Social Media Ban: Starmer finally gets something right

Yeah, it's a bit of a hot potato this week, isn't it? This social media ban for under 16s, because lots to say, really.

I mean, nine out of 10 parents support a ban, Liam, and that is such a strong majority.

And I think you tend to get a lot of stuff around this topic with people saying, oh, it's poor parenting.

Why are these children allowed on these dreadful devices? And I always think, yeah, clearly these are people who haven't ever had to wrestle a very furious nine-year-old off an iPad after several hours on the screen.

And I think anyone listening to Planet Normal who's witnessed a child, perhaps quite a sweet-natured child who's been on technology for a few hours, will have seen the Jekyll turn into the Hyde.

It is absolutely astonishing that became very avid, very angry, because it's an addiction, right? It's an addiction.

It's not just being online.

It's not just being on TikTok or Snapchat or whatever.

It's an addiction.

And what do we do, Liam, in society with children and other addictive products? Alcohol, nicotine.

We don't throw drugs at them, do we? But social media, not specifically social media, I would extend it to games and smartphones as a whole.

You don't want internet-enabled phones, do you, for under 16?

I don't think the social media... ban is sufficient.

I think we should be looking at the hardware of the phone.

We should be banning all internet enabled phones for children.

And the reason I feel so strongly about this, we've had in the past, we've had obviously Sophie Winkleman on not so long ago on Planet Normal, anti-screens campaigner Molly Kingsley has done a huge amount of work on it.

And we have a vast child mental health crisis.

And I just don't think there's any doubt about that now at all.

In fact, when I was writing in my column this week about it, I thought, I really think, Liam, in 20 or 30 years, people will look back on this period and they will say, what the hell did they think they were doing? allowing children to access this stuff.

It's not just being on the phone.

There are Californian geniuses who are paid to write algorithms which deliberately make it addictive and reel them in.

And the information on that is totally shocking.

But as you described at the top, on the other hand, we have a lot of people surprised at my stance saying, but you're a free speech campaigner.

And this is just ushering in digital ID by the back door.

I've got no doubt that we have an extremely authoritarian government, which do pretty much anything to shut people up and get views out of the way that they don't like.

Yeah, it's a bit of a hot potato this week, isn't it? This social media ban for under 16s, because lots to say, really.

I mean, nine out of 10 parents support a ban, Liam, and that is such a strong majority.

And I think you tend to get a lot of stuff around this topic with people saying, oh, it's poor parenting.

Why are these children allowed on these dreadful devices? And I always think, yeah, clearly these are people who haven't ever had to wrestle a very furious nine-year-old off an iPad after several hours on the screen.

And I think anyone listening to Planet Normal who's witnessed a child, perhaps quite a sweet-natured child who's been on technology for a few hours, will have seen the Jekyll turn into the Hyde.

It is absolutely astonishing that became very avid, very angry, because it's an addiction, right? It's an addiction.

It's not just being online.

It's not just being on TikTok or Snapchat or whatever.

It's an addiction.

And what do we do, Liam, in society with children and other addictive products? Alcohol, nicotine.

We don't throw drugs at them, do we? But social media, not specifically social media, I would extend it to games and smartphones as a whole.

You don't want internet-enabled phones, do you, for under 16?

I don't think the social media... ban is sufficient.

I think we should be looking at the hardware of the phone.

We should be banning all internet enabled phones for children.

And the reason I feel so strongly about this, we've had in the past, we've had obviously Sophie Winkleman on not so long ago on Planet Normal, anti-screens campaigner Molly Kingsley has done a huge amount of work on it.

And we have a vast child mental health crisis.

And I just don't think there's any doubt about that now at all.

In fact, when I was writing in my column this week about it, I thought, I really think, Liam, in 20 or 30 years, people will look back on this period and they will say, what the hell did they think they were doing? allowing children to access this stuff.

It's not just being on the phone.

There are Californian geniuses who are paid to write algorithms which deliberately make it addictive and reel them in.

And the information on that is totally shocking.

But as you described at the top, on the other hand, we have a lot of people surprised at my stance saying, but you're a free speech campaigner.

And this is just ushering in digital ID by the back door.

I've got no doubt that we have an extremely authoritarian government, which do pretty much anything to shut people up and get views out of the way that they don't like.