Could Ofcom ban social media for under-18s?

[FearlessRoar]

Ofcom is short for the Office of Communications. It makes sure companies and businesses such as TV channels, radio stations, postal services, social media apps and online platforms are treating people fairly, legally and safely.

Ofcom's draft guidelines follow the government's Online Safety Act, which aims to make technology companies take more responsibility for children's safety online.

Social media users have to be over 13, but Ofcom says children regularly see content promoting self-harm, pornography or violence on social media. This is banned by the biggest social networks like TikTok and Instagram, but increasing number of children have been hurt or died after seeing harmful content online in recent years.

If tech firms don't change what children see, Ofcom says it will ban children under 18 from using social media altogether.

Ofcom says the new rules will be a reality in the second half of 2025.

But experts believe it will be very difficult to make sure both users and social media companies are following the rules, and some people are concerned the new rules could affect users' privacy or limit free speech.

There are also questions about how verifying someone's age will work, such as whether users will need to give their photo ID.

BBC

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well the social media websites have failed to curb restrictions on harmful content online, so it may appear unjust but would be a good decision overall.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787852468828643457

 

[ElRaja]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787852468828643457

this cannot be real, its like something out of a horror film.

regarding the original question, no. its the parents job to help guide their kids through lifes ups and downs, and that includes the negative aspects of social media.

its not social media on its own that is dangerous, its when that becomes the primary mode of communication for a young person.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Yes, if we consider the perspective of Pakistan, it is advisable to ban all social media apps for individuals under 18. Because all teenagers are more focused on tiktok these days

 

[FearlessRoar]

Australian state mulls social media ban for children​

South Australian children under the age of 14 could be banned from social media, under Australia-first legislation being considered by the state government.

Premier Peter Malinauskas said the potential legal changes are being examined due to mounting evidence around the effects of social media on children's mental health and development.

Major social media platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, require users to be at least 13 years old to sign up for accounts, however the age limit is not policed.

"Like most parents, I am concerned about the impact social media is having on children in our community," Malinauskas said.

"I am determined to ensure as a government we are doing everything we can to protect our children."

Malinauskas said the "nation-leading move" would see former High Court Chief Justice Robert French examine the legal, regulatory and technological pathways for South Australia to impose a ban.

He said due consideration would also be given to the constitutional framework.

"In addition to imposing a ban on all children under the age of 14 having access to a social media account, South Australia would also require parental consent for children aged 14 and 15," Malinauskas said.

"The changes would be the first of their type in Australia but would follow a growing number of global jurisdictions banning social media access for children."

There is a growing push around the world to limit children's access to social media.

Back in March, Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law banning children under age 14 from having their own social media accounts.

Australian state considers social media ban for children

South Australian children under the age of 14 could be banned from social media under Australia-first legis...

www.9news.com.au

 

[FearlessRoar]

Los Angeles public school board votes to ban student cellphone use on campus​

The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted Tuesday to ban student cellphone usage on campuses during school hours, joining a growing number of school boards to take such action and becoming the largest district in the U.S. to do so.

The ban's purpose is to prevent the potentially negative impact that phones have on the mental health and well-being of students.

The vote, however, doesn't automatically mean the ban will be implemented as staff is still consulting with stakeholders and experts before specifics are set in stone.

"The phone-free school policy says from the moment students walk into class to the end of the day, they shouldn't have their phones," said LAUSD board member Nick Melvoin. "Let's have kids interact with one another, free from the distractions that we know are harming mental health, their academics."

The resolution by the board of the second largest school district in the U.S. cites research suggesting that students have less meaningful interactions with classmates and exhibit less propensity for learning when overly involved with their phones.

"Research indicates that excessive cell phone use impacts adolescents mental health and well-being and is associated with increased stress, anxiety, depression, sleep issues, feelings of aggression, and suicidal thoughts," said the Order of Business for Tuesday's meeting.

The proposal referenced other bans that have been implemented, including in Florida, where public schools began blocking student cellphone use during instructional time and prohibited access to social media while using district WiFi in 2023. Since then, districts in Oklahoma, Kansas, Vermont, Ohio, Louisiana and Pennsylvania have adopted similar restrictions, according to the LAUSD resolution.

Over the next four months, the district will develop a set of policies for social media and cell phone use during school hours on every LAUSD campus. The new policy would go into effect at the beginning of 2025.

Some parents have voiced opposition to a ban, noting that they would prefer their children to have access to their phones in the event of an emergency.

"They should have it for protection once they leave the school campus," said Regina Schoetz, an LAUSD parent who said she partially agrees with the motion, but doesn't think that the ultimate decision should fall on the district.

"I don't think there should be a big ban on [cellphones] or lock them away," she said. "I think it's up to the parent."

Melvoin says that the latest policy update to cellphone usage was implemented in 2011 and only calls for no phones during class time.

On Tuesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his own plans on the topic, citing the mental health risks of social media on children.

"As the Surgeon General affirmed, social media is harming the mental health of our youth," Newsom said in a statement. "I look forward to working with the Legislature to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day. When children and teens are in school, they should be focused on their studies — not their screens."

Los Angeles public school board votes to ban student cellphone use on campus

If implemented, the proposal would prohibit cellphone use during school hours on all Los Angeles public school campuses, making LAUSD the largest district in the U.S. to take such action.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[FearlessRoar]

TikTok fined £1.8m over failure to provide accurate information to Ofcom​

TikTok has been fined £1.875 million for failing to accurately respond to a formal request for information from Ofcom.

The communications and online safety regulator said it had requested information from the social media giant about the usage of TikTok’s parental controls to inform an Ofcom report around child online safety.

Ofcom said TikTok responded to the request in September last year, but then in December told Ofcom the data provided was not accurate.

In response, Ofcom said it launched an investigation which found a number of failings in TikTok’s data governance processes, including having insufficient checks in place to ensure accurate data was sent, and for being slow to alert Ofcom to the issue.

When we demand data, it must be accurate and submitted on time. We won’t hesitate to take enforcement action if any company fails to do this

Suzanne Carter, Ofcom

Ofcom said the delay meant it was forced to amend its report at a late stage.

The regulator said the incident has seen TikTok contravene its duties under the Communications Act to fully co-operate with a statutory request for information.

Suzanne Carter, Ofcom’s enforcement director, said: “Ofcom’s job is to scrutinise platforms’ safety features, and gathering information is a critical part of holding tech firms to account.

“When we demand data, it must be accurate and submitted on time. We won’t hesitate to take enforcement action if any company fails to do this.”

A TikTok spokesperson said: “We inadvertently provided inaccurate information to Ofcom regarding the use of Family Pairing in the UK, which significantly undercounted the actual number of people using this pioneering parenting tool.

“While we subsequently provided the correct information, we fell short of our obligations by not reporting the error sooner, and apologise for any disruption this caused.

“We are committed to fully cooperating with all of Ofcom’s requests and have implemented improvements to our internal processes.”

TikTok fined £1.8m over failure to provide accurate information to Ofcom

The social media giant has been penalised for not accurately responding to a formal information request about its parental controls.

www.expressandstar.com

 

[FearlessRoar]

Ofcom fines GB News £100,000 over impartiality​

Ofcom has fined GB News £100,000 for breaking impartiality rules with a programme featuring the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

He appeared on the TV channel on 12 February 2024 as part of a one-hour current affairs special that included a Q&A session.

The media watchdog says he was given an "uncontested platform to promote the policies and performance of his government in a period preceding the UK General Election".

A fine of this sum was imposed by Ofcom after "repeated" breaches of its broadcasting code.

Ofcom fines GB News £100,000 over Rishi Sunak programme

The media watchdog says the broadcast channel allowed the then-prime minister to go unchallenged.

www.bbc.com