

They are all over 60... most are barely computer literate... and base their opinions on the terrible things they see on facebook... they cannot see any benefits of social media... or possibility to educate people on using it more wisely... You have expressed my thoughts much better than I would...

What every government should do is make it easy for social media companies to verify that a user behind an account is human without having to share a passport with that company. This is such low hanging fruit stuff. It will happen eventually but it could happen now and solve so many problems.

Much of our division in this world is due to how easy it is to abuse social networks to push propaganda on people. GenAI makes that even easier these days.

For the same reason as under-16s can't vote (allegedly they don't know enough about what's going on) but over-85s can. The average 12 year old is, IME, more switched-on than most 85 year olds, and has a heck of a lot more skin in the game. Are they perfect? Heavens no, but then, who is?

85 on a Wednesday, brain is pudding and only remembers things that happened 36 years ago. But always votes for the same party they did (or their spouse told them to!) for decades, even if it barely resembles what it was or valued. Lunacy!

It's a toss up whether we turn to Stan Cohen (who published his work on moral panics over 50 years ago but it still hasn't aged) or Father Ted (Down with this Sort of Thing!) to best describe the policy.

I work with kids and the damage phones/social media does to their mental health is enormous. Children don’t understand the enormity of putting something online nor how their actions impact others. I see both sides of the argument however I see the consequences of unfettered access to phones.