OV9

There has to be some thought to it, I agree.

It’s my main problem with this. It’s kneejerk policy that is going to be invasive to implement and there’s been no thought about what happens after.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:28 pm As with actual crack, which has also never disappeared with prohibition. It’s always going to be there, I think giving people something better to do is a better plan than just saying you can’t have it and leaving a big it shaped void.

You keep giving these examples of people being able to get hold of illegal things as if they're proof that it doesn't work. I've not knowingly met anyone who's taken crack, so based on probably 30 years of interacting with people I'd say it's largely working.

It's not the same thing as social media which is uncontrolled and causing problems for most of the population.

I don't really understand why you think the same principle applies equally to both.

You’re the one who compared SM to crack.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:41 pm There has to be some thought to it, I agree.

It’s my main problem with this. It’s kneejerk policy that is going to be invasive to implement and there’s been no thought about what happens after.

That was my view as well but after further consideration I don't think it's as bad as that. There is a genuine harm which is being addressed, and this being a stepping stone to wider legislation around these new media isn't much of a leap. And it's not as if they can say that out loud.

I don't think anyone is saying that this policy is going to be perfect and magically solve all problems, but it at least acknowledges that there is a problem that a lot of people are struggling to solve on their own. That has to be a start.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:20 pm It would be better if we spent money on giving the kids support and social engagement off their phones rather than just sending subsequent generations back to the 80s for an arbitrary amount of time.

We've been "educating" people on what's best for them in terms of diet and exercise for donkeys years and look where that's got us.

I would prefer a start that didn’t suddenly make large parts of the internet that we all use inaccessible to teenagers tbh.

I can’t see age gating like this working in the way they want.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:42 pm You’re the one who compared SM to crack.

It was to demonstrate a that offering a free choice to choose something less addictive is probably not all that effective.

That was the purpose of the analogy. But I think you understood that.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:46 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:20 pm It would be better if we spent money on giving the kids support and social engagement off their phones rather than just sending subsequent generations back to the 80s for an arbitrary amount of time.

We've been "educating" people on what's best for them in terms of diet and exercise for donkeys years and look where that's got us.

For years it was also cheaper and easier to get a big mac meal than cook dinner though, I’m all for helping people make good choices. I’d be curious to know whether more people cook now takeaway food has got more expensive.

duncs500 wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:48 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:42 pm You’re the one who compared SM to crack.

It was to demonstrate a that offering a free choice to choose something less addictive is probably not all that effective.

That was the purpose of the analogy. But I think you understood that.

It’s better than offering nothing and punishing folk for stuff they were allowed to do yesterday though, no?

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:51 pm It’s better than offering nothing and punishing folk for stuff they were allowed to do yesterday though, no?

That's how bans work - like when drink driving was banned, or driving without a seatbelt. There's no carrot, just the stick. Yet they worked.

Actually that’s a fair point, it is the pattern with these things.

We should be able to do better here though, with drink driving and seatbelts the solution was offered with the stick (public transport and seatbelts).

There’s no solution here, just something else a kid can’t have because we say so.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:51 pm

duncs500 wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:48 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:42 pm You’re the one who compared SM to crack.

It was to demonstrate a that offering a free choice to choose something less addictive is probably not all that effective.

That was the purpose of the analogy. But I think you understood that.

It’s better than offering nothing and punishing folk for stuff they were allowed to do yesterday though, no?

I'm not against them offering more, I'd absolutely support that (and actually do contribute to that locally). I just don't think it's effective without the control.

I’m not ultimately against better control of the internet, it’s not great that all of our social media (and old media now) is owned by sociopathic tech bros and we should be able to manage the funnel of shit they have pointed at us.

This kind of sweeping legislation isn’t the answer though imo.

That sums it up perfectly Zed…

I know I keep coming back to this, but the fact that Musk was laughing about kid grot being generated and shared on his platforms for days, and refusing to remove it (charging for it isn't the same) and how mindbogglingly easy it was to generate - as well as coming the cunt with politicians who were telling him to shut it down - should have had Grok and Twitter banned in the UK (and other countries) within 72 hours.

Like, literally, how the fuck did governments let tech companies get so brazen about not giving a flying fuck about the social contract?

I think that’s one of the main issues with what they want to do.

How do you tell people that the app you use as your main way to communicate with your voters is so dangerous that kids shouldn’t be able to access it, without looking like a massive wanker?

By removing yourself from it to set an example.

Mind you, that'd require a spine. So yeah, fair point.

MikeHunt wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 10:35 am When England lose tomorrow, that will be Southgate and Starmer out of a job!

I think we can all agree she’s an odd one