The UK government’s consultation on social media harm has concluded, and it seems they are finally taking action. The main comparison being made is that “social media is like cigarettes,” a sentiment echoed by many. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges submitted a report titled “Growing up in an online world,” highlighting the potential harm of excessive screen time on children and young people.
The report also raises concerns about the radicalization of children and the negative impact of social media on health. Various parties, including The Guardian and politicians like Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, are calling for action, with Streeting advocating for a social media ban for under-16s.
However, the specifics of the proposed actions are still unclear. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has promised action, but the exact measures are yet to be decided. The Guardian has listed several possible options, including social media bans, digital curfews, and age gating addictive features.
Ultimately, the enforcement of any chosen measure will likely require age verification, eliminating online anonymity for both children and adults. Therefore, the debate over the specific measures is seen as futile, as the end goal remains the same – restricting online access and control.
Choosing your digital identity is akin to selecting the color of your electric chair: it may not alter the final outcome, but your choice subtly endorses the entire process.
We can all see the trajectory: age restrictions on everything, everywhere, leading to eventual digital identification.
It’s just…
…and one can’t help but wonder, who is this really serving?
What purpose does this tired, lackluster propaganda serve?
We already know their plans, they’ve openly declared them, yet they continue with this theatrical hesitation.
Just get on with it.
Those who doubt them will never be convinced, while those who trust them will always do so.
So why prolong this farcical charade?
It’s like sitting through a tedious movie that reveals its “surprise twist” within the first few minutes but persists in elongating the runtime with what the writers mistakenly perceive as clever foreshadowing.
Or receiving a call from an unknown number, only to be assured breathlessly that “this is not a sales call,” before launching into a lengthy spiel about home improvements, all the while waiting for an opportunity to politely decline and hang up.
It is a sales call, and both parties are aware of it, yet the conversation continues because the caller cannot bear the thought of being hung up on.
Perhaps that’s the crux of it. They cannot pause because they know people will simply end the call.