Will Mather

Full time geek(); and hobbyist P2P client developer.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

The social media ban debate has revealed something fascinating.

A lot of people who spent years saying “parents know what’s best for their children” now think politicians should make this decision for every family.

And a lot of people who normally distrust the government suddenly trust it completely.

Some people mock politicians for U turns, then pick up the fence and move it so often they’ve convinced themselves they never changed position at all.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

That’s a strange argument.

If parents are responsible for how much time their children spend online, then surely the existence of parental controls, screen time limits, app restrictions and content filters strengthens the case for parental responsibility, not a government ban.

And not every child on social media is “online all day”. That’s like saying every child who watches TV sits in front of it from morning until night.

The debate isn’t about whether parents should spend time with their children. It’s about who should make decisions for them, parents or politicians.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

The weirdest take is assuming the only options are “Musk and Zuckerberg” or “the government”. How about parents?

Parents already have parental controls, content filters, screen time limits, child accounts and app restrictions available on modern devices.

The role of government should be to enforce the law. The role of platforms should be to provide safety tools. The responsibility for deciding what’s appropriate for a child should rest with parents, and parents alone, not billionaires or politicians.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

That’s why I’m sceptical that a social media ban is being presented as such a major safeguarding breakthrough.

If threats exist both online and offline, then surely the focus should be on the people posing those threats, not the platform they’re using at any given moment.

Predators adapt. If they’re removed from one place, they move to another. That’s why enforcement, policing and safeguarding matter so much more than simply restricting access to a particular service.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

🤔 A few problems with this.

First, “9 in 10 British parents” isn’t true. The report refers to parents who responded to a self selecting consultation, and explicitly states the results are not nationally representative.

Second, if this is about taking on tech giants, why are we banning under 16s instead of targeting the harmful content, addictive design and platform practices being criticised?

And finally, “British families first” is a strange way of describing a policy that removes a decision from families and hands it to the government. 📱

[🇻🇦♱ 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @AngloCatholica]

Setting my VPN to North Korea so I have more internet freedom than Starmer’s Britain

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

It’s fascinating how some people have decided that anyone who opposes a blanket social media ban must be a nonce, a groomer or “part of the problem”.

Apparently wanting evidence based policy, parental choice and proper debate is now suspicious.

If your argument only works when everyone who disagrees is demonised, maybe your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is. 🤔

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

“Children have no place on social media” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

So YouTube revision channels, educational creators, hobby communities, school groups, mental health support groups? None of those have any place for young people? That's some insane logic.

If these platforms are truly “100% harmful”, that should be easy to prove with evidence rather than insults. Calling everyone who disagrees stupid just suggests the argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

Exactly! Reducing a policy debate to “support the ban or you’re a nonce” isn’t an argument, it’s just an attempt to shut down discussion and avoid engaging with legitimate concerns. You can support child safety and still question whether a blanket ban is effective, proportionate or evidence based.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

That’s a bit of a straw man. People opposing the ban aren’t saying children should spend all day on screens. They’re questioning whether a government ban is the best way to address that.

You can encourage outdoor activities, sports, hobbies and healthier habits without banning under 16s altogether.

The debate isn’t “screens or staring at a wall”. It’s whether blanket bans are better than parental choice, education and personal responsibility.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

@AlexBallingerMP If under 16s move to VPNs, shared accounts, private groups or less regulated platforms, will we admit the policy failed and try something else, or just call for even more restrictions?

Good policy needs measurable outcomes, not just good intentions.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

Regulate the addictive design. Casinos use psychology. Freemium games use psychology. Streaming services use psychology. Even TV shows end on cliffhangers to keep you watching.

The answer is holding companies accountable for harmful practices, not assuming a blanket ban on under 16s is the only possible solution.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

If the problem is that platforms aren’t policing harmful content properly, then surely the solution is to force platforms to police harmful content properly.

That’s a very different argument from banning under 16s from huge parts of the internet.

If a site is hosting illegal content, go after the site. If criminals are breaking the law, go after the criminals. Holding platforms accountable makes sense. A blanket ban on young people doesn’t automatically follow from that.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

🤔 If the goal is to support parents and schools, why not focus on giving them better tools and education? Parental controls, content filters and screen time limits already exist. Schools can teach digital literacy. Platforms can be held accountable for harmful content.

A blanket ban doesn’t really empower parents, it replaces their judgement with a government decision.

And when people say “Australia and France are doing it”, that’s not evidence that it works. The real question is whether there’s evidence it will achieve the outcomes being promised.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes anyone who disagrees doesn’t care about children. You can care about children’s wellbeing and still question whether a blanket ban is the right solution.

And comparing social media to smoking or drinking doesn’t really work. Social media isn’t a single product. It includes everything from YouTube educational channels and hobby communities to messaging friends and family.

If we’ve “lost an entire generation”, then surely we should be asking why existing laws, parental controls, schools, regulators and platforms have all failed, rather than assuming a ban will suddenly fix everything.

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

🤔 This is where the argument starts to unravel for me.

If the real problem is that platforms aren’t safe by design, harmful content is being promoted and tech companies aren’t being held accountable, then focus on fixing those problems.

Instead, we’re banning under 16s and already talking about how they’ll bypass it and move elsewhere.

If a policy requires ever increasing restrictions because it won’t achieve its stated goal on its own, maybe the policy isn’t addressing the root cause in the first place. 📱🛡️

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

Everyone agrees children should be protected from genuinely harmful content. 🛡️

What I don’t understand is why the answer is always a blanket ban rather than better enforcement of existing laws, stronger action against criminals and improved parental tools.

We don’t ban everyone from the internet because some people encounter harmful content. We target the harmful content and the people responsible for it.

And while smartphones and social media grew over the last decade, so did countless other social, economic and educational changes. Correlation alone isn’t evidence that a blanket ban is the solution. 🤔📱

Parents already have parental controls, content filters and screen time tools available. Why not build on those instead of removing parental choice altogether?

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

🤔 I’m struggling to see how a government ban “shifts power to families”.

Parents already have the power to use parental controls, screen time limits and content filters. This policy doesn’t give families more choice, it removes choice by making the decision for everyone.

And calling it “freedom” is a bit odd when the policy literally restricts what people can access online. 📱

[Will Mather @willmav5000]

🤔 I keep seeing people say this “backs parents”, but how?

Parental controls, content filters and screen time limits already exist for parents who want them. This doesn’t give parents new powers, it transfers the decision from parents to the government.

Everyone wants children to be safe online. The debate is whether blanket bans are actually the best way to achieve that. 🛡️📱