I am all for this, but I likewise see the problems with enforcement without parents or people under the age of 16 yielding privacy information, primarily birthdates, fingerprints etc.
The more you restrict something, the more the people who need those protections will figure out workarounds. It’s the law 3, section 12 of teenager law.
If you want to get rid of the problem, you have to remove the head of the corporate snake, but I don’t see any real signs of the public truly dedicated to that effort.
As much as possible, parents have to do their jobs. When my tweens and young teens had computers I could see every bit of history on their computers and phones, and we regularly discussed concerns. They were, according to them, the last people on the planet to get phones with internet access.
Quote, “YOU ARE THE MEANEST MOTHER ON THE PLANET.”
I have the crown for that designation proudly displayed in the glass case in the foyer, and two safe, mature, well-adjusted young adult children to show for it…
Bit of a bugger when an under sixteen year old child can access a potentially harmful site, and a seventy five year old bloke can’t even access a relatively mild porn site…
Oops!
Well, kinda. The choices seems to be that you prove your age, which will make anonymity somewhat difficult. Or, you sign up to a VPN service which may include a fee.
It’s a Wild West free-for-all here. An accidental missed keystroke can put you in a world that would make a stripper blush. I found that out one day when I found my mother in front of her PC laughing hysterically having mistyped a search for Dick’s Sporting Goods. I’ll save you from her other remarks .
I don’t find that easy after hearing an opinion on the news saing they thought it wasn’t a necessariy positive thing, although not hering any other opinions thus far.
I’ve 2 children under 10 and I can’t quite decide if its a good or bad thing to restricy although I can see the the bad sides to it. My good pak says I’m restricting my kuds by not letting them watch tv or play certain games ike xbox etc.
I need nore research. is technology such a bad thing or just the next new things on a long line of histrolical changes, I don’t know. My father was born in 1945 and as a grafter who always worked could not quite understand a PC whereas I was knowledgeable with them.
It’s a Wild West free-for-all here. An accidental missed keystroke can put you in a world that would make a stripper blush. I found that out one day when I found my mother laughing hysterically at her PC after mis-typing a search for US sporting goods store with a tricky name.
The stats on how under 16s access news reporting (if they ever do) is astonishing. Zero read newspapers. A tiny percentage read online news from recognised sources. The rest get it all from social media. That in itself is bad. I think the only country to teach children how to recognise fake news is Finalnd - which means pretty much all children accept fake news as readily as genuine information. This is beyond depressing and worrying.
Seems that many countries are waking up to the risks from social media https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-europe-countries-move-curb-childrens-social-media-access-2025-12-09/
I very rarely read the news at all, and my reaction would be the same if I was watching a movie. Nothing really affects me or my life so what’s the point?
I’d much rather go out for a bike ride, walk/jog, or do something constructive.
Or actually interfacing with the people around me.
I like visiting the forum though, because the more mature person is more sensible and broad minded…In most cases…but not all…
I’m no expert but as far as news stories go, I’d have thought social media healthier than MSM. I know these sites/apps can spread conspiracy theories, but isn’t it a good thing that youngster are made aware and on the lookout? Isn’t an open mind better than swallowing the point of view churned out by the Press Association?
I like watching Netflix with Mrs d00d; she likes a bit of soap, rom com. We enjoy the interaction: guessing what’s coming up next, being first to know who done it.
Absolutely, every time d00d.
Once upon a time you could rely on the news, but not since somebody realised they could control the masses with it…
Even if some of the atrocities did happen, what can we do, or want to do about it.
Virtue signalling and arguing with people on a forum is the best you can expect…
Let’s consider that notion. What you call MSM is of course a mix of press, television and online news reporting. These are all groups of professional and trained journalists and reporters. With the back up of analysts and specialists. The spend every day gathering, analysing, assessing, verifying, background checking and cross checking news stories. Certainly they can be lazy and miss details. Certainly they can be biased and present one angle more than another. However, the press (and here I include TV news) is the fourth estate that holds power to account, that identifies falsehoods, that digs into links, connections and actions some might want to keep out of sight.
And then there are bunch of keyboard warriors on social media pumping out anything that might gain them clicks and revenue. No checks.
I wonder which is a healthier source of info and insights on the world. Hard to decide, isn’t it?
I am a tremendous supporter of the fourth estate, but there are no required credentials for journalists, and no ethical oaths for which there are consequences for bad journalism. When news organizations were smaller and independently owned, there was a greater effort to offer unbiased news, but now, wise readers believe “journalists” are more inclined to be propagandists.
There is certainly a problem with the belief that “We are all journalists now,” but one of the benefits of the internet is that people are quick to point out potential flaws and outright deception, allowing the public to research stories on their own. I wholly agree that one of the most significant problem is that clicks = revenue to the poster.
When you put it like that, yes, it is hard to decide. And the answer is, in a word, both. Whilst the Journos are sitting around their Paddington HQ with Whitehall officials deciding on what the UK official line will be, the keyboard warriors are providing us with an alternative story. Not a bad thing surely? Let’s keep an open mind on this.
.