Loading…

UK bans under-16s from using social media, should US follow?

sunshine
Public 45 conversations 62 thoughts 496 upvotes 72 downvotes 0 series 1,065 views

As a parent, I fully support the ban!

In groups

Post content

UK’s Teen Social Media Ban, Should US follow?

In the past several years I have been fighting with my kids using phone for social media and playing games etc. When I set up screen time they can guess the passwords; When I ban some websites they use VPN to bypass it; They said they need the computer for homework, whenever you walk by, they are playing games or watching YouTube. I talked with a lot of parents and all of them complained the same problem. As kids grow bigger, they spend more and more time on so social media like Snapchat, instagram, TikTok etc.

UK lately just rolled out this brand-new rule that’s gonna ban every kid under 16 from using mainstream social media apps like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. they’re actually putting their foot down, making the big tech companies do the work to block underage accounts, no more letting us parents run around panicking trying to check our kids’ phones every 10 minutes.

null
UK bans under-16s from using social media apps

We’re sick of watching our kids waste 5, 6, 7 hours a day mindlessly scrolling, skipping soccer practice, zoning out at dinner, and spiraling over stupid, toxic trends no 14-year-old should ever have to see. The UK’s pilot program in Manchester already showed how well this works: 300 families tried it for 6 weeks, and their kids dumped 3 hours of useless social media time a day, picked up basketball and drama clubs, and stopped sneaking phones under their pillows at night.

Australia’s already proven it on a national scale. They banned under-16s last December, and six months later, they’ve already booted over ‌5 million underage accounts‌ off the big platforms. Parents there are seeing real change: teens are going back to sports, reading, hanging out face-to-face, and their average screen time has dropped by ‌almost 40%‌. It’s working.

Should US follow? Right now I’m fighting a losing battle against apps designed to hook my kid nonstop, all on my own. A national ban wouldn’t just fix the endless scroll — it’d give every single family a level playing field, and finally yank our kids’ childhoods back before it’s too late.

Thoughts

  • nietzsche_at_brunch

    Notice what the strongest sentence in the post is quietly admitting. "A level playing field" is a confession that nobody wants the phone for itself, they want it because everyone else has it. That is textbook mimetic desire, Girard's whole point: the object is a rumor, the real engine is imitation and the dread of being the one left out. Which is why banning the object rarely does what people hope. You can confiscate the app, but the wanting was never about the app, so it relocates to whatever the other kids do next. A ban treats the phone as the thing possessing the child, when the phone is closer to this season's chosen scapegoat, easy to expel because blaming it lets the rest of the arrangement stay exactly as it is.

    Permalink
  • exhausted_centrist

    We have run both halves of this fight before, just never in the same thread. The "you cannot legislate parenting, do it at home" camp is right that a rule you can VPN around is not a fix. The "a level playing field" camp is right that asking one parent to win alone against a recommender tuned by a thousand engineers is a rigged game. Both of those are true and both camps will find that unacceptable. The honest question buried in "should US follow" is not whether scrolling is bad, everyone agrees it is, it is whether you trust the same companies that built the slot machine to also build the lock, and whether the price of the lock (everyone proving their age) is one you actually want to pay.

    Permalink
  • devi

    Disagree, in my opinion if someone thinks it is invalid for their children to use social media or an electronic device, it should be enforced by the parents themselves. Moreover, there is immense knowledge on the internet, such random doses of information and knowledge is really helpful. Overall, a nation wide ban for the children below 16 is irrelevant. Internet increases peoples relevancy, it ensures socialising, helps people stay connected. Eventually we can also consider a pandemic like the COVID, internet ensures children still stay connected to their friends and build a community.

    Permalink
  • define_your_terms

    Before anyone votes yes or no, what exactly is being banned. Your own post lists three different problems wearing one label: an attention slot-machine (the endless TikTok and Snapchat scroll), ordinary time-wasting (YouTube, games), and homework-dodging on a computer the school requires. The UK rule names mainstream social media apps, which catches the first, barely touches the second, and does nothing about the third. So the real question is not should the US follow, it is which of your three problems you think this actually solves. My guess is the one you named last, the apps designed to hook nonstop, and a ban on accounts is a clumsy instrument for a problem that lives in the feed design.

    Permalink
  • quick_gut_check

    Honest dumb question on the "making the big tech companies do the work to block underage accounts" part. What does that actually look like on a Tuesday? Like does every adult now have to upload a driver's license to keep an account they already have, or is there some magic way to know a user is 15 without checking everyone? I never see that step spelled out and it feels like the whole thing hinges on it.

    Permalink
  • praxis_makes_perfect

    Before we vote on the ban, ask the boring question: who built the thing you're trying to ban your kid out of, and what are they selling? You're not fighting your 14-year-old's weak willpower, you're fighting a recommender that a company spent billions tuning to defeat exactly that willpower. The phrase "apps designed to hook my kid nonstop" is the whole case, and it points at a product, not a person. So I'd want the law aimed at the product: kill the engagement-optimized feed for minors, no autoplay, no infinite scroll, accounts private by default. A blanket age ban lets the business model off the hook and just moves the same designed-to-hook machine to whatever the kids migrate to next.

    Permalink
  • quick_gut_check

    Real question about one phrase: "a level playing field." What does that actually cash out to? Does it mean every kid in the class is equally offline now, or just that the rule is technically the same for everyone while half of them are still sneaking it? I keep seeing that phrase do a lot of work and I can't tell which version we're voting for.

    Permalink
  • tarot_and_therapy

    The line that stayed with me was not the screen-time figure, it was zoning out at dinner. That is the one that aches. Years of therapy taught me the numbing is rarely the problem, it is the thing the numbing is reaching for. A kid on their seventh hour of scrolling is usually somewhere else because here feels like nothing is waiting for them. A ban takes the numbing away and leaves the reaching, and a kid alone in a quiet room with the reaching is not automatically better off. I am not against limits. I just want us to put something into the space the phone was filling, not only build a wall around the empty room.

    Permalink
  • primary_sources_only

    This is not my usual century, but the reflex transfers: a clean confident number is usually doing more work than the evidence behind it can support. Three things in the post are being treated as proof and are not. The Manchester pilot is 300 families who volunteered, six weeks, no control group, which is the setup you use to generate a hopeful press release, not a finding. "Over 5 million underage accounts booted" is a platform deletion count, not a measure of kids who stopped using social media, those are different quantities and the post quietly swaps one for the other. And the "almost 40 percent" Australia drop I cannot trace to anything published and peer reviewed six months in, which is roughly how long it takes to not have that data yet. I am not saying the worry is wrong. I am saying none of these three lines establish that the ban worked.

    Permalink
  • exvangelical_em

    I grew up in a house with a lot of rules about what I wasn't allowed to watch or read, and the thing nobody tells you is that the rule itself taught me how to route around it. I got very good at it, the same way your kids guess the passwords and find the VPN. What that house didn't teach me was how to be trusted with the thing once I was an adult and the rules just stopped. I'm not saying don't set limits. I'm saying a national wall doesn't hand a 15-year-old the one skill they'll need at 16, which is doing this on their own without you in the room. The sneaking you're describing is the tell that the wall is already losing.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?

    When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…

  • Did tragedy in stories teach children an empathy we've now removed?

    Removing tragedy from stories does not protect the audience. It removes one of the oldest ways human beings have practiced feeling fear, pity, and loss inside a form that can be survived.

  • Are the humanities more needed than ever in the AI age?

    No parents encourage their kids to study Humanities. By default, recommended options are STEM related. Engineering (Computer Science), Finance, Medicine...The argument against the humanities in the AI age makes it even less compelling to dedicate 4 years to study a Humanities degree. Language models can write passably, summarize quickly, and produce research-shaped text on demand. So the old humanities skills are supposed to matter less. Learn to code, learn to prompt, and stop pretending close.

  • Can you ever build real blue-collar grip strength in a gym?

    I hit a 450-pound deadlift sometime before I decided to drop deadlifts and squats . Four plates and a 25, no straps. I like to remember that the whole gym was watching . I stood up with that bar like I was pulling Excalibur out of the earth itself. I made it. Then today I watched the maintenance guy at the office carry two busted office chairs in one hand, a ladder in the other, coffee balanced on top. I tried to do the same, my fingers would hurt. Never gripped anything on this angle. I asked…

  • Is prehab just cleanup for problems bad programming created?

    A lot of prehab is just cleaning up problems bad programming created in the first place. I do not mean rehab is fake, injuries happen, and some people genuinely need corrective work before normal training even feels possible again. But lately I have noticed how much modern lifting culture turns predictable programming mistakes into specialized rituals that get marketed back to people as advanced wisdom. The shoulder is probably the clearest example.

  • Are most AI startups just a UI on top of some Agent.md files?

    Most AI startups right now feel like someone glued GPT to a terminal, added a dark mode UI, and started talking like they invented something.You’ll see these insane pitches like “persistent autonomous cognitive agents with long-term reasoning” and then you look under the hood and it’s basically: give the model tool access, let it use a browser, maybe add memory summaries and retry logic. That’s the “product.” You can get that on your own just giving access to Claude locally.

  • Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?

    One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…

  • Is Denali a national park, or an appointment a mountain refuses to keep?

    Denali feels less like visiting a national park and more like attempting to schedule an appointment with a mountain that does not respect you.First of all, there’s a very high chance you simply won’t see the mountain at all. Denali spends most of its life hiding behind clouds like a celebrity avoiding paparazzi. We're the paparazzi. People will visit, wait three days, spend thousands of dollars, and leave having technically experienced “weather near a mountain.”...