Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
You're not saying that this is a bad move, surely?
I think that it would have been better to ban U16 or U18's from social media, but this was rejected by Parliament. By doing this at least younger children will be protected, so it's a fair compromise.
|
"Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.”
But that is all incredibly vague, just what constitutes a robust check? There will be protection from groomers - how? There will be safer feeds - which means what? An end to product testing on children - again, what does that mean, is it even a thing?
It’s not a bad move in itself, it's just a completely ineffective move. It will achieve nothing. It all comes around to the problem of age verification - just how do you prove that an individual is an adult (for arguments sake)? Well you have to turn over all sorts of personal information to some third party (which may or may not have ties to senior government officials) and whose security may well be as leaky as a sieve. I can just imagine the fallout from when (when not if) one of these providers gets hacked and all of their data stolen and the hackers now have the information that say, one Richard.Coulter has a login for ‘Spanking-Nuns-Monthly.com’, or whatever!
You can see the actually problem here?
OK look, I’m sure the vast majority of posters on here, do share your concerns about the impact of social media on children. And there is one excellent way of addressing it - education, ideally by the parents but by schools as well.
Vague legislation, will do nothing, education will.