- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The effort to ban social media for kids in the UK is just part of a larger censorship plan
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:09 am to OU Guy
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:09 am to OU Guy
Public Safety First: Rather than interpreting personal defense as the primary goal, the UK’s laws aim to minimize the overall availability of weapons. By limiting access, authorities seek to prevent accidental shootings, suicides, and easy escalation of domestic or gang violence.
It’s a small leap to insert phones/social media for guns. It’s for your own good, dontcha know?! It’s not about the kids any more than banning guns was to preventing suicides. Raise your own kids!!
It’s a small leap to insert phones/social media for guns. It’s for your own good, dontcha know?! It’s not about the kids any more than banning guns was to preventing suicides. Raise your own kids!!
0
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:14 am to LemmyLives
quote:
So what? There has always been a price to pay for "free" stuff, and everyone has gladly traded privacy, anonymity, and everything else for it.
So no reason to be outraged about censorship of something that is already censored.
quote:
You shouldn't have gotten them phones, or given permission for them to sign up for such sites. You had control, and you gave it away for convenience, to stop the whining, etc.
I’m not whining. I didn’t start the thread. My kids don’t have phones or social media. Take a breath. Everyone is so fixated on maximizing hostility around here.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:18 am to Placekicker
quote:Nah. Rare UK win. No kid should be on social media. Way too high a proven societal cost
The effort to ban social media for kids in the UK is just part of a larger censorship plan
I don’t know how anyone can look around at all the mentally ill youth running around and have issue with this. It’s beyond out of touch with reality. Removing a drinking or smoking age entirely would have less negative impact
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 8:27 am
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:20 am to dgnx6
quote:That's for creating and posting videos, not simply going to the site. The other limits seem to deal with monetization.
but the age limit for most of these is 13.
quote:So we should have more restrictions? Yeah, that's dumb pseudo-logic.
Age limits already exist.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:32 am to funnystuff
quote:
No. Get kids the frick off social media. The only people against this are people who don’t have kids.
Why not let parents get their own kids off social media? Take away their phones or restrict access. Why should everyone have to sign in on Tigerdroppings with a govt approved identification process so parents don't have to do the job of supervising their kids?
Regulation of speech is the goal of every autocracy. This move to make govt the internet gatekeeper is a big step in that direction.
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 8:37 am
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:33 am to UtahCajun
quote:
It has just the right amounts of toxicity to keep me grounded
Lots of food for thought here.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:47 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Lots of food for thought here.
As bad as things can get in life Cubbies, it is never as bad as it is here.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:49 am to Placekicker
Banning social media for kids under 16 is not feasible and is a fool's errand. The idea that anyone would think this was remotely possible is moronic.
They can't even keep kids from looking at porn.
They can't even keep kids from looking at porn.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:52 am to funnystuff
Well stated.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:56 am to funnystuff
quote:
The only people against this are people who don’t have kids.
I have kids, and I am against this. As a former lefty, I understand their end goal.
quote:
Get kids the frick off social media.
Agreed. As a parent I limit my kids social media time. We also talk openly and often about the dangers of social media, from what they read to what they post. I have gone in and made them delete their own posts before.
quote:
We likewise shouldn’t be allowing the most powerful psychological manipulation tools ever created to be unleashed unchecked on them either. We’re functionally running a civilization-wide psychological experiment on every developing brain in the country with no safeguards in place. It needs to stop.
So the solution is to allow progressives to determine who can see what? No thanks. I already know where this is going. It is not going to end like you think it will. The left does NOT have you or your kids best interest in mind at all. This will be a tool to limit speech and freedoms of their enemies.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:59 am to Boss13
"Im against it and I have kids. Its not the government's right to raise children. Any power you give the government will eventually be used against the people."
Paranoid talk. Let's not have speed limits either and let there be no controls on things like cocaine, etc. Cmon.
Paranoid talk. Let's not have speed limits either and let there be no controls on things like cocaine, etc. Cmon.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:59 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Nah. Rare UK win. No kid should be on social media. Way too high a proven societal cost
What's the end result? How do you ensure kids don't access it?
You require everyone to submit an ID. Now, they can track every single post on social media back to a person with even greater ease. And we already know that social media companies track everything you do online, not just on their sites. So, now you are giving the government that access.
Will it stop there? No. Someone will find a workaround. New sites will be created. What is the logical result then? IDs to even log on to the internet and all traffic monitored. Britain is already wanting to read private messages on people's phones.
"Protecting the kids" has frequently been used to trample on the rights of all.
quote:
I don’t know how anyone can look around at all the mentally ill youth running around and have issue with this. It’s beyond out of touch with reality. Removing a drinking or smoking age entirely would have less negative impact
How about we support better parenting?
How about we use media campaigns to promote limited social media use like we did with smoking instead of permanently tracking every post by an adult?
How about we stop subsidizing shitty parents to make kids they won't raise?
Why stop at social media? Shouldn't we require ID for every video and image hosting site if it is really about protecting kids? Shouldn't TD and other message boards require ID? We say things here that are inappropriate for young ears.
You can find bad content in search engines. We better require ID for those as well.
And we have proof that this isn't even about the protection of kids. Reports show that Britain will still allow some sites like bluesky, the most far left social media site inundated with pedos.
The government wants to control what adults read and say online. That is the only objective with these laws. It's not about protecting kids. They are using your good intentions against you.
This is as big of a slippery slope as letting gays get married.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:06 am to UtahCajun
quote:
As bad as things can get in life Cubbies, it is never as bad as it is here.
Fact. Someone needs to put this in a fortune cookie.
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 9:07 am
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:10 am to 4cubbies
yeah this whole thing is lazy parenting/non-parenting problem in the world and wanting the government to come swoop in a make it to where parents don't even have to worry about it because big-brother government will save the day by monitoring this stuff for them
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:11 am to wdhalgren
quote:
Why not let parents get their own kids off social media?
Because a lot are either too busy or dumb to it. That is why. And I don't live in some libertarian fantasyland that every person on the earth is good, educated, disciplined, well intentioned, industrious. Many people suck. This is not directed at you personally of course.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:13 am to funnystuff
quote:
The only people against this are people who don’t have kids.
As parents we should enforce this without the need for government intervention. It’s hard and requires vigilance but as parents it’s our job. Outsourcing our parental responsibilities to government oversight is lazy. Hillary said it takes a village, the government is the enforcement arm of the village— I don’t trust the village and think their powers need to be curbed rather than increased.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:16 am to Eurocat
quote:
"Im against it and I have kids. Its not the government's right to raise children. Any power you give the government will eventually be used against the people."
Correct.
quote:
Paranoid talk. Let's not have speed limits either and let there be no controls on things like cocaine, etc. Cmon.
Of course you support this, since it is a leftist pushing it. You know the end game. This is the part where you purposely lie and then shame anyone who sees through you.
The policies you supported during Covid had my social media accounts taken away. Why? Because your fellow progressives that run your sites classified me with "hate speech" for questioning Covid policies and stating men can't give birth.
After i lost access to those accounts your team then forced me to get a shot i did not want or need
After that, my girlfriend at the time and her family were forced to watch their dad die alone in a hospital, while you clapped because your ilk got to go out and destroy cities at will. They were limited to one short facetime call a day in the name of "safety" until he eventually died alone. Grown man literally crying and asking a nurse if his family could just come hold his hand and they were told no, but if we turned on the TV, your ilk were out rioting.
Yeah, again, I know what your motives are.
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:21 am to SludgeFactory
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:24 am to Placekicker
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Under the pretext of banning under-16s from social media to “protect the children,” Keir Starmer has snuck in some small print that should make Americans really glad that all the tea was dumped into the Boston harbour back in 1773.
Adults will still be “allowed” to use the platforms… once they’ve handed over facial recognition, digital ID, passport, or credit card details to prove they’re not a child.
So it was never really about the kids. It was about making sure every single person who wants to speak online has to first tell the government exactly who they are.
Step 1: Link your real identity to your speech
Step 2: police have a lovely searchable database of every spicy take, meme, or complaint you’ve ever posted
Step 3: bring in the consequences - arrests, travel ban, debunking, for out-of-bounds speech
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:26 am to Placekicker
Of course, it is not what you ask, but also HOW you ask it.
I have a terminal degree where I could make you a survey in 20 minutes where I can pretty much guarantee I can get you the results you want on any topic. It really isn't that hard. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of people can't see through it because our educational system is a joke, you can easily manipulate anything.
This is what they do best.
I have a terminal degree where I could make you a survey in 20 minutes where I can pretty much guarantee I can get you the results you want on any topic. It really isn't that hard. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of people can't see through it because our educational system is a joke, you can easily manipulate anything.
This is what they do best.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News