No point to it at all

Teenagers under the age of 16 could be banned from Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and email if they don’t have parental permission, under last-minute changes to EU laws.

Well, OK, actually, there is:

Officials quitely amended proposed data protection laws last week to increase the age and put the EU out of step with rules in other parts of the world.

Europe is different therefore Europe must be different. no other purpose to it at all. If the US was at 16 then Europe would be at 13.

19 thoughts on “No point to it at all”

  1. interesting that this is happening at the same time as calls for 16 yr olds to be able to vote in any European referendum…

    15yrs, 11 months & 30 days old = need to ask Mummy & Daddy if I can use Facebook.
    16 yrs old = can vote for the people who, until today would let me message my friends in the way I wanted to.

    I just don’t get it!

  2. Tim Newman,

    Facebook is currently a “what’s your date of birth?” question. I guess they need to add a “did you ask your parents” box that every under 16 will click.

    Denying 14 year olds Facebook is like being the Amish today. It’s just a massive way for kids at school to communicate with each other out of school. You lay down certain rules and why, like no accepting friend requests from people you don’t already know, which kids themselves are fine with.

  3. For once, an entirely sensible EU initiative.
    So once that’s in place, we can presume the kiddies romping around the internet are doing it with their parents’ permission & under their supervision & it’s not everybody else’s responsibility to child mind.
    What’s not to like?

  4. There’s more of a case for giving up social media when you’re over 16 rather than banning it when virtual friends may be easier to achieve than ones made of flesh and blood.

  5. is the age of consent not 13 or so in Spain and Portugal, which rather makes a mockery of this in those countries.

    I don’t want to set off alarm bells at work or with the polis by starting a search to find the answer!

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Who wants to bet that the next step is to criminalise friending someone under 16 even if they tell you they are 37?

    Cyber-crypto-paedophilia?

  7. @Rob: but not able to send a sext until the age of 18. So they are supposedly in control of their physical bodies, but not their image.

  8. OK… Now show me a healthy teenager who does not try to get out under Parental Control every chance (s)he’s got…

    This is like trying to outlaw gravity..

  9. Amazes me that legislators still don’t even have a fraction of a clue how this interwebs doofer thingy works.

    Well, actually I lied there: it doesn’t amaze me at all.

    Is it for this kind of weapons-grade stupidity that we pay them mahusive tax-free salaries?

  10. Andrew Duffin,
    There are plenty enough people in IT who don’t understand what computers are for, or how they can best be used. And the IT industry has its own Luddite faction.

    Denied Party Screening, which I may have mentioned before, is similar and real. In force, globally.

    At least this is just some twats virtue-signalling.

  11. It’s all going to get very interesting when the current generation comes of age and starts trying to become prime minister. There’ll be so much ancient dirt on everyone that no one will be able to do the job.

    Which ties in nicely with another of Tim’s earlier posts today.

  12. My Facebook etc are behind this, when my son had an Xbox many years ago in order to setup a child account I had to have an adult Id/account so maybe the social media lot are trying to make sure all the adults are on the system by forcing them to have an account in order to authorise their kids accounts

  13. “It’s all going to get very interesting when the current generation comes of age and starts trying to become prime minister. There’ll be so much ancient dirt on everyone that no one will be able to do the job.”

    Not really. The current crop have lots of dirt in the public sphere. People forget about it. It takes the media/social media to repeat it ad nauseum 24/7 to make a difference. Take Corbyn, for example, the stuff he has said and supported. It should be highly radioactive but somehow isn’t.

Leave a Reply

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