[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, did you read it yourself, Richard?

In particular:

Much of the concerns raised so far about the proposals have been about civil liberties and government overreach. But there are other, more prosaic, unintended consequences to consider too.

"Every young person I have spoken to has told me the same thing: they will find a way around it," says Paddy Crump, campaigns director at Flippgen, a youth-led non-profit group that goes into schools to try and help young people build healthier relationships with the online world.

That is certainly what seems to have happened in Australia, where seven out of 10 children aged under 16 who had a social media account before it introduced its ban in December 2025, still have some access, according to a report by the country's e-safety commission.

Crump argues that the measures offer "false hope dressed up as protection" and will simply shift young people's online behaviour elsewhere: including to smaller digital platforms which fly beneath the radar of regulatory scrutiny.
"There are some pretty dangerous places for children and teens that make Instagram look like Disneyland," notes Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

It gives both sides of the argument, both for & against the banning of U16's from social media.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What's this got to do with the link I posted? Did you even read it? It shows a balanced view.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------



I answered your question earlier in the thread, i'll see if I can find it in the morning

Post 2019