That’s why 16 year olds don’t have the vote

Children who grow up with internet – AKA ‘digital natives’ – believe everything they read online, says Ofcom

Socialism’s a good idea, politicians are public spirited, the government knows best.

Children will just believe any old damn shit.

16 thoughts on “That’s why 16 year olds don’t have the vote”

  1. “Eight to 15-year-olds are spending twice as much time on the internet than they were ten years ago”

    Well, seeing as ten years ago the eldest of this age group was only five years old and anyone under ten hadn’t even been born, an increase in their internet activity is hardly unexpected :0)

  2. When I saw Corbyn addressing students about how he was going to put extra tax on those earning £50,000/year to pay for free education, I wondered how many of those in the audience actually thought that one day in the not too distant future under a Leftist government they’d be one of those earners and would effectively be paying for their education twice over. Not many I bet.

  3. @GC, not to mention smartphones have not been around for ten years and neither have all-you-ca-eat data contracts.

  4. Hence why the SNP (Socialist Numpty Peronist) were so keen on extending the vote to 16 year olds in the Neverendum.
    Also the only 4 areas they managed a majority in had more 16-18 year olds registered to vote than were actually 16-18 at the time, purely a coincidence of course.

  5. No they bloody don’t. Today’s teenagers understand the internet far better than most adults, because they’ve grown up with it. Certainly a lot better than the goons at Ofcom or the Daily Telegraph.

  6. I read that it was 1 in 10 who’ll believe any old shit that’s written down. That actually puts them ahead of the general curve.

  7. “Children and progressives…”

    So – sprogs, progs and sky fairies…

    “I read that it was 1 in 10 who’ll believe any old shit that’s written down. That actually puts them ahead of the general curve.”

    Not sprogs?

  8. Corvus Umbranox,

    “No they bloody don’t. Today’s teenagers understand the internet far better than most adults, because they’ve grown up with it. Certainly a lot better than the goons at Ofcom or the Daily Telegraph.”

    I had an interesting discussion with my kids about the internet and about how Wikipedia is editable by anyone and one of them said that you couldn’t rely on it But I pointed out that a lot of stuff is pretty reliable – if you want the latin name for the daffodil, you’ll probably be fine. And we then discussed about what is a reliable source, and they came up with the right answer – you have to do a lot of thinking for yourself.

    Look at this statement: “Almost one in 10 children who go online believe information from social media websites or apps is “all true” – doubling from last year – and most 12 to 15-year-olds are unaware that “vloggers”, or video bloggers, can be paid to endorse the products they promote.”

    And how many newspaper readers believe everything they’re told? My Guardian reading neighbours will tell me about something they’ve read in the Graun that I already know that Timmy has demolished. My father tells me about stuff in The Times written by fucking Mary Ann Sieghart. How many kids are aware of the various quid pro quos that take place involving national radio stations, that cookery shows are funded by selling books. How many people spot that something is an advertorial in the Telegraph, when it’s printed in the same style as everything else? This shit has always happened, but the MSM is just more subtle about it.

    The thing with the net is that we have a freer, open media. Yes, vloggers don’t get regulated, but it also means we have people who can point this out. The “everything wrong with” movie stuff on YouTube points out product placement and how filmmakers will have a lingering shot of a product. And this stuff gets shared around. Stuff is deconstructed very quickly today.

    Of course, with so much choice, we don’t actually need Ofcom. Which is what this is about. Scaring people that without Ofcom, the country will become a load of 9/11 truthers.

  9. Where is the bleeding-heart liberal, ever Socialist Internet you are all going on about? I have never found it.

  10. I keep saying that the only defensible position is that 16-year-olds don’t have the vote is because they are not adults.

    You become an adult for one reason and one reason only. You have attained a certain birthday. We do not impose any maturity test on it, we do not impose any asset or income test on it, we do not impose any employment/employability test on it. To use Heinlein’s phrase, it’s a pure warm-blood qualification. You’ve been alive for a certain time and are still alive. Any other qualification is a dangerous slippery slope away from the type of democracy we have been building for centuries, and a process that must only be embarked on if it is clearly and explitly stated that that is the journey you wish society to embark on.

    The only defensible way to give the vote to people who currently do not have it is to vary that one sole qualifying criteria, the age at which on is a full legal adult, with all the full burdens of adulthood, and complete and utter removal of all and every right and protection of childhood.

  11. The only defensible way to give the vote to people who currently do not have it is to vary that one sole qualifying criteria, the age at which on is a full legal adult

    Why is that ‘the only defensible way’?

    Why should age matter more than, say, intelligence, knowledge, commitment to the community, etc?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *