[aledevv]

> “Children will be given back their childhoods,”

As a parent, I completely agree. We need to protect children from the dangers of the completely uncontrolled "jungle" of social media. But above all, we need to give children back the right to experience a true, real childhood, made up of true friends, fresh air, friendships, and real relationships!

[budududuroiu]

> As a parent, I completely agree.

What's stopping you from doing this so far? Handing a child a smartphone is a decision parents can make, withholding access to a smartphone is also a decision parents can make.

[hatefulmoron]

I'm not in favor of these social media bans, but I would think the benefit here is that without the ban your child will be in the "real world" while everybody else's is on social media. This would make the "real world" socialization benefits more difficult.

[ThalesX]

I want my child to go out, but first I need to force every other child to go out. Maybe that's why children are not out? Because parents wait for all the other children to go out?

[hatefulmoron]

I mean, we view social networks as having network effects that keep people there. The same force that stops people from switching from Facebook and TikTok prevents people from abandoning social media altogether. Waiting for all the adults to be responsible and forward thinking seems a little far fetched.

[KetoManx64]

So instead you are going to use the force of the state to tell them what they should do instead and then threaten them with violence/fines/jail time if they don't want to?

[scandox]

Enormous, unrelenting social pressure? A crying child telling you that they're completely cut off from their peers and social group? Day after day of arguments and pleading? Schools and scout groups and extra-curriculars that tacitly require your child to have a Facebook or WhatsApp account? And much much more!

[thefz]

I know plenty of people with teen and younger kids who give access to a computer, but it's only at home. When at school or whatever else, there's only a dumbphone. I think this strikes a nice balance.

[tstrimple]

Oh no! You actually have to make decisions and parent instead of relying on the rest of society to conform around your desires!

[anonymars]

Maybe look into game theory a bit

[zombot]

You don't have children, do you? Being a know-it-all in an area you know nothing about. Denying a phone to one child is to isolate them among their peers. Denying it to all makes them equal again.

[budududuroiu]

> Denying a phone to one child is to isolate them among their peers.

This is a worthy tradeoff if you genuinely believe social media to be as damaging for your child as you say it is.

[tokamak-teapot]

It sounds like you're assuming a few things: 1. Where you've written "smartphone", you're using this as a proxy for social media, which is what this legislation purports to target. 2. aledevv is a parent. 3. aledevv has, for whatever reason, not withheld access to social media (I'm taking "smartphone" as a proxy for "social media") for their child. 4. What aledevv said they agree with is state-level restrictions on social media for children.

Please correct me if any of the above is a misunderstanding.

If the above are representative, then what I believe you've overlooked here is a the much more difficult issue:

Parents have power over children, at least up to a point, and many platforms provide help with exercising that power. Apple and Google provide some means to restrict social media access which place control in the hands of parents.

Parents do not, normally, have power over other people's children. Parents can influence in-person social circles, somewhat, but without withdrawing children from all situations where they interact with other children, including school, social media's influence upon a parent's children is still very strong via the indirect route.

When a child goes to school, attends a group activity outside of school, or socialises in real life with friends outside of school, there are always children in the groups they meet who either use social media themselves or have older siblings, friends or parents who use social media themselves and who influence those children themselves.

To be clear, I'm not giving any opinion about what's proposed here by the UK government. I wanted only to object to what looks like an oversimplification that makes a false assumption that parents have a level of control and influence that they really don't.

[bennyp101]

To add a data point, my kids are not allowed on any social media and don't have phones. (They have iPads, but they are locked down and blocked at home anyway)

But that doesn't stop them seeing things on social media - when they are at the park, there are always peers there that have a phone and showing TikTok videos or Facebook reels etc, so even though I, as a parent, have blocked it at home, and chosen to not give them a smart phone, they are still exposed to it outside of that.

(And to be be fair, the same happens to me in a way. I don't have any social media logins, but I still get sent links for Instagram/FB/TikTok from friends, or my wife will show me something she's seen there, so it seems there really isn't much escape from it!)

[budududuroiu]

My conflation of social media and smartphones comes from reports of ICT skills declining in children due to overuse of smartphones and tablets to interact with technology. I used this as a decent proxy for the main means kids will interact with social media.

I understand parents' concerns, though I think the price in terms of civic liberties we pay for these social media bans is too high.

[postexitus]

Same argument goes for cigarette and alcohol. Withholding access to them is a decision a parent can make. Are you for allowing children to purchase them?

[oneeyedpigeon]

I think we should ban cigarettes and alcohol for children, but we should also allow adults to make the decision to consume them rather than preventing them from doing so. We also should not ban unrelated products that happen to be bought from the same store.

BTW, it's worth noting that, in the UK, parents are legally allowed to give their children alcohol, at home, from the age of 5.

[adityamwagh]

They will want a smartphone if their friends have it.

[ozlikethewizard]

And they'll probably want brand new Nike trainers and a mercedes as their first car, when did saying no to your own kids become such an issue? Explain why they can't have a smartphone, dont patronise them, give them a date of when they can have a smartphone, and let them get on with it.

[n4r9]

Maybe they are already doing it. But they're allowed to want the same for others too.

[Aardwolf]

Maybe they can't make real friends if all the others are engulfed in social media

[stuaxo]

This could start if we became less worried about kids being kidnapped or whatever and actually let them out.

Kids have less freedom than ever.

[j-bos]

Sir this the UK you're talking about.

[thefz]

Controversial, but I think that giving to everyone a computer connected to the internet - be it PDA-sized or any other form - was a mistake, and everything happened so fast that no one could control what was going on.

I say it was a mistake because for the generation grown with BBS and 14.4k modems the dangers of an open network were evident and real from the start, even if at the time they were minuscule in comparison to now. Those born with an always on, always connected device already in their hands lacked this awareness from the start.

[znpy]

> “Children will be given back their childhoods,”

On one hand, i agree fully.

On the other hand I'm worried about how controlling and orwellian/totalitarian the UK is becoming under Starmer.

[richsouth]

Because they're all going to go outside and skip and run and jump and skim stones rather than sitting in a darkened room playing Fortnite.

[a13o]

According to one poll, 75% of them will, yes

https://wtop.com/lifestyle/2025/08/what-kids-say-it-would-ta...

[christkv]

Have you not discovered piehole or child controls? My kids stuff is completely locked down it was not hard. I don't need the state to be involved.

[wallaBBB]

Those are far from easy do handle for majority of parents.

Banks keeps sending me warnings about some new ‘Nigerian prince’ level scams. They wouldn’t be doing it if grownups weren’t falling for them.

General population doesn’t want to setup piholes.

[maccard]

You don’t need a pihole. iOS and android both have parental controls that are very simple to use.

[n4r9]

I'd be astonished if 14 and 15 year olds don't know workarounds for iOS and android child controls.

[christkv]

Its harder than you think and no "state" ban will work if the 14-15 year old is smart enough to get around the child locks at the os level either. Next they will ban VPN just wait for it.

[dizzy3gg]

Locked down to what though? Bike rides and tag? I TRY to limit my child to 30 mins a day, but when she’s older there is gonna be peers that I will battling against.

[wallaBBB]

Also my 14yo self was far more skilled at circumventing online guardrails (mostly piracy back then) than my old ass is today. I’m not winning that battle of cat and mouse.

[shevy-java]

And that law ensures this? Really?

Reminds me of the prohibition era.

[anonymars]

Isn't there a drinking age?