[DrScientist]

The question isn't whether there are harms - the questions is whether the approach - a ban based on age, and therefore some sort of ID, has a hidden agenda.

After all many of those harms you listed don't suddenly stop at 16.

Many campaigners see this approach as letting the tech companies off the hook - by removing children from the platforms is removes a key leverage point to get the tech companies to cleanup their act generally.

Obviously it's quite possible the not-so-hidden agenda is simply a political one of 'being seen to do something'.

I see that youtube is on the blanket banned list - which is a bit surprising given they are probably one of the more responsible platforms and it also contains lots of educational stuff.

[mytailorisrich]

There is also the possibility that this is not a well thought-out announcement (which they say will take effect by spring so things can change) by a PM with perhaps only a few weeks left in the job...

[DrScientist]

Of course.

One very odd thing about the ban is that discord is ignored ( both a cesspool and almost every adolescent male who plays online games is on it ), yet youtube is banned.

Youtube has to be one of the most policed platforms out there, and also has a lot of really good educational content.

Such choices can both be incompetance and a desire to force everyone ( as banning via ID means everyone has to ID to watch ) to ID to watch youtube......