No thank you. It was hard enough growing up in a Catholic household with a firewall. My career in remote tech is despite the obstacles placed in my way, not because of them.

I would never support similarly gimping children in an increasingly online world. Banning kids from congregating on the internet is a reprehensible idea.

I think the debate is a little more nuanced than this. Any action at scale in this area will deliver both benefits and downsides. What we need to do is look at what action will deliver the greatest net benefit to the most young people. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not a fan of broad brush action in general, but if it delivers that net benefit I’d be supportive.

This is not to invalidate your own experience - it sounds awful - but we can’t make policy decisions at this scale based only on individual experiences.

Personally I dread the impact that social media might have on our daughters as they move on to secondary school.

To reverse that, we can't make policy decisions which negatively impact the basic human rights of individuals.

Except that the reality is that we can and do, and we do it all the time. Here’s an example of an institution that as a matter of both habit and statute does so consistently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Healt.... Note that I’m not suggesting NICE is always right, but they do at least try to make decisions that bring optimal benefits to the largest possible group within the overall population to which they have a duty of care.

Making decisions at scale is always hard, and sometimes outright terrible, because some people always lose out. Nobody likes this or thinks it’s anything other than horrible but, going back to social media, if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make.

Of course, it’s not that simple, and I don’t really know where the net benefit lies, but that’s what we have to figure out.

When I say "we can't", I mean "we can't ethically" or "I do not support a government that".

> if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make.

Not me, and I'd appreciate it if you don't attempt to parent my children for me.

I'm not trying to parent your children for you. Why would you think that? I'm looking out for the welfare of my own.

Are you looking for a perfect solution?

Then firewall your network and lock down their phones. Don't bother me and my own household with overreaching governmental oversight which is ripe for abuse by authoritarian administrations.

Do you understand that governments already abuse the data held by social media companies and that, by removing, limiting, or regulating young peoples' access to social media one of the outcomes would be that social media companies would hold less data that governments could abuse?

Do you also understand that governments and other hostile threat actors already use social media as a propaganda tool to spread misinformation? Do you think it's a good thing that children and teenagers are exposed to this? Do you like that your household is exposed to it?

Do you further realise that social media companies profiting off the back of social and societal problems they cause is also an abuse of power? Is that corporate abuse of power really better than government abuse of power?

I happen to think we can come to a solution that reduces all of these abuses. In fact I think we need to. Whether or not that involves a ban on social media use by under-18s or under-16s or whatever, I've already made clear I'm not sure of, though I can see that it might be a helpful option.

What you're proposing on the other hand is no solution at all: many parents aren't capable of correctly configuring a firewall or securely locking down a phone, even though products exist that make both easier. Some would be able to learn, but some wouldn't. You're simply burying your head in the sand.

Thank you for sharing your arguments, I'll share my take on them one by one.

> Do you understand that governments already abuse the data held by social media companies and that, by removing, limiting, or regulating young peoples' access to social media one of the outcomes would be that social media companies would hold less data that governments could abuse?

Fixing one problem with another problem. Instead, lets actually take user privacy seriously, and instead of following the abstinence method which works so well, we create a world where this kind of data is not collected/saved or abused in the first place.

> Do you also understand that governments and other hostile threat actors already use social media as a propaganda tool to spread misinformation? Do you think it's a good thing that children and teenagers are exposed to this? Do you like that your household is exposed to it?

Believe me, I do. I also believe that kids have a right to gather online. Our children have always faced danger, and have always needed guidance on how to safely navigate this increasingly complex world. By limiting the collected data as mentioned above, we mitigate this problem as well. Instead of attacking the rights of children, we limit the operational rights of corporations so that individual data privacy and security are better respected.

> Is that corporate abuse of power really better than government abuse of power?

No. See above. Your suggestion of instead limiting the rights of minors to congregate online does not in any way solve or mitigate corporate abuse of power, however it does enable governmental abuse of power, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

> Whether or not that involves a ban on social media use by under-18s or under-16s or whatever, I've already made clear I'm not sure of, though I can see that it might be a helpful option.

I am very sure it's not the right move.

> What you're proposing on the other hand is no solution at all: many parents aren't capable of correctly configuring a firewall or securely locking down a phone, even though products exist that make both easier. Some would be able to learn, but some wouldn't. You're simply burying your head in the sand.

This is the strongest argument you've made yet, and you're right; Teaching digital privacy and security will be a multi-generational effort, but ultimately society will be better for it. The alternative is still sticking our heads in the sand, and allowing corporations to continue to, as you have agreed, abuse their power and take advantage of both adults and children who get past the filters.

Furthermore, I have no interest in making criminals out of children who circumvent any such laws, and they will circumvent these laws, and en masse. The law is simply unenforceable at scale, and the effect would be to conditiona an entire generation to normalize criminal action. Is that what we want?

I don't see how such a "ban" could be effective. If you boot all minors from current social media platforms, they'll more than likely just migrate to an alternative solution - an alternative which will be less accountable and more opaque than the current ecosystem.

Possibly, but that alternative would have to fall outside the bounds of the relevant legislation for it to be something they could migrate to.

Young people have always congregated and that, in itself, isn't a bad thing (quite the opposite - they absolutely need to socialise). The issue we have is that current social media is a far too effective vector for bullying, exacerbating mental health issues and, of course, discovery and sharing of abusive material. Those are some of the problems we need to solve for.

As I say, I sense there may be a net benefit to a ban for younger people, but I could be mistaken - for example, there could simply be greater restrictions or regulation of social media use by young people that would make it safer/better - and would welcome evidence that proved me wrong.

I wouldn't say under-18. Start with under-14 or under-15.