A proposed amendment to ban under 16s in the UK from common online services

Parental responsibility vs state role

• Many argue regulating minors’ internet use is parents’ job, not the state’s; laws are seen as parents “outsourcing” hard parts of parenting.
• Others say only societal‑level rules can level the playing field: strict parents otherwise make their kids social outcasts compared to peers on social media.
• Some contend calling for laws signals failed parenting; others counter that weak or absent parents exist and their kids also deserve protection.
• Comparisons are drawn to alcohol, driving, gambling: society already sets age thresholds for harmful vices, so social media could be similar.

Age verification, privacy, and end of anonymity

• Core concern: to keep under‑16s out, everyone must prove age, which in practice means linking real‑world identity to accounts.
• Age‑assurance is widely seen as a backdoor to de‑anonymize the population “for the children.”
• Skepticism that governments want privacy-preserving schemes; several commenters think breaking anonymity is the actual goal.

Scope creep: what counts as “social media”?

• The amendment’s “regulated user‑to‑user services” definition appears to include messaging apps, forums, comments sections, even Wikipedia, email, and possibly voice calls.
• Commenters warn that those casually supporting “bans for kids” often imagine only TikTok/Facebook, not the services they themselves use.

Moral panic and real harms

• Several see this as another “moral panic” about “kids these days,” similar to past fears about TV, games, etc.
• Others insist harms are substantial (addiction, manipulation, figures like Andrew Tate, extremism) and not just hysteria.
• Debate over whether banning kids or fixing platform incentives (algorithmic feeds, engagement maximization, ad models) is the right target.

Technical and policy alternatives proposed

• Use existing/meta‑style content flags and client‑side or ISP‑side filters controlled by parents.
• Standardized HTTP or response flags, DNS blocking, parental controls on devices, and school laptop restrictions are suggested as less intrusive tools.
• Some propose much broader reforms: banning online ads, strict limits on data collection/sharing, banning engagement‑optimizing algorithms, and enforcing decentralization (IPv6, no carrier NAT).

Broader political and UK‑specific context

• Many see the UK as moving toward a surveillance‑heavy “nanny state,” with weak public understanding and little political pushback.
• Several commenters believe “child protection” is a pretext for narrative control and suppression of dissent; others attribute it mainly to genuine (if misguided) concern and political incentives.