Post · bonfire.cafe

@cyberleagle@mastodon.social replied · yesterday

@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

Enfys

@FaeAlchemist@denden.world replied · 2 days ago

@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.

—🩵

The Penguin of Evil

@etchedpixels@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@neil @openrightsgroup

Ivor Hewitt

@ivor@social.ivor.org replied · 2 days ago

@neil "user-to-user" which basically includes any modern game.

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 2 days ago

I've not seen this covered in any of the tech news.

I have not even seen anyone else talking about it.

The fact that it is in an amendment paper - a technical document that few people are likely to read - is probably part of it.

But this feels like a *massive* thing to be happening almost silently.

InsertUser

@InsertUser@en.osm.town replied · yesterday

@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.

⊥ᵒᵚ⁄Cᵸᵎᶺᵋᶫ∸ᵒᵘ ☑️

@falken@qoto.org replied · 2 days ago

@neil isn't b) just the same criteria as already enacted in Online Safety Act ?

@cyberleagle@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@neil Possibly because it isn't a government amendment?

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 2 days ago

@cyberleagle

In the sense that, as a consequence, it is unlikely to be adopted?

@cyberleagle@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@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 Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 2 days ago

@cyberleagle Ah, I had not seen anything about it, outside general noise about phone bans and social media ban proposals (stopping short of legislative amendments).

I will keep my fingers crossed that this amendment goes no-where.

@louisa555@mastodon.social replied · yesterday

https://www.markpack.org.uk/176109/lib-dems-call-for-film-style-age-ratings-for-social-media-to-protect-children-online/

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

Amendment 108 to Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament

Lord Storey's amendment After Clause 27 (108) to Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, proposed during Report stage

Mark Pack

Lib Dems call for film-style age ratings for social media to protect children online

Lib Dems unveil a new policy to protect children online, through film-style age ratings of up to 18 for harmful social media platforms.

@louisa555@mastodon.social replied · yesterday

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.

@louisa555@mastodon.social replied · yesterday

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.

@louisa555@mastodon.social replied · yesterday

The government has been reluctant to support a ban but it is facing pressure from both its own MPs and the Conservatives.

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.

1 more replies (not shown)

Simon Greenwood

@simon@gotosocial.grnwds.uk replied · 2 days ago

@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

Sky News

Labour MPs anticipate 'politically inept' U-turn on social media ban

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/22/ban-children-social-media-top-paediatrician/

@cyberleagle@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@neil Here, for instance (£). In the current febrile atmosphere, anything is possible, unfortunately.

The Telegraph

Ban children from social media, says Britain’s top paediatrician

Australia-style age controls would help prevent sexual exploitation and drug use, says Baroness Cass

1 more replies (not shown)

@louisa555@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@neil

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.

AnneH

@annehargreaves@ioc.exchange replied · 2 days ago

@neil By SI. Of course.

Derek McAuley

@drdrmc@mastodon.me.uk replied · 2 days ago

@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.