OV9

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 11:08 pm I think what gets lost a lot in this debate is the addictiveness of social media and phone use - there's so much more focus on the nature of the content itself. Both are equally important, especially given that addictiveness can shape their developing brains.

"It's good to be bored"

Interesting to see what developmental impact comes from constant stimulation. Spent half you life as a child of the 80s/90s being bored and waiting for things - TV show to start, game to download, car journey to end, your mates to walk to the park. Not anymore for many.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:58 pm As I said the other day, prohibition doesn’t work

it works pretty well for kids. i don't see too many alcoholic 10 year olds thankfully. i expect the fact they’re banned from having alcohol probably helps that stat.

True but this proposed legislation is supposed to cover everyone up to 18ish.

How many 15 year olds do you think have had a drink?

I was pleased to see it, no doubt it's not going to be completely effective, but at least it's something and acknowledges one of the biggest issues of our time. We took part in a survey, and some of the responses are quite staggering about parents ignorance about the damage it's doing to kids, and a lot of "my kids is alright so I don't support change". Yes, I would have preferred a full smartphone ban, but at least this gives everyone a little bit of an angle to police things.

Ours is only 5, and is only interested in cartoons on the telly right now, so we'll see how we approach it when the time (and pressure) comes but right now we're in the no smartphone until at least 16 camp. All devices are banned from our primary school thankfully so that makes it simpler until 11.

With kids it absolutely has to be a hardline approach IMO. If you ban smartphones from school grounds then they will still innovate and find solutions but it becomes more fringe. If one kid sneaks in a phone and they all crowd round it, yes they can see bad shit, but then they go home and are not bombarded with it. Taking tentative rebellious steps is part of grownling up, having a device that controls and manipulates you 24/7 is something else.

Stupid shit decision so shit parents can keep making shit decisions.

It's very easy to prevent them going on stuff if you provide the phone. We weren't keen for Maxwell to have a phone but he needed one for secondary school and his bus pass annoyingly.
It automatically switches off at 8pm.
Only apps can be downloaded when we give remote permission. Not even games go on unless we give authorisation via a message. Oddly WhatsApp is the only thing we are wary of as it's harder to police but he knows it's not his phone and at any time we are allowed to go through it, we have yet to feel a need to though. If he really wants to do anything nefarious, they will always find a way.
We have had to stop him VR gaming as we could hear swearing from someone but that's only once and he is currently learning Dutch as a gamer his age he has befriended on there he wants to be able to chat to, no bad thing.

He doesn't like it at times as his mates have things he doesn't but it also depends on the child. Maxwell will get fixated with something, go overboard and then fixate on stuff. Connor on the other hand doesn't care, isn't fussed what friends have and if we say no, it's all we need to say he won't push it.

YouTube is fantastic but the rule is it has to be on the main TV, it has to be educational or something he wants to know about. If it's been a hectic day we often sit down to Dan Snows history hit.

This is purely a way to get digital ID and starmers commie ideals out in place. He is a nasty cunt. All forms of tracking I despise, educate more parents and get out of our homes.

Dave!

Frankly Dave, that attitude is exactly the problem. "We don't have an issue therefore nothing should change".

Whether they're shit parents or not, they exist and aren't going to change. It's mostly apathy / incompetence and hence needs the government to try to manage. These parents actions will affect your kids at some point without control.

Anyway, I know you're entrenched so I'll leave it there.

It's a different generation, my eldest is learning 3 languages, doing Tan Soo Do, independent and tough. We are learning his flaws and adapt to how he needs to be parented based on that.

My youngest is hyper focused on what he wants to do, can deal with screen time much better, boredom much better despite this and is a turning into a little star. We parent him different.

If I treated them the same then Connor would be negatively impacted, it's not the governments choice. Maxwell needs to be outside, Connor could spend all day making changes to a steam train so it flys the same as a Catalina in a physics game he likes. Not the same people.

If you think Starmer gives a shit about our kids you are very naive in my opinion.

Dave!

Connor is shit at riding a bike and will hurt himself on the road, therefore I'm banning Maxwell and Your kids from riding bikes too.

You don't see a problem with that ?

Not all kids are the same.

Dave!

I’ve just seen this described metaphorically as banning kids from the beach full of sewage but allowing the sewage to keep flowing onto the beach. Which seems apt. Social media is the problem, not kids.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 5:58 am I’ve just seen this described metaphorically as banning kids from the beach full of sewage but allowing the sewage to keep flowing onto the beach. Which seems apt. Social media is the problem, not kids.

Also, educating and controlling a 12 year old is far easier than them suddenly having lots more access as a 16 year old.

Tons of kids are on Roblox, mine know there is an issue with Paedophiles and grooming on it and understand why we don't allow them access to it.

Dave!

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:23 am True but this proposed legislation is supposed to cover everyone up to 18ish.

How many 15 year olds do you think have had a drink?

Plenty, but not many will be habitually drinking excessive amounts every day. If alcohol was completely legal for all ages, i bet that there would be lots and it would be a huge issue.

Same for social media, if the legal standing is that it’s illegal for under 16s, and it becomes far more difficult to access if you are under 16, then it will naturally stop the majority of kids using it. It’s legal now and there is a massive issue with huge numbers of kids using it excessively every single day.

If parents want to get VPNs or work around a for their kids to carry on using instagram or snapchat, then that’s their decision in the same way they can choose to buy alcohol for their kids.

I can’t see any actual benefits to kids using social media freely, any exposure we’ve tried has ended in us reversing the decision and coming off it. Obviously we need to see the full details and i’m sure there’ll be some elements that i as a parent will choose to “interpret” for my child, but I’m more than happy to have the default, normalised approach being that under 16s can’t use it.

Having massively prohibitive laws that you’re fine with people ignoring doesn’t make sense though.

There are plenty of isolated and bullied kids who find support and understanding in online communities that they lack in their local area.

It seems like it’s an issue that’s better handled by parents than it being a government issue.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:37 am Having massively prohibitive laws that you’re fine with people ignoring doesn’t make sense though.

There are plenty of isolated and bullied kids who find support and understanding in online communities that they lack in their local area.

It seems like it’s an issue that’s better handled by parents than it being a government issue.

100% agree.

Dave!

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:37 am Having massively prohibitive laws that you’re fine with people ignoring doesn’t make sense though.

Well yes! I’m happy for adults to have the choice on what laws they choose to follow.

Going over the speed limit is massively prohibited, but adults are given the freedom to make that decision if they choose to break the law and risk prosecution.

If adults decide to let their kids break laws in the same way, then who am i to get involved. But the default approach is clearly laid out.

There are plenty of laws that kick in/remove after childhood that set an expectation for how kids should be raised. Drinking, driving, smoking, sex, etc… should we just remove all laws for kids?

Fair point on the remote help for some kids, thats one of the first positive points.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:23 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:23 am True but this proposed legislation is supposed to cover everyone up to 18ish.

How many 15 year olds do you think have had a drink?

Plenty, but not many will be habitually drinking excessive amounts every day. If alcohol was completely legal for all ages, i bet that there would be lots and it would be a huge issue.

Same for social media, if the legal standing is that it’s illegal for under 16s, and it becomes far more difficult to access if you are under 16, then it will naturally stop the majority of kids using it. It’s legal now and there is a massive issue with huge numbers of kids using it excessively every single day.

If parents want to get VPNs or work around a for their kids to carry on using instagram or snapchat, then that’s their decision in the same way they can choose to buy alcohol for their kids.

I can’t see any actual benefits to kids using social media freely, any exposure we’ve tried has ended in us reversing the decision and coming off it. Obviously we need to see the full details and i’m sure there’ll be some elements that i as a parent will choose to “interpret” for my child, but I’m more than happy to have the default, normalised approach being that under 16s can’t use it.

Couldn't agree more.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 7:09 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:37 am Having massively prohibitive laws that you’re fine with people ignoring doesn’t make sense though.

Well yes! I’m happy for adults to have the choice on what laws they choose to follow.

Going over the speed limit is massively prohibited, but adults are given the freedom to make that decision if they choose to break the law and risk prosecution.

If adults decide to let their kids break laws in the same way, then who am i to get involved. But the default approach is clearly laid out.

There are plenty of laws that kick in/remove after childhood that set an expectation for how kids should be raised. Drinking, driving, smoking, sex, etc… should we just remove all laws for kids?

Fair point on the remote help for some kids, thats one of the first positive points.

What’s the point of spending a bunch of money and giving another round of our verifiable data to ai age verification companies for rules that you don’t expect people to follow.

Seems like my original point that prohibition doesn’t work was right?

I'm expecting people to follow them, it's a law.

I don't see why prohibition doesn't work on a macro level. Less access to anything has to mean less use. Whether it works well or not is surely only down to how well it is policed, not the concept itself.

My views as someone who doesn’t have kids:

Everyone on here are switched on, hard working people. I think that’s one point we can all agree on- so for me the issue isn’t so much your children, because I’d like to think you all take an active interest in your kids lives, because that’s the type of people you are

The problem you’re going to have is the kids of the lazy bastard, never worked in their whole lives and never intend to crowd. If you head into the estates where there’s a lot of social housing near me you’ll see kids from around age 4/5 walking the streets unaccompanied, usually riding some sort of e-scooter, all with some sort of smartphone. They will continue to have access to social media, not via vpns or some clever IT loophole. They will continue to have access because their parents will set them up an account for them in their own name, and log it in on their phones.

Essentially good parents will still be the bad guys for not allowing their kids a TikTok account, and bad parents will continue to be bad parents- or as we hear all too often in Tesco “shut the fuck up you little cunt, play with your phone and fuck off and leave me alone”

duncs500 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 7:36 am I'm expecting people to follow them, it's a law.

I don't see why prohibition doesn't work on a macro level. Less access to anything has to mean less use. Whether it works well or not is surely only down to how well it is policed, not the concept itself.

Because people pick and choose what they follow, you can do that without the government blanket.

All prohibition does is allow less safe black markets to take over.

We’re not even touching on the fact that social media is melting the brains of the over 60s at least as badly as the kids.

Should they get a social media ban too?

Maybe only allowed on facebook in the afternoon.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 7:42 am

duncs500 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 7:36 am I'm expecting people to follow them, it's a law.

I don't see why prohibition doesn't work on a macro level. Less access to anything has to mean less use. Whether it works well or not is surely only down to how well it is policed, not the concept itself.

Because people pick and choose what they follow, you can do that without the government blanket.

All prohibition does is allow less safe black markets to take over.

Do they? I'd caveat that with "some". A large proportion of the American population own a gun, a massively smaller proportion of our population own a gun. There is legal control and of course an illegal black market for guns in the UK. Which country has less gun crime?