House of Lords votes to ban social media for Brits under 16

UK government is edging closer to following Australia in blocking under-16s from social media accounts after the House of Lords voted in favor of a ban. On Wednesday evening, the Lords voted 261 to 150 in favor of amending the children's wellbeing and schools bill to require social media services to introduce age checks to …

[LogicGate]

This ban will obviously work as intended and keep the youngsters off the net.

[A Non e-mouse]

Just look at how effective the bans on pr0n, cigarettes & alcohol are.

[Paul Herber]

Doesn't really affect the 5 to 10 year old age group.

[Jedit]

Who aren't affected by this bill anyway. They're already not allowed to have social media accounts and will continue to be so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you never been to an inner city housing estate?

[Paul Herber]

Ban the cigarettes, but leave them access to the ice-cream and figurines of the Virgin Mary!

[tiggity]

@Paul Herber

Upvote for the KC reference

[Guido Esperanto]

Yeah, there was some headline a few weeks after the porn ban which said something like

"UK traffic to porn sites down 80% since ban"

But failed to mention

"Traffic from Sweden has increased by 80%"

"Vpn traffic has increased by 80%"

- There is a gent (Ian Russell) spearheading an approach (his daughter Molly Russell died after being influenced by tiktoks) , which is not to ban under 16's because it gives the tech companies a Get out of Jail free card. It stops them having to make fundamental (and costly) changes to stop this stuff being peddled.

Banning under 16's they'll simply revert and say "no under 16's use our site...go away"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a classic case of governments thinking they can dictate reality!

While social media certainly is toxic and a case can be made for keeping kids off it, it's only really the parents who can do this. Legislating to ban it will be pointless as the kids will rapidly find workarounds (e.g. VPNs), and it will descend into a debate over 'what counts as social media', with the kids being three steps ahead of the legislators.

What this government (and previous ones for several decades) don't seem to realise is that by legislating for everything they can think of, creating laws which cannot be meaningfully enforced, and bringing in specific laws (to be seen to be "doing something") for very specific things which can already be dealt with under existing laws but aren't, they are just constantly reducing the respect for law among the general public, whose response is now often along the lines of 'just another pointless law which they can't / won't enforce and which can be ignored'.

[Anonymous Coward]

only the parents

Another report this morning claimed that a substantial minority of children arrive at school not toilet trained, and/or not knowing what "books" are for.

I'm not sure you can expect much from that sort of parent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: only the parents

Sure, there are some very bad parents, but it remains the case that only parents can meaningfully restrict social media use - the kids will just work their way around government 'bans'.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: only the parents

the kids will just work their way around government 'bans'.

This is good. Then kids can show us oldies how to do this. Especially when..

The civil liberties-focused Open Rights Group also argued against a ban, saying it would require widespread use of age-verification across the internet.

The ORG sounds suprised at yet another bit of creeping compulsion. First prime the pump with age-verification for pron, then expand it to age-verification for anti-social media, and then because everyone will be socially conditioned to accept it, dust off the Digital IDiot plans again. Then if you call Starmer a muppet, he'll know and a fine can be automatically issued.

Cynical oldies might just wonder how it is kids get mobile phones when they can't sign contracts for them. And they shouldn't be able to buy stuff off mobile app stores. So perhaps the problem is closer to home and a solution might just be to have locked down kidphones that don't have or allow abuse-friendly apps like Snapchat. Parents can give their kids a good'ol Nokia 3110 with less fear of breakage. Both for the phone, and the kid not walking under a bus while distracted by their iPhones.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: only the parents

Remember; the more damaged and dysfunctional your child, the more the diagnoses and the higher the benefits. We're financially incentivising child abuse as surely as if we paid disability benefits for broken limbs.

[ilovesaabaeros]

Re: only the parents

I was absolutely astonished earlier this week at the level of guidance some parents offer. I was standing at the ticket machine in a multi-storey car park waiting for it to complete "Authorising Transaction", a process that took several minutes for some reason. Anyway, as I stood there, a young boy of about 7 came up the stairs with his parents and stopped to piss in the corner, about 3 feet from me and it started running downhill towards my feet. When the mother asked why he had stopped, the father said "He's just taking a leak".

I almost said something, but the chances of being stabbed stopped me. There definitely should be a licence to breed.

[rg287]

They’d be better off banning politicians and public sector bodies from being on social media.

Of course you couldn’t stop people having a private account under a pseudonym, but since MPs couldn’t openly spend time sparring or trolling (predominantly on Xitter), this would significantly improve political discourse, as well as reducing foreign influence in domestic affairs (since you’d have to set up an in-person influence operation instead of bombarding them with local-looking Russian bots, which is much more expensive and harder to pull off).

[TheMaskedMan]

"I think this is a classic case of governments thinking they can dictate reality!"

Business as usual, there, then.

It's a foolish, unworkable idea that will simply teach the younglings (those that don't already know) how to circumvent such things. A good few of those might then take an interest in circumventing other things, and become a new wave of hackers.

Besides which, what about things like YouTube? It's definitely social, yet amongst the dross there are an awful lot of useful tutorials and educational videos. Are we to stop little Johnny looking up how to do something useful? If not, where do we draw the line?

As ideas go it's total cobblers. Wouldn't it be nice if, just for once, we could find and elect a government that wasn't made up of professional politicians with no clue about anything else?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the olden days

The House of Lords was a bunch of out-of-touch inherited people with a long-term view, doing things like declaring there shouldn't be anything illegal about being gay or that slavery was not supported by English law. It's repeatedly knocked back surveillance proposals. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far more reliable supporter of sense than the vote-hungry politicians.

In the modern era, of course, the Commons has pushed ever more political appointees, mates of MPs, Party members, etc into the chamber. All in the name of jealousy politics. It's become another cesspit of people who won the popularity contest and are guaranteed to have a strong political allegiance to Party politics.

The result is we've just destroyed what was a fantastic bit of governmental oversight.

[Paul Herber]

Re: In the olden days

The Snapchat Influencers Party disagrees with you.

[Dr. G. Freeman]

Wouldn't it just be easier to ban Under-16s ?

[Paul Herber]

Pesky kids won't allow you to get away with that!

[Evil Auditor]

Not only easier but it would also solve a whole lot of other problems over the next 50ish years. And then, finally, those bloody isles can be repopulated with reasonable people and there will be no one left to complain about immigration.

Or did I misunderstand your comment?

[steelpillow]

Would certainly be as effective

[Catkin]

A sort of reverse Logan's Run?

[Long John Silver]

Thinking of the adults

When this legislation is enacted, perhaps attention could turn from 'think of the children' to 'think of adults'.

Nowadays, a larger element of youth than hitherto run wild.

[steelpillow]

Re: Thinking of the adults

It's that bloody increase in life expectancy holding them back. Euthanase all the useless dotards when they reach pensionable age*, that'll stop them interfering with the happening generation. You know, you could implant something in their hands that times out and gives them away even if they make a run for it.

[Snowy]

Re: Thinking of the adults

Do you run or face the Carousel...

[TheMaskedMan]

Re: Thinking of the adults

Even if they ran, would they ever find sanctuary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Thinking of the adults

From Reform to RENEW!

[Zack Mollusc]

Re: Thinking of the adults

Why bother implanting something in their hands that gives them away even if they make a run for it, when they already have such a device permanently in their hands ? Just install it as an app.

[Woodnag]

"The civil liberties-focused Open Rights Group also argued against a ban, saying it would require widespread use of age-verification across the internet."

This is the whole point. Goverments don't give a monkey's left testicle about kids, screen time adiction, resultant lack of face to face socialisation skills etc.

Goverments do care about accurately de-anonomising every social media account.

Which is what this will do.

[Jean Le PHARMACIEN]

why not...

Just ban the social media entities?

Seems they are a magnet of criminality e.g. theft of personal data, bullying, scams, time-wasting, inappropriate influencers

We would be able to play Snake or Quake in peace (pieces?)

[Sir Sham Cad]

Re: We would be able to play Snake or Quake in peace

I know you were using the Joke icon but, seriously, that sounds great to this old git!

[Apocalypso - a cheery end to the world]

An analogy is swimming

Swimming can be dangerous, which is why we teach children to swim safely.

Once they can swim they may go to dangerous places, such as rivers with strong currents or quarries with deep water. We put up warning signs - i.e. ban them - but also educate as to why the ban is there.

They may also try and swim in rivers polluted with sewage - we don't ban them from this, instead we prosecute those responsible for the pollution.

Social media is very much the latter: it's currently polluted with electronic sewage and legislation should be aimed at forcing the providers to clean it up.

Banning children from using social media seems a bit close to victim blaming.

[hoola]

Re: An analogy is swimming

The big difference is that it is proving impossible to bring the Social Media platforms to account.

They are outside the UK.

They have very deep pockets so any legal action is simply a delaying tactic that is lost in the noise of their operations.

Until there are effective ways to actually prosecute the platforms, the directors & enforce meaningful sanctions nothing is going to change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: An analogy is swimming

"The big difference is that it is proving impossible to bring the Social Media platforms to account."

It actually sounds quite similar to stopping water companies from pumping untreated shit into the rivers and lakes - much huffing and puffing from the government, but it still continues to happen.

[andy gibson]

Re: An analogy is swimming

"but also educate as to why the ban is there."

The warning signs at my local quarries and beach do explain why - mud, deep cold water under the surface and cold water shock etc.

It's just ignored

[Rich 11]

Re: An analogy is swimming

instead we prosecute those responsible for the pollution.

Theoretically.

[Will Godfrey]

Not a good idea

Banning kids from doing things is an excellent way of teaching them how to hide, obfuscate and lie effectively.

[Pussifer]

Re: Not a good idea

Perfect training for them to go into government later then?

[fitzpat]

What is the definition of Social Media that is currently being worked to?

For example: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/digital-services-tax/dst14200

"The social media definition focuses on two key aspects of user participation. An online service will meet the definition when both of the following conditions are met:

The main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the service is to promote interaction between users (including interaction between users and user-generated content).

Making content generated by users available to other users is a significant feature of the service"

Read it broadly and it covers SMS, MMS, RCP, as well as your usual Whatsapps, Instacrack, TikSlop.

[doublelayer]

Re: What is the definition of Social Media that is currently being worked to?

And, to anyone who thinks this might be reasonable, these forums would clearly fall under those rules too.

[DrewPH]

Re: What is the definition of Social Media that is currently being worked to?

Well that gives Meta et al an easy get out, since we know the sole purpose of their networks is to slurp personal information and sell it to advertisers.

All they have to do is come clean about that and they're off the hook.

[Big_Boomer]

Make the Parents responsible for controlling access to anti-Social Media?

I nearly swallowed my pen when I read that in one of the comments. Are these the same parents who have no idea how their phone/tablet/PC works and have to get their 10 year old to fix it for them, and yes THAT is the majority amongst non-Techie parents? And that is for parents who actually care about their kids (which to be fair is most of them), but there are plenty of parents who just don't give a crap and see the inevitable results of their bareback shagging as an inconvenience and a resource drain, so they are never going to spend any time with their kids, let alone educate them or read to them, and they all expect the school system to do their job for them.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Make the Parents responsible for controlling access to anti-Social Media?

Not knowing how the technology works is not an excuse for not being in control of your kids. If, growing up, I spent too much time hacking on my ZX Spectrum, my parents would make sure I stopped, went outside, visited friends etc.

And they were clueless about technology.

I do agree with your second point though - too many people choose to shove a tablet / phone in front of their kids to shut them up. Yes, they expect the school to do everything, then shout at the school when little Johnie gets into trouble for being feral. Please don't let these types get away with "well I don't understand the technology" as an excuse for their crap parenting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Make the Parents responsible for controlling access to anti-Social Media?

No doubt that is all true in the case of some parents, but it still doesn't alter the fact that the parents are the only ones who can really control kids' internet use. The fact that some of them don't or won't doesn't make it possible for governments to do so.

[Anonymous Coward]

introduce age checks to block under-16s from access within a year

introduce age check verification on all adults to check access ....

No more anonymous access to social media.

FTFY

[JimmyPage]

Are they serious ?

Quick litmus test, Does this wordfest have any penalties for adults who assist a minor in the circumvention of a regulatory check ?

No.

It's a bunch of crap.

(Weirdly I didn't even need to check) ....

[ptribble]

I sometimes wonder if it would be better to turn it around - banning adults from Social Media might be a better way of protecting children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better still, ban social media. All online posts must be moderated by government shills before going live. (Hi, Mr. Xi, how's tricks?)

[steviebuk]

money talks

Instead of actually sanctioning the social media companies, they just let them get away with it cause they lobby and/or you have the cunt known as Elon who has more money than sense and just threatens everyone now with his money.

[nobody who matters]

It appears to me to be just more of the usual politicians attitude - they repeatedly tackle issues from totally the wrong direction; treating the symptom instead of tackling the actual problem.

This isn't going to work, and will only serve to make everybody's life more difficult.

[neoaliphant]

Parental control software

Parental control software is expensive, or complicated, or useless

Why not put money in to software and hand out for free......

[Michael Hoffmann]

The snark is of course powerful in this thread, but the thing is that Australia just mostly is done with its first school break under the ban - and to everybody's shock and surprise, including or especially parents - both the left and right media are gobsmacked to report that it seems to actually work.

Because who expects legal bans to actually ever work, amirite?

Parents reporting more time with their kids, said kids socialising with peers in person as if making up for lost time.

I don't have kids so not sure what to make of that. If this were just the usual media pundits I'd shout "bullshit!", but apparently it ain't.

[MarkTriumphant]

That does not square with comments I have seen elsewhere saying that VPN use has gone up, and kids are faking their age. Do you have a source for your information?

[Michael Hoffmann]

It was this one that stuck out for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2025/dec/10/parents-react-to-australias-under-16s-social-media-ban-interactive

There was a more recent one from only a week or two ago, which seems to be no longer on their site - which does make me wonder if they had to retract it, in which case I too retract my "it's working" statement. Too early to tell!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the problem

No-one here seems to be against kids spending less time online, or socialising more.

The problem is the idea that this needs to be implemented by heavy-handed legislation that involves creating vast potential for abuse, trains everyone to hand over important personal details when asked, etc.

If the platforms are such a social ill, ban the damn things. If you want to let parents control these things at a lower level, mandate that ISPs should be able to filter accounts. Want government involvement? Have them work with manufacturers to develop router-level parental controls.

[Serif]

Better idea

Instead of banning under 16s from social media, how about banning the over 60s from reading their tabloid comics? I'm pretty sure that's caused more societal damage so far.

[Anonymous Coward]

Compulsory adult age checks anyone?

This really won't keep kids safe and will create a range of unintended consequences.

It'll make ADULT age ID checks compulsory for all users to use services.

It will also open the floodgates to mass identity theft! They really haven't thought this through at all.

If the UK isn't bad enough, in Ireland the Social Democrats there are suggesting that Ireland consider nationalising online platforms (I'm amazed El Reg haven't picked up on that story), or as a compromise, the state controlling the algorithms of tech platforms to ensure "social cohesion"!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Compulsory adult age checks anyone?

"It will also open the floodgates to mass identity theft! They really haven't thought this through at all."

Probably more a case that they don't care, and identity theft is regarded as an acceptable side-effect (well, until it happens to some MPs - but they will then blame it on whichever company suffers the leak).

[Anonymous Coward]

But they want them to vote at 16

The current omnishambles of a UK government want to do this, while simultaneously wanting to reduce the voting age to 16! Make it make sense?

This really won't keep kids safe and will create a range of unintended consequences.

It'll make ADULT age ID checks compulsory for all users to use services.

It will also open the floodgates to mass identity theft! They really haven't thought this through at all.

If the UK isn't bad enough, in Ireland the Social Democrats there are suggesting that Ireland consider nationalising online platforms (I'm amazed El Reg haven't picked up on that story), or as a compromise, the state controlling the algorithms of tech platforms to ensure "social cohesion"!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Winkypop]

Ban kids from social media until 16

Good start.

Now ban kids from religion until 18. Don’t let them near that utter shite and its followers.

[Diogenes]

Great success here in OZ

Our e-Karen crows that 4.7 million SM accounts held by u16s on the 10 platforms on the naughty list have been closed, so massive success - job done woohoo !

Meanwhile downloads for other SM apps which are not on the naughty list are rocketing, as have downloads of VPNs. There have been reports that under 16s have fooled the age face checking AI by drawing on moustaches (girls included!), or used photos of their grandparents. One of our friend's granddaughter's used a V for Vendetta mask to fool the AI

I will touch base with my teacher ex-collegues when school goes back next week to see if it has actually had any real life effect.

[Jamie Jones]

Too good to be true

I agreed with this in principle, until I read that the government were going to force everyone to go through the "porn-id" checks.

What's wrong with simply telling the parents to control their children, and make it their responsibility, whilst also making sure the social media companies don't do things to entice or encourage kids, and that they ban any they discover?

Because, of course, silly me, this has eff all to do with protecting kids and more to do with extending the idea of compulsory online verification checks for the masses.

As an aside, there are some websites I use where they know I'm an adult, because I've used a credit card, for instance. There are also sites I don't use anonymously, and don't mind them knowing my details (The Register doesn't ask for much, but I wouldn't mind them having more details about me if needed) And of course, google has my mobile number, and shopping sites have my home address.

These are all things I decide to give, on a site by site basis.

This is complete antithesis to what amounts to an online ID card, and just as I will always refuse to respond to "papers please" when just going about my ordinary business, I will never get one of these either.

[Diogenes]

Worked well in OZ

Our e-karen crows that 4.7million accounts were cancelled on the 10 social media sites that were on the naughty list.

It has been reported in our media that kids have taken 1 or more of 4 approaches; using VPNS, downloading different SM apps that are not on the naughty list,some have got around the ban by changing their birthyear to show they are 17, drawing on moustaches, wearing masks, or just using photos to fool the AI facial recognition, or, they have created new accounts that show they are 17 (facial recog has difficulty distinguishing between 15yos and 17yos).

Next week when school goes back I will check in with my teacher ex-collegues, as the ban came in during the first week of our summer (long) holidays to see what has actually happened

[frankyunderwood123]

“Are you over 16?”

[ ] yes

[ ] no

fixed it!

[_wojtek]

nuke

social media (in the current form) should be nuked... there is nothing "social" about them anymore.

I remember Facebook almost 20 years ago and it was kinda fun, but there were only people and you actually connected with them an noone gave a flying duck about _followers_...

[andy gibson]

Re: nuke

It all depends where you're hanging out on social media.

I limit mine to sensible (and probably regarded as boring) interest groups with grown-up, like minded individuals. There's no arguing, no hate, unlike the local area tittle-tattle groups. And there it's usually politics or religion that cause the arguments.

[_wojtek]

Re: nuke

Well, i hang out on ancient forum and it's great. the problem is that FB et al. mąkę it almost impossible to interact in such groups as they are pushing constantly automatic algorithmic suggestions...

[Badgerfruit]

A genuine question

... and one i don't seem to be able to find any answer for, can anyone actually measure how much harm has reduced from the Australian ban?

Did the user of VPN go up?

How is this actually playing out in the real world?

Blindly following another country's attempt to do something without waiting to see the results is surely a terrible idea.

I had higher hopes for labour than the conservatives but I, like many im sure, are losing what little faith we have in government day by day.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ban everything

And bacon!

[ATrickett]

Ban advertising

While I think commercial social media is toxic irrespective of your age, and I think it's right that society should do something to protect people, this isn't it.

I'd propose that people declare their age (without any verification) and if under 18 there is a total ban on all forms of advertising, data mining or use of the data by the companies - that way the social media companies wouldn't be so keen anymore.

For everyone 18 or older there are strict limits of advertising, and any advert reported to be illegal carries a prompt and hefty fine on the social media company.

While I think parents should take more responsibility, many don't and won't. Government bans like this don't work as we know, so we need to tackle the problem from the other side - these companies are making a fortune from knowingly selling illegal advertising and get more views from various forms of shock and horror than calm and dull. Take their revenue stream away from them, and they will change their behaviour - they only want to make money they don't care if people die in the process as long as they can squirm out of any responsibility in court.

[Julz]

Just

That:

“ I'd propose that people declare their age (without any verification) and if under 18 there is a total ban on all forms of advertising, data mining or use of the data by the companies - that way the social media companies wouldn't be so keen anymore.”

Then everyone can just say they are 16 and enjoy an ad free data protected service. Sound like a solution :)

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Digital ID

Just give it time, HMG will roll-up the issuance of the National Insurance Number at age 16 as a defacto ID document by adding a photograph and biometrics.

They will sell it to the 16 year olds as an enabler for social media accounts.

Not to forget that the current incumbents would like to lower the voting age to 16.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most of the act it is good objectives used as a false flag for dystopian rules.

The digital consent for data collection should be 18, and 16 for social media seems sound.

However it should be enabled by having children's mobile packages, and management apps on mobiles and safe kids' networks available on the WiFi, and on all unencrypted WiFi.

Not by giving the next government a tool set to easily set up a dictatorship.

[Dave Null]

a better approach: regulate the platforms

Class the platforms as publishers, hold them to account via a strong regulator. Sure, going after FB or X is going to have a backlash from the US government but it'd be worth it.

Also, there should be strong age verification services in place before anything like this is done: otherwise it's going to be a shitshow of leaked personal data, browsing habits and it'll have a chilling effect on non commercial platforms like mastodon et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting.

While most social media companies T&C's specifically exclude under 14yr olds from having accounts there are parents who will sign up their kids with a fake age.(I've had parents of my children's friends tell me they've done it and I know of people who allow their kids to have, for example, YouTube or Facebook accounts)

This act seems to criminalise their actions and by that, actually pushes back responsibility for monitoring their children's internet usage onto parents.

Good.

Except, it will be used as further proof of why digital ID is "soooo important, won't somebody fink ov the kiddies"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pathetic

Make the social media platforms responsible for the material they profit from - and I mean make the execs personally liable for it, as if they published it themselves, Stop making it all our fault that they dont have to control the content.

[Snobol4]

What is the definition of "social media"?

I am in favour of the ban in principle, if that is defined as Facebook, Tiktok, etc. However, I would be concerned if it covers services such as YouTube, as I think this is more complex.

Our eldest son is dyslexic, and for him YouTube has been enormously useful in enabling him to learn about all kinds of subjects. He is constantly watching the "how to" type videos.

If he was forced to read books and magazines his learning would have been heavily restricted, as that is just so hard for him.

I accept there is a problem with a lot of the content on Youtube being not much different to Facebook etc, and if the others are banned that might cause YouTube to change. However, I do think any ban needs to make allowances for "proper" usage that is genuinely useful for young people.

As always, a very colex area to get right, but certainly the negative aspects are very damaging.

[coconuthead]

Re: What is the definition of "social media"?

The Australian PM initially said – and apparently took as policy to the election – that YouTube would not be included. Three weeks before the start date, the public servant in charge announced that it would be.

You are right to be worried. For example, I’ve heard of a case of parents having to replace the music instruction resources they had curated from YouTube. (There is indeed a lot of serious music and music instruction on there.) And now even if parents have paid for a family YouTube subscription to remove ads, the children have to sit through the ads because they can’t log in, and some schools still set YouTube videos for homework.

A charitable explanation might be that Albanese and the rest of them are clueless. A less charitable one is that it’s a deliberate free kick to the Murdoch press, which ran a campaign to bring it in.

[Anonymous Coward]

but think of the children........................

Moral panic time again. There are apps from Apple and Google to completely control your kids phone, access to sites, apps, time limits, location tracking, etc, etc, etc we've been using google family link for years

[may_i]

Morons

What gives the house of lords the right to think that they can reasonably dictate how children may communicate with their peers?

Children have rights as well!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Morons

Strange take. Should they all be allowed to go to the pub unattended too to "talk to their mates". How about nightclubs?

[Gordon861]

Cannot Work Without ID

The only way this proposal will work if everyone is required to use 'official' ID in order to use social media, as everyone will need to prove they are over 16.

I also think 16 is too old. I think 10 or 13 would be better ages to work around.

My solution would be to make it a legal requirement that any child's social media account is actually controlled by an adult via a system similar to the way Google handles children's accounts with family options. It would be down to the parents to decide how much or little the 'child' can do on their accounts but the parent would always be able to view 100% of the information on there.

So when a child reaches 10(13) they can have an account if the parent allows it, but the parent has full access/control. They can determine how much freedom they have when using it.

[Filippo]

I get the spirit, and I don't think it's a catastrophic idea. However...

This fails to address the root of the problem. Like another poster said, if someone is dumping toxic sludge in a lake, the fix isn't forbidding kids from swimming in that lake. The fix is forbidding people from dumping toxic sludge in lakes.

In the case of social media, this has the added complexity of having freedom of speech mixed in.

I would rather work on the economic incentives that lead to toxicity. Regulate advertising, especially ad brokerage, and ban tracking altogether. Make it so that user attention is difficult to monetise.