The move was due to fears that messaging functions on the platforms allowed strangers to groom children, according to the newspaper. It suggested similar reselling platforms, Depop and Facebook Marketplace, would also be included in the list of banned sites.
I don’t even know what to say to this LOL.
I mean you can block the messages or like set predefined messages only. You can do many things before blocking an entire marketplace. Honestly just sounds like Amazon lobbying
This is so much the wrong approach that i can’t even imagine how fucked up these politicians have to be in their minds to enact such crap.
The people that need to be restricted are the evil guys, not the good guys.
This means that social media platforms have to be held responsible if they do not have effective mechanisms to prevent groomers from harassing minors. (I would cut some leeway for new exploits and such - unforseen problems should not instantly doom a platform, as long as these are fixable)
Isolating your youth from important communication streams will only cause problems the moment that they are of age and completely naive - and this is exactly what this legislation is achieving.
The modern resurgence of fascism is appalling. It’s never fully gone away and now instead of being left in the waste bin of history some brainless fucks are taking it out dusting it off and pretending that it’s always been a good thing actually.
How about banning the government from Xitter instead?
The impact is already creeping up from the constant infantilisation of teenagers and destroying their autonomy based on falsified premises. Expect more and more articles indicating the discriminatory situation teenagers are put in.
The fact people are being reduced to children makes it so much easier to force people to support fascism - discrimination is what is happening.
Clearly this is about controlling the masses.
A 15 year old isn’t a child.
Trans kids are hurt by measures that block them from finding community and help online that are blocked irl for them.
Fully agree. Their excuses are straight up propaganda based on the government themself manipulating the masses.
The fact is, if both points where respected we wouldnt be in the situation we are now. Its quite sad to be seeing autonomous people being forcefully stripped off their rights, identity and everything.
Pointless, as usual, from the clueless idiots of the UK government.
Next: UK Government to ban children interacting with other people in real life
Most child abuse comes from family members, therefore under-16s will be banned from interacting with their parents and relatives.
Wait what? You want to interact with children? Very suspicious!
Most grooming comes from adults so lets ban children online. That this is a real train of thought even and then gets a political majority says ALOT about y’all politicians.
I was actually going to say something about teenagers not needing to be active on sites like eBay. But then I remember my older brother starting his toy collection years ago when he was 13-14 buying toys on eBay,
On a local site as a teen I sold like 20 books or something and lots of unused crap I no longer needed, including phones, PC’s, keyboards … both by mail and face 2 face.
Ignorance is strength
Thats the message the government wants to send; indoctrinating the masses.
This is actually insane. There are so many other platforms that should take priority in “child protection” before Vinted and eBay.
The government announced it would ban under-16s accessing social media in June this year, with children prevented from accessing 10 of the biggest platforms. YouTube will also be banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids - a version of the video-sharing app designed to be safe for children - will not be included in the measures. A complete list of affected platforms has not yet been released, but the government said it would cover those “whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material”. That means platforms that have livestreaming or features that enable the potential for strangers to contact children will also be restricted, which includes gaming sites.
Don’t worry they’re on it. They will ban everything, just in case.
Oh no what if they buy and sell!!?? Poor kids???
contact your local MPs.
Facebook first
There’s already plans to ban social media for under 16s AFAIK
Not sure if that’ll apply to Lemmy or not, but I guess Lemmy servers could just geoblock visitors from regions that enforce this.
They can try, but all it takes for full access to Lemmy (or Mastodon etc) is one instance that isn’t based in the UK and doesn’t care about their laws.
Australia tried and the local instance encouraged people to send in a photo of a beer at a pub or an age indicative review on a movie to prove age, seeing as the law didn’t define what constitutes verification.
Honestly, good. This isn’t a place for children.
And why not? I think teenagers need exposure to the world at large, especially in a very human environment like lemmy is. I’d fully accept a horde of teenagers on Lemmy, because regardless of what they encounter here, i can ensure you that corporate social media is a lot more harmful.
The alternative is letting a horde of digitally absolutely naive 18 y.o. loose over the internet every year. That will go down well.
Tbqh, I’d prefer to have a place where adult conversation can take place without immature people chiming in. If they want to lurk and observe, fine. I, personally, don’t want to converse with children on the internet.
And the beauty of the fediverse is that you can create your own server with a higher age requirement. (But you’ll still get immature people aged 25+ inundating you with inane memes, because humans.)
Sure, but these “immature people” will probably stay in low-stakes communities for memes and such, where a bit of immaturity won’t hurt. But they also will be exposed to new ideas, and without young people engaging with these ideas, even if it might be annoying, these might simply die out.
A 15 year old isn’t a child.
Cool. So Epstein did nothing wrong. Got it!
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.
“Not a child” doesn’t mean “is an adult”. We’re talking about an intermediate stage where they need to be able to gradually take on more responsibility for themselves, but still need extra protection from things like sexual predators because their risk assessment abilities aren’t yet fully developed.
There is a very clear difference between sexual abuse of minors and the ability to communicate. One is bad regardless of how you frame it, the other is dependent on the respective medium and how it is moderated.
Giving a 15 y.o. a platform to discuss stuff with peers, even if there are people out there who might try to groom them, is a good thing. The groomers are the ones that have to be reigned in, not the teens.
I completely agree and think that the proposal in the article really misses the mark.
However, to claim the issue is moot because “15 year olds are not children” (as some have done in this thread) is patently ridiculous. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion exposes its flaws — which was the point of my previous comment.
This isn’t a place for 15 year olds.
This question for you too, why not? This place would be a better experience than any corporate media for teenagers. I ensure you that the vast majority of mods and admins here take a hard stance against grooming, and any evidence of such behavior would lead to instant bans for the culprits.
On Facebook not even AI-generated CSAM causes mods to spring into action without media attention.
But 16 year olds are a-okay?
Did I say that? I don’t believe I did.
Ageist
Shouldn’t you be in class somewhere?
I didn’t say I was 15, just to not be ageist to 15 year olds
