正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

If it wasn’t so unbelieveably controlling it would be laughable. It is being reported that not only do the government want to ban ALL social media use for under 16’s but they now also want to introduce a night time CURFEW for social media media use for 16 and...

JohnHann04's profile picture

John Hannam

25,632 subscribers

29,206 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

According to this Labour Government 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote, but not to serve on a jury. That is an "adult duty" apparently. They are old enough to vote, but are now subject to a government-mandated social media curfew at 8.30pm. The only consistent thing about Labour's votes at 16 policy is the blatant party political self interest.
1:32

According to this Labour Government 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote, but not to serve on a jury. That is an "adult duty" apparently. They are old enough to vote, but are now subject to a government-mandated social media curfew at 8.30pm. The only consistent thing about Labour's votes at 16 policy is the blatant party political self interest.

James Cleverly🇬🇧

190,071 次观看 • 1 个月前

Labour want to give 16 year olds the vote. But they don't even trust them to be on social media past 8.30pm. This is a mockery of British democracy.
1:42

Labour want to give 16 year olds the vote. But they don't even trust them to be on social media past 8.30pm. This is a mockery of British democracy.

James Cleverly🇬🇧

45,572 次观看 • 1 个月前

"They can't go on social media but they can determine the future of the country?" Nick Ferrari reckons it's 'a bit odd' that Labour want 16-year-olds to have the vote... but won't let them tweet after 10pm.
0:46

"They can't go on social media but they can determine the future of the country?" Nick Ferrari reckons it's 'a bit odd' that Labour want 16-year-olds to have the vote... but won't let them tweet after 10pm.

LBC

18,163 次观看 • 1 个月前

#angelarayner our #deputyprimeminister is impossibly thick. Her argument in favour of votes for 16 yr olds seems to be that they pay tax so should be able to vote, but tax paying has no relationship to age whatsoever, and laughably that 16 yr olds can get married but seems to not be aware that the age for marriage was put up to 18 in England & Wales in 2023 so doesn’t even know our own laws. #votes #Marriage #ageofmarriage
2:33

#angelarayner our #deputyprimeminister is impossibly thick. Her argument in favour of votes for 16 yr olds seems to be that they pay tax so should be able to vote, but tax paying has no relationship to age whatsoever, and laughably that 16 yr olds can get married but seems to not be aware that the age for marriage was put up to 18 in England & Wales in 2023 so doesn’t even know our own laws. #votes #Marriage #ageofmarriage

JohnHann0404🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

17,207 次观看 • 1 年前

Right so let me get this correct. The Labour Party want to give 16 year olds the vote but not allow them to have social media. This would mean all the political information they get would be from teachers or parents. Well political indoctrination in education is about to get a hell of a lot worse.
1:01

Right so let me get this correct. The Labour Party want to give 16 year olds the vote but not allow them to have social media. This would mean all the political information they get would be from teachers or parents. Well political indoctrination in education is about to get a hell of a lot worse.

Ellie Hodges

14,398 次观看 • 2 个月前

Listen to Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour’s Minister for Digital Economy) struggling to find the words, trying to justify the government’s social media ban and power grip on young people and families. This government wants to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. Fair enough. But at the same time it pushes the ban for under-16s enforced by digital ID. They want to reserve the right for the government to decide what is “reliable” news, where and how it is consumed - depriving young people of the chance to discuss, decide and make up their own minds. Orwell told us, this is indoctrination and that is unworthy of any democracy.
0:46

Listen to Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour’s Minister for Digital Economy) struggling to find the words, trying to justify the government’s social media ban and power grip on young people and families. This government wants to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. Fair enough. But at the same time it pushes the ban for under-16s enforced by digital ID. They want to reserve the right for the government to decide what is “reliable” news, where and how it is consumed - depriving young people of the chance to discuss, decide and make up their own minds. Orwell told us, this is indoctrination and that is unworthy of any democracy.

Marx de Morais

32,085 次观看 • 1 个月前

“We’ve got a current Labour government headed by Keir Starmer at the moment and potentially in future headed by Andy Burnham makes no difference because both of them appear to have the same view on this and therefore the Labour government’s view won’t change and that is that they’ve decided that they can ban 16 year olds from accessing social media due to the vulnerability of their minds and how social media may well indeed manipulate their minds and due to that vulnerability. The Labour Party doesn’t want 16 or under accessing social media. Meanwhile, an 11 year old, according to the Labour Party, does have the mental capacity to decide that they are not a boy or that they are not a girl, that they’ve been born in the wrong body and that they can irreversibly alter the way that their body grows their sexual organs by stopping and blocking puberty chemically. So an 11 year old can make that decision. But at the same time, a 16 or 15 year old can’t access social media. It is a very, very strange position that the Labour government has taken, explained by the facts, of course, as you saw Andy Burnham there giving £100,000 as a grant as mayor of Manchester to an organisation that was lobbying for this change. Also explained by the fact that Keir Starmer and the Labour government clearly don’t care about the mental wellbeing of children, otherwise they wouldn’t be allowing 11 year olds to block their own puberty. And so this online safety in 16 year olds, what that’s really about is introducing digital ID for every single citizen by stealth, using the name of the children and protecting the children as the excuse.” Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED
1:41

“We’ve got a current Labour government headed by Keir Starmer at the moment and potentially in future headed by Andy Burnham makes no difference because both of them appear to have the same view on this and therefore the Labour government’s view won’t change and that is that they’ve decided that they can ban 16 year olds from accessing social media due to the vulnerability of their minds and how social media may well indeed manipulate their minds and due to that vulnerability. The Labour Party doesn’t want 16 or under accessing social media. Meanwhile, an 11 year old, according to the Labour Party, does have the mental capacity to decide that they are not a boy or that they are not a girl, that they’ve been born in the wrong body and that they can irreversibly alter the way that their body grows their sexual organs by stopping and blocking puberty chemically. So an 11 year old can make that decision. But at the same time, a 16 or 15 year old can’t access social media. It is a very, very strange position that the Labour government has taken, explained by the facts, of course, as you saw Andy Burnham there giving £100,000 as a grant as mayor of Manchester to an organisation that was lobbying for this change. Also explained by the fact that Keir Starmer and the Labour government clearly don’t care about the mental wellbeing of children, otherwise they wouldn’t be allowing 11 year olds to block their own puberty. And so this online safety in 16 year olds, what that’s really about is introducing digital ID for every single citizen by stealth, using the name of the children and protecting the children as the excuse.” Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED

أبو عمّار

18,378 次观看 • 1 个月前

Chad Bianco: “I think it's interesting that drugs create mental illness too. And yet California Democrats have made drugs legal in California, but now we're going to ban social media because it creates a mental health issue for kids under 16." "Social media is not a good thing for us to be spending 12 hours a day on, but it is up to parents what they want to do with their kids. It's not up to the government to tell them what their kids are going to do."
0:34

Chad Bianco: “I think it's interesting that drugs create mental illness too. And yet California Democrats have made drugs legal in California, but now we're going to ban social media because it creates a mental health issue for kids under 16." "Social media is not a good thing for us to be spending 12 hours a day on, but it is up to parents what they want to do with their kids. It's not up to the government to tell them what their kids are going to do."

Defiant L’s

49,458 次观看 • 3 个月前

🇬🇧 15 YEAR OLDS BANNED FROM SOCIAL MEDIA, 11 YEAR OLDS NOW CLEARED FOR PUBERTY BLOCKERS 15 year olds are not allowed to have social media because the government says so. 11 year old children are now permitted puberty blockers under a new NHS trial because the government says so. The same state that decides a teenager isn't mature enough for Instagram has decided a child barely out of primary school is mature enough to consent to hormone altering drugs. This is pure evil and we must fight to ensure it is overturned.
1:03

🇬🇧 15 YEAR OLDS BANNED FROM SOCIAL MEDIA, 11 YEAR OLDS NOW CLEARED FOR PUBERTY BLOCKERS 15 year olds are not allowed to have social media because the government says so. 11 year old children are now permitted puberty blockers under a new NHS trial because the government says so. The same state that decides a teenager isn't mature enough for Instagram has decided a child barely out of primary school is mature enough to consent to hormone altering drugs. This is pure evil and we must fight to ensure it is overturned.

British Intel

25,254 次观看 • 1 个月前

'I don't think we should do the disservice to teenagers of suggesting that they are looking for simply turning these things off' Online Saftey minister Kanishka Narayan spoke to #BBCBreakfast about plans for a social media curfew for 16 and 17 year olds between midnight and 6am - though they will be able to opt out of it by changing their account settings.
0:41

'I don't think we should do the disservice to teenagers of suggesting that they are looking for simply turning these things off' Online Saftey minister Kanishka Narayan spoke to #BBCBreakfast about plans for a social media curfew for 16 and 17 year olds between midnight and 6am - though they will be able to opt out of it by changing their account settings.

BBC Breakfast

17,784 次观看 • 29 天前

Dear Labour, 16 years olds don’t need the vote. They need adults to do their duty and act in their best interests, rather than putting ballot papers in their hands and telling them they’re “bright enough” to do it themselves. Despite what Starmer wants you believe, 16 year olds do not (and should not) bear the same responsibilities as adults: • A 16 year old can drink with a meal in a pub or restaurant, but only if the alcohol is purchased by someone over 18. • A 16 year old can get married, but only with their parents’ consent. • A 16 year old is considered to lack the necessary capacity so cannot enter into legal contracts, except in very limited circumstances. • A 16 year old can join the military, but only with parental consent — is heavily criticised as we are also the only European country to allow minor enlistment. • Nearly all employed 16-17 year olds do not pay taxes — they must must earn more than £242 per week to pay National Insurance, so they would have to work at least 38 (£6.40 p/h) hours per week to meet the threshold They must also exceed £12.57K per year to pay income tax, which is incredibly unlikely. For the few that do — like child actors — there are also usually adults around them (eg. accountants, managers, parents) who support and represent their interests as they are usually not responsible enough to do it themselves. • Just because 16 year olds can have sex, that still doesn’t make them adults — the abundance of evidence on the sexual exploitation of 16-17 year olds demonstrates their vulnerability, while legislation extends to them the same child protective powers as with younger children. Why? Because they are children. No matter how smart or mature a 16 year old may seem, they are still a child, and it is a failure of our protective duty to burden them with adult responsibilities. To lower the voting age to 16 is to allow children to be considered ‘legal adults’ before they’re ready. I know first-hand the damage that can be caused by treating a child like an adult before their time. At 16, I was legally homeless and under social services. I worked three jobs to survive, sofa-surfed through my A-Levels, showered at school, and survived off the kindness of friends and teachers. When Votes at 16 activists talk about the teenagers to whom ‘adult responsibilities’ apply and should be given a vote, they are describing my life. But where they believe lowering the voting age gives ‘a seat at the table’, all I see is a mechanism by which adults and services will be able to shirk their protective duties to vulnerable kids. I remember being told so often by my social workers that I was “smart enough” to do things on my own. The fact that I was “bright” and “mature” was weaponised against me to force me to take on burdens that I neither wanted nor was ready for. I will never forget sitting in ‘Multi Agency Meetings’ sobbing for someone to help me. I will never forget being told that it was “my actions that led me to where I was”. I will never forget my local council, social workers, and other professionals using legal loopholes to shirk their duties towards that vulnerable 16 year old child. 16 and 17 year olds like me – the ones that campaigners point to as the ‘model example’ of young people who should be allowed to vote – don’t need a vote to be “empowered”. It isn’t empowering to expect children to act like adults, and it does far more damage than good to force teenagers further into a legal grey area. Parliamentary decisions do affect young people. However, it is the job of the legislature to make decisions for the people, and it is the duty of adults to make decisions in the best interests of children. It is a failure of our protective duty to burden children with adult duties because they’re “smart enough to handle it”. If the only way you can win the next election is by putting ballot papers shouldn’t be put in the hands of babes, then you shouldn’t be in government.
2:51

Dear Labour, 16 years olds don’t need the vote. They need adults to do their duty and act in their best interests, rather than putting ballot papers in their hands and telling them they’re “bright enough” to do it themselves. Despite what Starmer wants you believe, 16 year olds do not (and should not) bear the same responsibilities as adults: • A 16 year old can drink with a meal in a pub or restaurant, but only if the alcohol is purchased by someone over 18. • A 16 year old can get married, but only with their parents’ consent. • A 16 year old is considered to lack the necessary capacity so cannot enter into legal contracts, except in very limited circumstances. • A 16 year old can join the military, but only with parental consent — is heavily criticised as we are also the only European country to allow minor enlistment. • Nearly all employed 16-17 year olds do not pay taxes — they must must earn more than £242 per week to pay National Insurance, so they would have to work at least 38 (£6.40 p/h) hours per week to meet the threshold They must also exceed £12.57K per year to pay income tax, which is incredibly unlikely. For the few that do — like child actors — there are also usually adults around them (eg. accountants, managers, parents) who support and represent their interests as they are usually not responsible enough to do it themselves. • Just because 16 year olds can have sex, that still doesn’t make them adults — the abundance of evidence on the sexual exploitation of 16-17 year olds demonstrates their vulnerability, while legislation extends to them the same child protective powers as with younger children. Why? Because they are children. No matter how smart or mature a 16 year old may seem, they are still a child, and it is a failure of our protective duty to burden them with adult responsibilities. To lower the voting age to 16 is to allow children to be considered ‘legal adults’ before they’re ready. I know first-hand the damage that can be caused by treating a child like an adult before their time. At 16, I was legally homeless and under social services. I worked three jobs to survive, sofa-surfed through my A-Levels, showered at school, and survived off the kindness of friends and teachers. When Votes at 16 activists talk about the teenagers to whom ‘adult responsibilities’ apply and should be given a vote, they are describing my life. But where they believe lowering the voting age gives ‘a seat at the table’, all I see is a mechanism by which adults and services will be able to shirk their protective duties to vulnerable kids. I remember being told so often by my social workers that I was “smart enough” to do things on my own. The fact that I was “bright” and “mature” was weaponised against me to force me to take on burdens that I neither wanted nor was ready for. I will never forget sitting in ‘Multi Agency Meetings’ sobbing for someone to help me. I will never forget being told that it was “my actions that led me to where I was”. I will never forget my local council, social workers, and other professionals using legal loopholes to shirk their duties towards that vulnerable 16 year old child. 16 and 17 year olds like me – the ones that campaigners point to as the ‘model example’ of young people who should be allowed to vote – don’t need a vote to be “empowered”. It isn’t empowering to expect children to act like adults, and it does far more damage than good to force teenagers further into a legal grey area. Parliamentary decisions do affect young people. However, it is the job of the legislature to make decisions for the people, and it is the duty of adults to make decisions in the best interests of children. It is a failure of our protective duty to burden children with adult duties because they’re “smart enough to handle it”. If the only way you can win the next election is by putting ballot papers shouldn’t be put in the hands of babes, then you shouldn’t be in government.

Samantha Smith

106,851 次观看 • 1 年前

Stephen Miller on the SAVE America Act: “We have 53 Republican senators, and I know everybody says, ‘Well this senator won't vote for it or that senator won't vote for it,’ it's because there is no consequence on them for not doing so…” “They all have a life they want to have after the Senate. They all have foundations they want to be a part of, corporate boards they want to be a part of… If you want to be in Republican politics, you have to understand it is a team sport.”
0:25

Stephen Miller on the SAVE America Act: “We have 53 Republican senators, and I know everybody says, ‘Well this senator won't vote for it or that senator won't vote for it,’ it's because there is no consequence on them for not doing so…” “They all have a life they want to have after the Senate. They all have foundations they want to be a part of, corporate boards they want to be a part of… If you want to be in Republican politics, you have to understand it is a team sport.”

RedWave Press

99,117 次观看 • 1 个月前

Do people realise that banning Social media for under 16’s will have the effect of forcing EVERYONE of EVERY age to identify themselves and inevitably that will go down the route of a digital ID scheme within a very short period of time. It’s state oversight of the entire population dressed up as child protection. And huge numbers of kids will get around the checks anyway as is already happening in Australia. The irony of governments on the one hand giving the vote to 16 yr olds and on the other claiming those same kids at 15 yrs and 11 months are unable to determine what is harmful content and so banning them from using their own judgement is laughable..
4:08

Do people realise that banning Social media for under 16’s will have the effect of forcing EVERYONE of EVERY age to identify themselves and inevitably that will go down the route of a digital ID scheme within a very short period of time. It’s state oversight of the entire population dressed up as child protection. And huge numbers of kids will get around the checks anyway as is already happening in Australia. The irony of governments on the one hand giving the vote to 16 yr olds and on the other claiming those same kids at 15 yrs and 11 months are unable to determine what is harmful content and so banning them from using their own judgement is laughable..

JohnHann0404🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

17,336 次观看 • 6 个月前

The Free Speech Union has serious concerns about the Government’s proposal to ban under-16s from some social media platforms (but not others). When the proposal was first announced, ministers cited supposedly 'harmful' platforms such as X, Facebook and YouTube, but made no mention of the left-leaning Bluesky. A selective ban, rather than a blanket one, means Ofcom will be tasked with enforcing the political preferences of whichever government happens to be in power. If there's a change of government, will X be taken off the banned list and Bluesky put in its place? Another concern is enforcement. How exactly does the Government intend to make the ban work in practice? In Australia — the model ministers appear keen to follow — many under-16s continue to access social media through VPNs. Will the Government’s next step be to ban VPNs as well? That would put the UK in the same company as Turkmenistan, Iran and North Korea. The Government has also failed to explain how this proposal can be reconciled with its duties under the Online Safety Act to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content — duties that are due to come into force next month. This is particularly important given the Government’s intention to extend some social media restrictions to 16 and 17 year-olds and at the same time lower the voting age to 16. How can 16 and 17 year-olds be expected to participate meaningfully in the democratic process if the Government is restricting the content of democratic importance and the journalistic content they're able to access? The Free Speech Union will be keeping a wary eye on the Government’s plans 👇
2:45

The Free Speech Union has serious concerns about the Government’s proposal to ban under-16s from some social media platforms (but not others). When the proposal was first announced, ministers cited supposedly 'harmful' platforms such as X, Facebook and YouTube, but made no mention of the left-leaning Bluesky. A selective ban, rather than a blanket one, means Ofcom will be tasked with enforcing the political preferences of whichever government happens to be in power. If there's a change of government, will X be taken off the banned list and Bluesky put in its place? Another concern is enforcement. How exactly does the Government intend to make the ban work in practice? In Australia — the model ministers appear keen to follow — many under-16s continue to access social media through VPNs. Will the Government’s next step be to ban VPNs as well? That would put the UK in the same company as Turkmenistan, Iran and North Korea. The Government has also failed to explain how this proposal can be reconciled with its duties under the Online Safety Act to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content — duties that are due to come into force next month. This is particularly important given the Government’s intention to extend some social media restrictions to 16 and 17 year-olds and at the same time lower the voting age to 16. How can 16 and 17 year-olds be expected to participate meaningfully in the democratic process if the Government is restricting the content of democratic importance and the journalistic content they're able to access? The Free Speech Union will be keeping a wary eye on the Government’s plans 👇

The Free Speech Union

54,731 次观看 • 1 个月前

The social media ban for under 16 year olds will likely involve EVERY person in Australia having to provide biometric scans of their face every time they want to use their social media. The Australian government has been trialling age assurance tests which provides an age estimate from a persons face scan. Notice how they are using the “it’s for the safety of our children” excuse when we all know this is just another step towards a digital dystopia!
1:09

The social media ban for under 16 year olds will likely involve EVERY person in Australia having to provide biometric scans of their face every time they want to use their social media. The Australian government has been trialling age assurance tests which provides an age estimate from a persons face scan. Notice how they are using the “it’s for the safety of our children” excuse when we all know this is just another step towards a digital dystopia!

Miss Madeleine

105,247 次观看 • 1 年前

When the Government announced its social media ban for under-16s, it published an indicative list of platforms that included Facebook, Instagram and X. BlueSky was nowhere to be seen. The Government has since rowed back, insisting that it was only an indicative list. We think it is more than a coincidence that these perceived centre-right platforms were included from the outset, while the left-leaning platform was omitted. In Australia, where this Government borrowed the idea for the ban, BlueSky was not on the list. In typical fashion, however, it has since volunteered to be included. Once Ofcom has finalised the regulations, we will have a clearer idea of what qualifies a platform for the ban. In the latest episode of the FSU Podcast, Lord Young argues that the initial decision not to include BlueSky points to something quite alarming: that this is a selective ban. The problem with a selective ban is whether Ofcom can genuinely be trusted to make politically impartial decisions that do not benefit the Government of the day. That concern is particularly pertinent at the moment, given that the Government is pushing through legislation to give 16-year-olds the vote. Watch the full episode of the FSU Podcast on the FSU YouTube channel 👇
1:27

When the Government announced its social media ban for under-16s, it published an indicative list of platforms that included Facebook, Instagram and X. BlueSky was nowhere to be seen. The Government has since rowed back, insisting that it was only an indicative list. We think it is more than a coincidence that these perceived centre-right platforms were included from the outset, while the left-leaning platform was omitted. In Australia, where this Government borrowed the idea for the ban, BlueSky was not on the list. In typical fashion, however, it has since volunteered to be included. Once Ofcom has finalised the regulations, we will have a clearer idea of what qualifies a platform for the ban. In the latest episode of the FSU Podcast, Lord Young argues that the initial decision not to include BlueSky points to something quite alarming: that this is a selective ban. The problem with a selective ban is whether Ofcom can genuinely be trusted to make politically impartial decisions that do not benefit the Government of the day. That concern is particularly pertinent at the moment, given that the Government is pushing through legislation to give 16-year-olds the vote. Watch the full episode of the FSU Podcast on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

The Free Speech Union

59,663 次观看 • 1 个月前

Zubeidah Kananu: Don't lead a country out of emotions. The government needs to respect the media and give us the right and opportunity to do what is rightfully our mandate. We condemn what the government has done and the statement given by the director general of the Communication Authority and we urge all media houses to ensure that any information they publish is verified, accurate and is safe for public consumption. We ask, what is it that we are hiding? What is it that we don't want the public to know, the audience to be informed of? What is it they are hiding as a government? #GenZRevolt
5:38

Zubeidah Kananu: Don't lead a country out of emotions. The government needs to respect the media and give us the right and opportunity to do what is rightfully our mandate. We condemn what the government has done and the statement given by the director general of the Communication Authority and we urge all media houses to ensure that any information they publish is verified, accurate and is safe for public consumption. We ask, what is it that we are hiding? What is it that we don't want the public to know, the audience to be informed of? What is it they are hiding as a government? #GenZRevolt

KTN News

18,818 次观看 • 1 年前

While it is commendable that our Hon'ble PM shri Narendra Modiji has asked his ministers to spend more time on Instagram: you will be shocked to know there is a proposal from the government to the Department of Telecom to study taxing the data we consume! This means every reel we see or post we like or story we share could be taxed !! So why this "study"? Is it because Social Media is exposing the Government & unlike mainstream media it cannot be controlled!! They may say it is for our good, to reduce screen time & data consumption but the government is not our parents to do so!!
1:59

While it is commendable that our Hon'ble PM shri Narendra Modiji has asked his ministers to spend more time on Instagram: you will be shocked to know there is a proposal from the government to the Department of Telecom to study taxing the data we consume! This means every reel we see or post we like or story we share could be taxed !! So why this "study"? Is it because Social Media is exposing the Government & unlike mainstream media it cannot be controlled!! They may say it is for our good, to reduce screen time & data consumption but the government is not our parents to do so!!

Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳

49,240 次观看 • 20 天前

The Social Media Ban Affects Every Canadian — Even Those Who Don't Use Them They're calling it a social media ban for kids under 16. But if you think this doesn't affect you because you don't use Facebook or TikTok — think again. YouTube. Reddit. Substack. WhatsApp. Signal. Amazon. TripAdvisor. Even news sites with a comment section could fall under the definition of social media. And to enforce this ban, every single Canadian will have to attach government-approved ID to every platform they use. That's is not about protection children. It's about implementing a digital ID for every Canadian. Want to know more? Check out my full breakdown
1:26

The Social Media Ban Affects Every Canadian — Even Those Who Don't Use Them They're calling it a social media ban for kids under 16. But if you think this doesn't affect you because you don't use Facebook or TikTok — think again. YouTube. Reddit. Substack. WhatsApp. Signal. Amazon. TripAdvisor. Even news sites with a comment section could fall under the definition of social media. And to enforce this ban, every single Canadian will have to attach government-approved ID to every platform they use. That's is not about protection children. It's about implementing a digital ID for every Canadian. Want to know more? Check out my full breakdown

Nico Lagan

18,041 次观看 • 2 个月前

Keir Starmer will introduce nightly social media curfews for 16 and 17 year-olds. Candice Holdsworth is against it: "It's the job of parents, not the state." Watch Plank Of The Week on YouTube: Kevin O'Sullivan Chloe Dobbs Ellie Hodges Candice Holdsworth
0:27

Keir Starmer will introduce nightly social media curfews for 16 and 17 year-olds. Candice Holdsworth is against it: "It's the job of parents, not the state." Watch Plank Of The Week on YouTube: Kevin O'Sullivan Chloe Dobbs Ellie Hodges Candice Holdsworth

Talk

22,814 次观看 • 2 个月前