The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

Overall stance on the UK under‑16 ban

• Thread is sharply split.
• Supporters see social media as severely harmful to children (addictive, manipulative, psychologically damaging, facilitating grooming and extremist content) and view a ban as overdue.
• Opponents focus on privacy, surveillance, free speech, and implementation risks, arguing the cure is worse than the disease.

Role of parents vs. government

• One side: parents are primarily responsible; tools like device parental controls exist; outsourcing control to the state and corporations erodes rights.
• Other side: social media is a “collective action problem” where individual parents cannot realistically protect kids if others do not; government is seen as better at setting health-related baselines than many parents.
• Some argue bans function as social norm‑setting (“it’s illegal” is more persuasive to teens than nuanced research).

Privacy, age verification, and surveillance

• Major concern: any under‑16 ban implies a pervasive age‑checking layer across much of the web, likely tied to photo ID and face scans, empowering governments and third‑party verification firms.
• Fears of mission creep: ID checks expanding to all sites; mass tracking of citizens; exclusion of people without photo ID.
• Some call for government‑run, privacy‑preserving systems (e.g., zero‑knowledge proofs), but others claim these can’t satisfy political demands for strong identity binding.

Scope of “social media” and YouTube

• Disagreement over whether platforms like YouTube are primarily educational infrastructure or just another algorithmic attention trap.
• Some want all algorithmic, ad‑driven feeds banned for everyone; others differentiate between chronological subscription feeds and engagement‑optimized recommendations.
• Concern that children would lose access to valuable educational and cultural material; critics counter that such content can move to curated, non‑social platforms.

Effectiveness and unintended consequences

• Several expect kids to route around bans (VPNs, burner SIMs, underground or decentralized platforms), potentially ending up in even less regulated spaces.
• Worries that broad bans normalize tighter state control over online speech and infrastructure for everyone, not just minors.

Critique of EFF and digital rights framing

• Some argue EFF is downplaying real harms and clinging to absolutist freedom rhetoric.
• Others say digital rights groups and platforms failed to proactively propose and implement privacy‑respecting mitigations, leaving the field to crude, surveillance‑heavy policy responses.