@neil As you say in your blog, as drafted this goes far wider than social media. For those not familar with the OSA, on my reckoning it could include:
• Wikis
• Video sharing sites
• Video conferencing apps
• Messaging apps
• Shareable file storage
• Blogs, newspapers and podcasts with reply to comments functionality enabled
• Charity-operated support forums
• Sports club forums
• Hobby forums
• Neighbourhood news forums
• Online games
• Review sites (e.g. movies, travel)
• Music sharing sites
@neil Making the internet not just annoying, but completely intolerable to use without a VPN sure is a move. Like, even if you have all the paperwork, a face that the algorithms agree is sufficuently adultish, and no concerns about your own privacy, the number of times you would be asked to prove your age under this paradigm would be intolerable through sheer inconvenience.
—🩵
@neil "user-to-user" which basically includes any modern game.
Can we ban MPs from all social media and any platform operated by US big tech?
16 would be the default age limit for a platform, which could be raised or lowered by Ofcom.
Age verification would be required to "access" a social media service, based on the age rating OFCOM gives the service.
This seemingly would ban people under the age rating from even looking at social media platforms, unlike the Australian law which only prohibits the creation of accounts.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/20215/amendments/10031835
@neil part of me hopes they do end up accidentally banning kids from shared calendars, conference calls and using iMessage.
It might anger enough people to get the whole #OnlineSafetyAct scrapped.
Furthermore, the MSM probably wants the social media ban to pass exactly the same way it's written in Lords. The MSM probably wants Wikipedia to be banned because Wikipedia competes with the MSM, just like Twitter, Mastodon or Youtube do.
According to the Sky News article, Commons is going to pass the Lords proposal which will pass the Lords Monday, and Commons seemingly won't even reword the Lords Amendment.
The Sky News article does not mention anything about how terrible the Lords Amendment is. Nor does any other article I've seen that discusses the Lords Amendment.
Keep in mind that the MSM really wants the social media ban to pass because social media competes with the MSM.
The Amendment was pretty much just sitting there and seemed unlikely to pass until about 5 or 6 days ago, when Badenoch said that Conservatives would propose a social media ban if they were in the majority.
That caused an almost overnight change where a bunch of Labour members also now support a social media ban.
It now seems almost certain that some type of social media ban will pass.
@neil
Sky News has published a story about it now: https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mps-anticipate-politically-inept-u-turn-on-social-media-ban-13494732
@cyberleagle
@louisa555 @neil “Whether those are intended to be the same, or different, I don't know.” Sadly, I think, nor do they.
@neil isn't b) just the same criteria as already enacted in Online Safety Act ?
@neil Here, for instance (£). In the current febrile atmosphere, anything is possible, unfortunately.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/22/ban-children-social-media-top-paediatrician/
@neil Yes, unless it gains some momentum and, as you say, slips through. I recall it was reported in some of the mainstream press when it appeared in December.
@neil Possibly because it isn't a government amendment?
Yeah, I've noticed that myself, and it shows how remarkably little thought went into this Amendment.
Part 1 (a) and Part 1 (b) seem to contradict each other. Part 1 (a) asks to provide parents with advice on their childrens and teens using social media, but then part 1 (b) outlaws social media access for under-16s.
Why the hell would the government prepare a report on how under-16s can heathily use social media when they're simultaneously banning under-16s from social media?
Until Badenoch endorsed a ban 5 days ago, it seemed unlikely that the UK was going to pass a social media ban at all, let alone a ban this terrible.
Badenoch’s announcement has greatly changed things. Starmer is being forced to drop his resistance to the ban because his own party will vote in favor of the ban even if he opposes it.
I don’t see why there’s still almost no coverage about how bad this ban is even as it seems almost certain that Parliament will pass this ban.
@neil By SI. Of course.
@neil I find it odd that they a) ask for CMO advice on how children should use social media then b) ban children from using social media. Neverminding no more family groups on Signal… not a source of issues IMHO.
@neil But won't somebody think of the VPN suppliers?!!
Do we know any journalists who can write about this? 😕
