What are your thoughts on implementing legislation that protects individuals from legal repercussions for things they said on social media before the age of 18?
Posted by VarangianWRLD@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 16 comments
I was recently watching a YouTube Short regarding how the digital footprints of Love Island contestants are being forensically analysed overnight, which prompted this query. We are looking at old screenshots of private conversations that can be as much as ten years old.
We will soon have a generation of politicians, athletes, and entertainers who have had consistent access to social media since they were in secondary school or even younger.
I am certain that we have all said things or used language that does not represent who we are today and that we would not want to be associated with now.
For the older generations who did not grow up with social media, how would you feel if your teenage years had been subjected to the same level of online scrutiny?
Fluffy_Ad2274@reddit
That said, any easy way to solve this problem in the future would be to ban minors from social media. Or constantly remind younger people that these things could come back to bite you?
Perhaps what younger folk don't remember is that the lack of social media didn't prevent people from gaining "reputations", for whatever reason, often unjustly, that continued to impact their lives long after they'd left school in some cases. It's apparently human nature, and the fact there's now "proof" available hasn't really changed anything.
Definitely, social media footprints have made it easier for people to be self- righteous and sanctimonious, and the more recent obsession with "calling out" people you've never even met over their posts is definitely a social media phenomenon. But in and of itself, it's not a new thing to judge, gossip, and cause harm.
slippery-pineapple@reddit
I agree with the second part of your first statement, I think taking social media away from minors entirely means you don't get the chance to teach them how to use it sensibility. In theory, under 13s are already banned from social media which I think is the right age.
The government needs to do more to educate not just kids, but also their parents about digital footprint and the long term impact of plastering your life all over social media. We have some programs but they're all sort of opt in - e.g. NCSC Cyber First scheme.
I also think posting your kids publicly online before they are old enough to give informed consent (e.g. 13) should be banned but that's not going to be popular with all the parents who make money off posting their kids all over tic tok
Fluffy_Ad2274@reddit
I completely agree - I don't think a ban is proportionate, justified, enforceable or helpful - I was just suggesting that it's an obvious solution to the problem the OP raised.
I think there's also the issue that you can be a brilliant parent, but your children are inevitably going to push back against you, not necessarily do everything you say, and find ways to test boundaries. I don't really know what would work with young people on this - I'm the generation that were terrified out of unprotected sex by the tombstone adverts for AIDS, but I don't think you can really terrify kids out of posting unwisely on line - I don't know that they can really think through all the consequences, because a lot of grown adults can't either. Education definitely is important, but, unfortunately, I don't think that will fix the problem entirely.
(And parents who post their children's pictures are just idiots...)
slippery-pineapple@reddit
Very true! Nor do I think terrifying them out of doing anything is necessarily sensible - for better or for worse we as a society do need the Internet. I just think kids have no idea about what is even possible (and nor do their parents).
My kids are 2 and any-day-now and I'm early 30s and I look back on the terrible decisions I made as a teen totally uneducated about the dangers of the interet and I'm just glad nothing bad ever happened to me, social media wasn't really around and phones didn't have good enough cameras.
I think part of the safe sex talk now needs to involve conversations about talking to people online, posting pictures and what those pictures can be used for and how nothing ever goes away once it's on the Internet. I get OPs post was probably more about saying something racist or political and sharing your views, but there's far worse ways to ruin your life unfortunately and maybe education would work for that element
n0p_sled@reddit
Wouldn't it be better to force social media companies to provide better controls on children's post history, such as private by default?
House_Of_Thoth@reddit
It's not the privacy that's the issue. Even if the account was locked down and private, it's the comments/posts themselves that draw the ire
n0p_sled@reddit
Yes, very true.
If a post is deleted, should it also delete the entire thread? Is this practical or fair to other users?
I guess it raises more questions than answers
House_Of_Thoth@reddit
You're right about the more questions! Cos now I'm thinking how it's different across platforms, so like a Reddit thread might have useful stuff in it that maybe only a person's comment deletes, but the thread stays. I think that's how it works on here? But yeah on Facebook iirc you deleted the post everything goes?!
I think the Reddit model works best imo. Like, delete person X's online stuff but that shouldn't interfere with anybody else's comments and stuff!
snowdrop0901@reddit
I think it would be much better for them to make it easier to "lock down" accounts and post history....and possibly even mass deleted posts.
My Facebook account is fully locked down, unless we are friends you can not find my account, and even then you cant see post prior to a set point. But i had to mess around to find all those settings because on mobile its buried under like 4 different menus.
In theory children should also not have a social media account....in practice they do....but also depends on whats classed as "children" under 13? Under 16? Under 18 even? You wouldn't make all posts private for a 17 yesr old, they can get a job and legal get married in some places. Under 13s "cant" have accounts on most platforms, so that leaves inder 16s, who are more than capable of making things public if they want even if its set to private by default.
Shits gonna get posted regardless, it should be made easier to get rid of posts 5-10 years later once youve actually grown up and are "in the real world" and edgy shit you posted at 16 that you found funny then....isnt quite as funny now at 26 when you are following your kids school on facebook.
(I just have strong views on this....i have zero clue what is going on with love island.)
n0p_sled@reddit
Yeah, agreed.
Mass delete would be a very good feature
PabloMarmite@reddit
So these aren’t legal repercussions, these are social repercussions.
julemeister@reddit
The shit I said as a young adult stayed in the pub and no one has the video or picture evidence haha
Only_Book_995@reddit
I think it’s important to make some distinctions. Truly private conversations should be just that and I don’t see how they could be checked assuming one party didn’t release them. Public statements put on social media are public.
Either way, you asked if these things should be protected from legal ramifications. If you mean criminal law, the short answer is no. Anyone aged 10+ is capable of committing a crime and legally responsible for it. Crimes committed on social media are no different.
If you mean civil offences, that’s very complicated and would depend upon severity and nature.
If in fact you mean, should under 18s have a legal protection against the “social” consequences of what they put on social media (loss of earnings, reputational damage etc) I don’t instinctively feel that’s something the law can do, the law is a blunt hammer not a sharp scalpel and the considerations are so nuanced and individual, as well as the effects, I don’t think the law is capable.
Knowlesdinho@reddit
Some of us are still getting called clean shirt 23 years later, then the social media age can cope with a little scrutiny.
Kids have no idea whatsoever of what went on at Stalingrad.
coolcroissant7@reddit
You're conflating different issues. What's happening on Love Island, if a person doesn't get the gig, that isn't a legal repurcussion, no one's going to jail or land themselves in front of a judge. We already have a generation of athletes and entertainers who grew up online anyway, Facebook has been around for over 2 decades, Instagram has been around for best part of 15 years, I don't really see the massive issue? take footballers, the ones who make it to the point where they get scrutinised, they basically have media training from a young age anyway.
evenifihateit@reddit
What legal repercussions do people currently face for things they said on social media before the age of 18? I would need to understand that before I could form an opinion on whether the legislation you mention is needed.