all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 3 days ago

Meanwhile the public are looking seriously at whether the government has completely lost the plot.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    What next, ID verification required to open an Argos catalogue? Go into Tesco? Although, Tesco already charge you more if you are under 18 as children can't join their card system

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Can under-18s hold many loyalty discount cards? I expect co-op stores allow it from 16, as they've been supporting votes at 16 for years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Its due to laws on data harvesting on children. If coop doesn't harvest that data then they could give them to children too. Tbh more people should probably be mad at Tesco for harvesting that data, but they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, co-op are likely being all ethical again. Or trying to.

    Look at the checkout conveyor dividers in Morrisons some time: they literally say "Morrisons More Card: more conveyor snooping" or something similar. People just don't realise the cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago

    Naughty children! How dare they shop!

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Just ban the internet at this point.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Seriously, this is getting out of hand. Pure authoritarianism is what this is, constantly nagging and nagging and people are naive enought to trust such motives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago*

    This was the intention all along.

    That, and MasterCard and VISA wanted more businesses to use card authentications for age checks. Businesses have been skipping authentication to save on fees, and they knew that even if other technology came along they'd still get a few more. Literally, the OSA only vaguely describes ID or face scanning (because the technology didn't really exist at the time), but spells out card transactions as the default method of age verification.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Can we seriously look at banning this government? Greens seem sensible enough.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    I'll take the greens. Only candidate in the last election who has done anything beneficial to society. Last I saw her she was taking part in a clean up at the local beach.

    Labour candidate was a gymbro. Libdem hadn't bothered to update his profile since running in a previous election over 100 miles away, Tory is current MP and voted to allow water companies to endlessly dump sewage on the beach. She is also a fucking moron (or happy to pander to far right hate mobs) based on the few posts I have heard of from her.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    God, you can't sell anyone these days.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    Luckily, UK govt will adopt Sam Altman's Orb and everyone can probe who they are by eye scan. O Brave New World...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago*

    .... but why?

    And who the fuck is Lisa Nandy?? Bit of a shit article, BBC.

  • source
  • 62 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 115 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Next: UK Government to ban children interacting with other people in real life

    Most child abuse comes from family members, therefore under-16s will be banned from interacting with their parents and relatives.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 day ago

    How about banning the government from Xitter instead?

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The impact is already creeping up from the constant infantilisation of teenagers and destroying their autonomy based on falsified premises. Expect more and more articles indicating the discriminatory situation teenagers are put in.

    The fact people are being reduced to children makes it so much easier to force people to support fascism - discrimination is what is happening.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is actually insane. There are so many other platforms that should take priority in "child protection" before Vinted and eBay.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 30 points 1 day ago

    The government announced it would ban under-16s accessing social media in June this year, with children prevented from accessing 10 of the biggest platforms. YouTube will also be banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids - a version of the video-sharing app designed to be safe for children - will not be included in the measures. A complete list of affected platforms has not yet been released, but the government said it would cover those "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material". That means platforms that have livestreaming or features that enable the potential for strangers to contact children will also be restricted, which includes gaming sites.

    Don't worry they're on it. They will ban everything, just in case.

  • source
  • parent
  • I mean you can block the messages or like set predefined messages only. You can do many things before blocking an entire marketplace. Honestly just sounds like Amazon lobbying

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It's good that they are pushing this after they released their own findings that the only safety act so far has done nothing to protect kids - the one upside they were claiming.

    Can't wait until they arrive at the only rational solution: to just straight up ban children from existing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago

    Oh no what if they buy and sell!!?? Poor kids???

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago

    The modern resurgence of fascism is appalling. It's never fully gone away and now instead of being left in the waste bin of history some brainless fucks are taking it out dusting it off and pretending that it's always been a good thing actually.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is so much the wrong approach that i can't even imagine how fucked up these politicians have to be in their minds to enact such crap.

    The people that need to be restricted are the evil guys, not the good guys.

    This means that social media platforms have to be held responsible if they do not have effective mechanisms to prevent groomers from harassing minors. (I would cut some leeway for new exploits and such - unforseen problems should not instantly doom a platform, as long as these are fixable)

    Isolating your youth from important communication streams will only cause problems the moment that they are of age and completely naive - and this is exactly what this legislation is achieving.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Well maybe we are looking at it backwards. Maybe they are looking for the kids to have a shitty environment where they can't actually learn life lessons until they are thrust suddenly into it between 16-18 and are easily moldable/groomable, then unable to perform the basic functions and called names.

    They can call it the we hate our kids and want them to grow up to hate us bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago

    Do literally anything besides parenting.

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    A 15 year old isn't a child.

    Trans kids are hurt by measures that block them from finding community and help online that are blocked irl for them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 day ago

    Fully agree. Their excuses are straight up propaganda based on the government themself manipulating the masses.

    The fact is, if both points where respected we wouldnt be in the situation we are now. Its quite sad to be seeing autonomous people being forcefully stripped off their rights, identity and everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I was actually going to say something about teenagers not needing to be active on sites like eBay. But then I remember my older brother starting his toy collection years ago when he was 13-14 buying toys on eBay,

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Instagram and Facebook sure. Ban them for everybody.

    But ebay?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (36 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago* (35 children)

    There's already plans to ban social media for under 16s AFAIK

    Not sure if that'll apply to Lemmy or not, but I guess Lemmy servers could just geoblock visitors from regions that enforce this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    They can try, but all it takes for full access to Lemmy (or Mastodon etc) is one instance that isn't based in the UK and doesn't care about their laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Australia tried and the local instance encouraged people to send in a photo of a beer at a pub or an age indicative review on a movie to prove age, seeing as the law didn't define what constitutes verification.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 day ago (32 children)

    Honestly, good. This isn't a place for children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (27 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago (21 children)

    This isn't a place for 15 year olds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Shouldn't you be in class somewhere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I didn't say I was 15, just to not be ageist to 15 year olds

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    So, if we're done with the snarky comments and insults, answer me this. What benefit does it do either party for under 16s to have direct interactions with random adults in their 30s/40s+? Because that's most of the user base here. Not everyone is out to engage in good faith and many younger folks may not see dangerous situations ahead of time.

    I don't see a situation where a random 15 year old and a random 40 year old need to interact here. The maturity levels, intersts, and life experiences are completely different between them, and I'm having a hard time seeing why a middle aged adult would want to have serious interactions with a literal child. Sure, they're a teen, but they aren't legally adults.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    What benefit does it do either party for under 16s to have direct interactions with random adults in their 30s/40s+?

    For one example, if they're trans and find info about diy HRT younger than they would have otherwise and are spared years of irreversible changes and dysphoria.

    Or, you know, just that they're people who should have a voice and ears and not be barred from the wider societal conversation from everything about TV shows to national politics to educational policies, that they should have a voice in, and are indeed pubescent and more mature than actual children at thinking.

    To engage with other people, practicising their online interaction skills, as they're not going to suddenly be magically more able to resist disinformation and stuff at 16 because of a few months of brain development, the more important thing is practice and being exposed to online content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    There are plenty of online resources regarding this information that don't require young people to interact directly with random older people who may or may not be acting in good faith. All of what you described, with the exception of online interaction, is available without placing children and teens in a place where they can be groomed or exploited by bad faith actors.

    As for the other side, middle aged adults have no need to be directly interacting with teens and younger that they met online. There's no benefit for those individuals and too much room for exploitation to occur without moderation.

    I don't see a situation where the benefits outweigh the risks for teens and children interacting with random adults online. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Because teenagers often exclude, harass, and verbally abuse others in the same age group for no real reason. If you're a teen who often ends up on the receiving end of that, then interacting with older people may be the only way you can have a normal conversation. Talking to adults is a last defense against missing a stage of social development and developing depression and social phobia.

    That doesn't mean that you are personally required to talk to teens, but cutting them off from adult society completely is cruel.

    And it is possible for a teen and an adult to share an interest—baseball, or sewing, or entomology, or whatever. Some people like talking to others who are enthusiastic about the same subject, even if that person is young and "still learning". Some adults even enjoy teaching.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (9 children)

    This question for you too, why not? This place would be a better experience than any corporate media for teenagers. I ensure you that the vast majority of mods and admins here take a hard stance against grooming, and any evidence of such behavior would lead to instant bans for the culprits.

    On Facebook not even AI-generated CSAM causes mods to spring into action without media attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (8 children)

    Does a 15 year old have a nuanced take on tax policy? On worker's rights? On social security or welfare? My gut tells me no in almost every situation.

    I'm not necessarily opposed to younger people being able to view discussions around political topics, but I question their ability to interact with informed opinions on said subjects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    While I believe this is largely correct, it does not support your conclusion.

    You are assuming that the participation would need to be to the benefit of the community to be worthwhile. That's not the case. The party which stands to benefit most is the teen themselves. They may not be able to meaningfully participate in the kinds of discussion examples you have listed, but they could try.

    After all, not being an ignorant dumbass is a skill that must be learned, and one that (as evidenced by this thread) many adults never managed to learn for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    This is a valid take that I hadn't really considered. While I still prefer not to engage with literal children, I will concede that it may help for future interactions.

    I still l think they could gain experience in online interactions through age-oriented platforms though. Lemmy does not strike me as a welcoming place for minors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    Communication only between minors has the disadvantage that there is a whole populations worth of years of experiences missing in their daily lives. A lot of this knowledge is aquired though cultural osmosis, which also means minors benefit from seeing, hearing and taking part in "grown-up" discussions.

    As I said, i'd rather see some teens here than on Instagram or TikTok. People around here are a lot more willing to explain concepts or sincerely engage with someone than what i experienced on other platforms. There's a lot less cult of personality going on here, and moderation is leagues above what we can currently expect from commercial platforms. All in all, both the fediverse in terms of activity and teens would benefit if they met.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Yeah, it's a legitimately difficult situation trying to balance effective safety measures with the needs of teens and young adults to be able to participate in civil discourse. And I'll be the first to admit that I do not have a good answer for how to handle this.

    Also I'm pretty new around here but so far my experience has been that Lemmy does not strike me as a welcoming place(period) so that likely goes double for anyone with an undercooked prefrontal cortex.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I agree - being a part of society is a learning process, and this process always takes effort from both sides, the learner and the society. In a social media context, this equates to accepting that there may be questions asked in good faith even when basic and not yet well developed standpoints being communicated, which will then benefit from feedback.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    No, but where are they gonna learn all those things? These concepts are transferred through social contacts, and they won't acquire them when they are isolated.

    And learning about things is as much about saying what i think as it is about getting feedback to that thought process. It's not to say that people shouldn't try to get some basics about stuff before uttering crap, but if you want the younger generations to actually engage with social concepts, it does not help if they are excluded from the discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    That is completely ignorant of issues involving discrimination, clearly ageism is just the tip of the iceberg here - my gut tells me you are just as naive when it comes to gender or even race.

    Everyone reading this, please just block this user as this is clearly a troll. No point wasting your mental capacity on this fud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Cool. So Epstein did nothing wrong. Got it!

    The cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    There is a very clear difference between sexual abuse of minors and the ability to communicate. One is bad regardless of how you frame it, the other is dependent on the respective medium and how it is moderated.

    Giving a 15 y.o. a platform to discuss stuff with peers, even if there are people out there who might try to groom them, is a good thing. The groomers are the ones that have to be reigned in, not the teens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    I completely agree and think that the proposal in the article really misses the mark.

    However, to claim the issue is moot because "15 year olds are not children" (as some have done in this thread) is patently ridiculous. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion exposes its flaws — which was the point of my previous comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    "Not a child" doesn't mean "is an adult". We're talking about an intermediate stage where they need to be able to gradually take on more responsibility for themselves, but still need extra protection from things like sexual predators because their risk assessment abilities aren't yet fully developed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    And why not? I think teenagers need exposure to the world at large, especially in a very human environment like lemmy is. I'd fully accept a horde of teenagers on Lemmy, because regardless of what they encounter here, i can ensure you that corporate social media is a lot more harmful.

    The alternative is letting a horde of digitally absolutely naive 18 y.o. loose over the internet every year. That will go down well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    Tbqh, I'd prefer to have a place where adult conversation can take place without immature people chiming in. If they want to lurk and observe, fine. I, personally, don't want to converse with children on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    And the beauty of the fediverse is that you can create your own server with a higher age requirement. (But you'll still get immature people aged 25+ inundating you with inane memes, because humans.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Sure, but these "immature people" will probably stay in low-stakes communities for memes and such, where a bit of immaturity won't hurt. But they also will be exposed to new ideas, and without young people engaging with these ideas, even if it might be annoying, these might simply die out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    Anyone who've used ebay message knows that it is nearly impossible to have a consist communication on it. Their message feature is just so hard to use.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    contact your local MPs.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago
    4 comments in c/DeclineIntoCensorship@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Strange. I'd think they'd want everyone shopping.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    So you're going to ban amazon.co.uk too right... right?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    Keeping vulnerable kids under the thumbs of bad parents and tyrants.

  • source