As Mumsnet et al (likely the only people actually "consulted" about Starmer's social media ban for under-16s) squeal and cavort about yet another "victory" (they believe their last one was the EHRC guidance about trans people...and tall women...and women with broad shoulders...and women with flat chests...you know, the one that doesn't stop - and which they don't want to stop - a grown, clearly cisgender, violently aggressive man chasing a woman into the women's toilets, and assaulting her because he "thought she looked trans"...such protection...so much safety...), I'm already preparing for the reality that, as soon as this pointless act of government overreach and control for control's sake comes in, I'll have to hope like hell that people who have been very vocal about being anti-Digital ID actually put their boots on that ground, and engage with my freelance business being something I will no longer be able to run online.
Currently, the only way to access the "government gateway" which would be used to provide Digital IDs is...to already have some very specific forms of ID, namely, a UK driving licence, or a passport.
I'm legally blind, which means I'm not allowed to have a driving licence.
Currently, the only way to access the "government gateway" which would be used to provide Digital IDs is...to already have some very specific forms of ID, namely, a UK driving licence, or a passport.
I'm legally blind, which means I'm not allowed to have a driving licence.
The last time I tried to apply for "government issued photo ID" (Citizencard), it was rejected because they had unspecified "issues" with my reference (who works for the local government, is a named head of service provision with said local government, who was willing to provide her own passport details...) I don't have anyone else I know who meets their criteria. I have some people who *might* - but I don't have a spare £115 to waste if the Passport Office decide they don't. (Application fees are non-refundable.) I also really don't want to end up being accused of some kind of crime (because, let's be honest, Labour seem to be making stuff up as they go along now for "reasons to arrest people"...good way to massage the unemployment figures, I suppose...can't work if you're pleasuring His Majesty...)
So: Even if I felt entirely comfortable and unbothered about the entire concept of Digital ID (which I very much do not), the reality is the government's own systems mean I won't be able to access the application portal.
Since the reality is that the owners of social media sites are a tiny handful of people, who also own 99.9% of non-social media websites, the easiest way for them to enact this legislation is just to require "government issued photo ID" for every website. Which will mean that, essentially, because I have no acceptable-to-Starmer way of proving I'm not some vulnerable minor who should be out scampering across the woods and fields (which now exist only in the street names of housing estates, for the most part), or chatting in the park with my friends (which I never had even when I was under 16), the internet will be closed to me.
I won't be able to apply for jobs.
I won't know about contracts which are available to pitch for.
No one will be able to contact me by email.
I won't be able to do cold outreach by email.
Researching companies and opportunities will become time consuming, though not impossible.
I will lose many of the people I actively enjoy speaking to, and keeping up with - because they don't live in my local area, or, in many cases, anywhere near it. If they did? I'd gladly meet them in person, ignore screens for a few hours, and spend real, quality time with them. But they don't. They're never going to. Banning social media for "anyone who doesn't have a driving licence or passport", essentially, isn't going to change that.
I'm one person, with an attitude that, since I'm not all that fond of social media generally, and emails give me anxiety, I'm only too happy to work around my "excluded as collatoral damage" situation.
But there are children - the same children Starmer and Mumsnet insist they're "protecting" - who aren't going to come away from what is essentially a war on rural children, a war on children in poverty, a war on disabled children, a war on children of negligent or neglectful parents, a war on introverted children, a war on young carers, unscathed.
Children in isolated rural areas.
Children in poverty.
Disabled children.
Children being raised by uncaring parents.
Children who are quieter, more introverted, less "sporty".
Children with care responsibilities.
All of these are children who can't easily "just go outside and play" - there is no "outside" where they are welcome to play. Their parents either can't afford to, or simply refuse to make the effort to, take them to sports groups and playgrounds and social events. They aren't able to leave the family members they're caring for to "go out and play." There may not be other children for them to play with. There may be other children, but the way those children play isn't engaging to the children being forced away from methods of interaction which felt both manageable and enjoyable.
Children in poverty.
Disabled children.
Children being raised by uncaring parents.
Children who are quieter, more introverted, less "sporty".
Children with care responsibilities.
All of these are children who can't easily "just go outside and play" - there is no "outside" where they are welcome to play. Their parents either can't afford to, or simply refuse to make the effort to, take them to sports groups and playgrounds and social events. They aren't able to leave the family members they're caring for to "go out and play." There may not be other children for them to play with. There may be other children, but the way those children play isn't engaging to the children being forced away from methods of interaction which felt both manageable and enjoyable.
"But it's stopping them from being bullied, and exposed to harm!"
I was sexually assaulted, routinely physically assaulted, and experienced daily verbal abuse from the ages of 12-16, before social media was even really known about in the UK. Children still have to go to school with other kids. WhatsApp isn't going to be included in the ban.
Parents will still enact domestic violence against their partners in front of their children.
Children will still live in houses where newspapers and the television news are a constant presence.
Children will still hear the likes of Rupert Lowe, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump yapping away - but without the benefit of seeing people come in and comment "Oh, do shut up - here's actual evidence which completely disproves your bigoted bs."
Parents will still make misogynistic comments about women they don't think are dressed/behaving "appropriately."
Parents will still make homophobic and transphobic "jokes."
PE teachers will almost certainly still act like being female or disabled is a "justified reason" to be publicly humiliated and verbally abused at least once a week.
Teachers in general will still tell bullied kids to "toughen up", to "stop being so sensitive." They'll probably still tell girls that "boys tease you to show they like you."
Children who grow up to be "fat" 17 and 18 year olds will still encounter GPs who rush to force them to accept completely unproven, entirely experimental "weight loss" drugs which cause musculoskeletal and visual damage - but without having seen evidence of people living physically active, healthy, joy-filled lives whilst being "fat", without having seen people losing weight in natural, balanced ways which benefit the body more widely (strength training, high-demand cardio, dietary adjustments tailored to an individual's needs and goals.)
Children who don't have siblings, who live in geographically isolated areas, and whose parents can't or won't drive them to more populated areas are not going to suddenly know how to make friends easily when they turn 17 or 18. (How do I know? I am that grew-up-rural-without-siblings kid...at 40, I have absolutely no idea how to make friends. Even when I read books about how to make friends as an adult, and apply the elements of advice which are accessible to me (introvert who can't drive, and who increasingly struggles engaging with most sports because of sight loss), it just...doesn't work.)
But social media is clearly bad for children!
Children aren't the ones engineering the algorithms.
I was sexually assaulted, routinely physically assaulted, and experienced daily verbal abuse from the ages of 12-16, before social media was even really known about in the UK. Children still have to go to school with other kids. WhatsApp isn't going to be included in the ban.
Parents will still enact domestic violence against their partners in front of their children.
Children will still live in houses where newspapers and the television news are a constant presence.
Children will still hear the likes of Rupert Lowe, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump yapping away - but without the benefit of seeing people come in and comment "Oh, do shut up - here's actual evidence which completely disproves your bigoted bs."
Parents will still make misogynistic comments about women they don't think are dressed/behaving "appropriately."
Parents will still make homophobic and transphobic "jokes."
PE teachers will almost certainly still act like being female or disabled is a "justified reason" to be publicly humiliated and verbally abused at least once a week.
Teachers in general will still tell bullied kids to "toughen up", to "stop being so sensitive." They'll probably still tell girls that "boys tease you to show they like you."
Children who grow up to be "fat" 17 and 18 year olds will still encounter GPs who rush to force them to accept completely unproven, entirely experimental "weight loss" drugs which cause musculoskeletal and visual damage - but without having seen evidence of people living physically active, healthy, joy-filled lives whilst being "fat", without having seen people losing weight in natural, balanced ways which benefit the body more widely (strength training, high-demand cardio, dietary adjustments tailored to an individual's needs and goals.)
Children who don't have siblings, who live in geographically isolated areas, and whose parents can't or won't drive them to more populated areas are not going to suddenly know how to make friends easily when they turn 17 or 18. (How do I know? I am that grew-up-rural-without-siblings kid...at 40, I have absolutely no idea how to make friends. Even when I read books about how to make friends as an adult, and apply the elements of advice which are accessible to me (introvert who can't drive, and who increasingly struggles engaging with most sports because of sight loss), it just...doesn't work.)
But social media is clearly bad for children!
Children aren't the ones engineering the algorithms.
They're not the ones being most vocal, and getting most traction, for bigoted, anti-social content.
Keir Starmer's Labour have already declared war not just on transgender people, but also on:
. Intersex people
. Deliberately gender-non-conforming people
. Unintentionally "androgynous"/gender-non-conforming people
. People from cultures where gender is expressed differently to the way it is in the West
The social media ban extends the "legitimate combat targets" groups to:
. Rural children
. Children who aren't sporty
. Introverted children
. Children of abusive or negligent parents
. Children in poverty
. Disabled children
. Child carers
. Children who "look different" to the majority of their peers (and are no longer able to find people who look like them easily),
whilst also bringing more groups into "collateral civilian damage":
. Adults who can't get a driving licence or passport
. Adults who are less technologically competent
If parents do not want their children to have as much/any access to social media, then those parents should be legally obliged to dedicate the number of hours their children were spending on social media to enabling them to access in-person social activities: Boardgame clubs, book clubs, sports practices, attending parties of friends who live distantly.
It is not the job of government (with costs borne by all taxpayers, including those who make a deliberate choice not to have children) to prioritise particular ways for children to spend their free time, or to prohibit accessible forms of engagement with their peers; that is, and should always be, the responsibility of parents.
This ban isn't going to stop the actual harm of children on social media, which is parents freely posting identifiable, personal details about their children, including full-face visuals of their children, their children in minimal clothing, their children in vulnerable conditions, on public social media accounts as a way to generate income.
This ban isn't about "protecting children" - it's about the fact that money for the data Digital ID will collect on everyone in the UK has already changed hands, and Starmer can't afford to not bring in Digital ID in a way that more or less compels the majority of people in the UK to have it, or to use documents which contain equivalent levels of identifiable personal information, to do routine web-based tasks, even if they don't want to use social media.
The UK government had no mandate to render the Equality Act essentially meaningless, not just for trans people, but also for disabled people, particularly those who are in, or may end up in, residential or secure clinical care. (Read all the guidance... and start to wonder why there's so little being said about pregnancy rights...)
The UK government has no mandate to exclude entire social demographic groups from access to something which is increasingly becoming essential for maintaining a functional life.
The UK government has no mandate for compelling people to "just accept" Digital ID, with all the data protection risks - known and unknown - it brings.
This is a government acting in a hostile manner towards particular groups of citizens for no reason other than holding a sense of control in the face of unmanageable variables.
If Keir Starmer cared at all about the "safety of children", he would sever the "special relationship" with the USA - currently run by an administration which is happy to violently separate children from their parents, to shoot children for normal school misbehaviour, and a President who had links to a known predator, who included children in his abuse.
As and when this government overreach hits... I'll be doing business like it's 1999. (Or 1979...)
Keir Starmer's Labour have already declared war not just on transgender people, but also on:
. Intersex people
. Deliberately gender-non-conforming people
. Unintentionally "androgynous"/gender-non-conforming people
. People from cultures where gender is expressed differently to the way it is in the West
The social media ban extends the "legitimate combat targets" groups to:
. Rural children
. Children who aren't sporty
. Introverted children
. Children of abusive or negligent parents
. Children in poverty
. Disabled children
. Child carers
. Children who "look different" to the majority of their peers (and are no longer able to find people who look like them easily),
whilst also bringing more groups into "collateral civilian damage":
. Adults who can't get a driving licence or passport
. Adults who are less technologically competent
If parents do not want their children to have as much/any access to social media, then those parents should be legally obliged to dedicate the number of hours their children were spending on social media to enabling them to access in-person social activities: Boardgame clubs, book clubs, sports practices, attending parties of friends who live distantly.
It is not the job of government (with costs borne by all taxpayers, including those who make a deliberate choice not to have children) to prioritise particular ways for children to spend their free time, or to prohibit accessible forms of engagement with their peers; that is, and should always be, the responsibility of parents.
This ban isn't going to stop the actual harm of children on social media, which is parents freely posting identifiable, personal details about their children, including full-face visuals of their children, their children in minimal clothing, their children in vulnerable conditions, on public social media accounts as a way to generate income.
This ban isn't about "protecting children" - it's about the fact that money for the data Digital ID will collect on everyone in the UK has already changed hands, and Starmer can't afford to not bring in Digital ID in a way that more or less compels the majority of people in the UK to have it, or to use documents which contain equivalent levels of identifiable personal information, to do routine web-based tasks, even if they don't want to use social media.
The UK government had no mandate to render the Equality Act essentially meaningless, not just for trans people, but also for disabled people, particularly those who are in, or may end up in, residential or secure clinical care. (Read all the guidance... and start to wonder why there's so little being said about pregnancy rights...)
The UK government has no mandate to exclude entire social demographic groups from access to something which is increasingly becoming essential for maintaining a functional life.
The UK government has no mandate for compelling people to "just accept" Digital ID, with all the data protection risks - known and unknown - it brings.
This is a government acting in a hostile manner towards particular groups of citizens for no reason other than holding a sense of control in the face of unmanageable variables.
If Keir Starmer cared at all about the "safety of children", he would sever the "special relationship" with the USA - currently run by an administration which is happy to violently separate children from their parents, to shoot children for normal school misbehaviour, and a President who had links to a known predator, who included children in his abuse.
As and when this government overreach hits... I'll be doing business like it's 1999. (Or 1979...)
Comments
Post a Comment