Said it before, but to reiterate:
"Ban social media for under 16s"
"internet-free phones for children"
These ideas may have worked 20 years ago, but that horse bolted so long ago, it's galloped around the planet and is now approaching the stable from the opposite direction
/1
Fact is, a vast chunk of the modern childhood experience now involves the internet, being online, and phones. Whether you feel that's good or bad isn't the issue, but trying to remove that, via a heavy-handed top-down approach... that's not going to end well.
/2
How's it going to work? One option, they take phones and apps away from kids under 16 once the new law is on the books, meaning millions of tech-savvy teens suddenly have their social life/interests massively disrupted.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll just accept that without a fuss
/3
Alternatively, it's staggered, so only kids without a smartphone etc. when the law's in place are affected by it. So, they have to watch all their slightly-older peers enjoy something they can't have.
Again, I'm sure they'll accept that with maturity and grace
[cough]
/4
I mean, it's not like we don't have countless existing examples of what happens when you impose age limits on teens. Like, you officially can't drink alcohol or see sexual material if you're under-18, so obviously, no younger teen has ever done those things
[Sarcastic face]
/5
Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing. But anyone who has ever encountered a teen of any age should know that, if you don't want them doing something, telling them "I've decided you can't do that, and you have no say in the matter" is the *worst* possible strategy
/6
Laws which prevent under-16s from accessing smartphones & social media, the most likely outcome isn't "Healthy, compliant teens who go outside more", but "Teens with smartphones and social media, but also experience of, and comfort with, circumventing laws"
Marvellous
/7
A more effective solution for teenage smartphone issues would be for the tech companies to impose more rigorous and robust enforcement of their supposed rules and restrictions.
But making that happen would require governments confronting rich people. Can you imagine!
/8
Ergo, a draconian, restrictive approach to young people seems the easier (and cheaper) option
But even if it looks that way, it won't be. It'd likely backfire, in many ways. Assuming you actually care about kids and aren't just posturing for votes, that would matter
[Another sarcastic face]
/end
1 in 4 UK children living in poverty, nearly 4 million people destitute. No intention or desire to fix any of it, just 'own fault' retoric and a lot of shouting of "ramping up" this and "cracking down" on that, from government and opposition.
Because punishing people will make this all better /s
Miriam Cates also thinks teenagers shouldn't be taught how to have safe sex and she also wants abortions banned, so her extremist ideology is not bothered by any considerations of practicality.
