That’s my point! In the UK we tried to let private companies run water and it hasn’t gone well. If utilities are public goods they need greater public control.
I am in favour of the ban, not because it's perfect, but it's something - a start.
It's the first recognition at a national level that these platforms are not safe for kids, which is huge. The govt wouldn't entertain that idea even a few months ago.
Now we have that consensus, the government has to act, and keep acting until kids are reasonably and considerably safer.
So that's the first part of the equation.
The second part is: will the platforms now change as a result? And what happens if they don't?
The way it's being implemented - a ban on mechanisms and not specific platforms - is an attempt to force that change. If the platforms remove the features that fall within scope, kids can use them again. I don't think they will, but the design of the 'ban' makes it possible.
This is a step that has to be attempted in good faith, even though we know the platforms are not operating in good faith.
So what happens when they don't change? As now we know that can't be the end of it.
I'm sure we are heading to the point where we have to as a society decide that smartphones are for adults, and brick phones are for kids. Like any other adult product containing things unsuitable for kids, they are sold and regulated as such.
It's the simplest answer, fits into a regulatory framework we already have (ID for booze, cigarettes, gambling etc) and doesn't violate the entire nation's privacy in the process.
I agree the signal matters. Many didn’t realise what an impact the 2007 smoking ban would have, not because govt signalled ‘cigs are bad’ but because it just simply became uncool for smokers to huddle together in designated smoking areas. Ultimately culture has to change and it feels like the smartphone awareness movement is reaching an inflection point.
That still doesn’t change the how the digital world, constructed by Big Tech, has become essential to modern life in many ways. We need bigger and better conversations about creating a sustainable digital world.
Yes. There are so many voices out there suggesting this is the end point, when it's just the beginning. We got to smoking bans, drink driving legislation, seatbelts etc in small steps.
I think the conversation isn't just about what is 'essential', but who it's essential for. We can't say that it is in any way essential for kids as it stands. And we need to ask who is paying both the price and the cost of that seemingly magical frictionless online world.
I spent some time yesterday thinking about one of the points you made - what if you went further and said, actually we will ban the platform entirely on the grounds it’s not safe (for any number of reasons - addictiveness, false information etc) until you subscribe to same media regulation other forms of media in this country are scrutinised by (eg ofcom). I appreciate this isn’t any more likely due to the reasons you outline - but it was a useful thought experiment
Thanks Tom. If something is essential then it is effectively a utility - these are normally operated or licensed by government because they tend to be monopolistic and can exploit consumers. There is a big political question to answer this century: can we continue tolerating privately owned digital infrastructure to govern our lives, which creates these piecemeal bans which probably won’t work anyway? Or can countries work together to create proper publicly accountable digital plumbing which enables innovation and free trade but ensures enforcement actually happens?
Just here to point out, you can regulate what you can not live without. Water for starters.
That’s my point! In the UK we tried to let private companies run water and it hasn’t gone well. If utilities are public goods they need greater public control.
I am in favour of the ban, not because it's perfect, but it's something - a start.
It's the first recognition at a national level that these platforms are not safe for kids, which is huge. The govt wouldn't entertain that idea even a few months ago.
Now we have that consensus, the government has to act, and keep acting until kids are reasonably and considerably safer.
So that's the first part of the equation.
The second part is: will the platforms now change as a result? And what happens if they don't?
The way it's being implemented - a ban on mechanisms and not specific platforms - is an attempt to force that change. If the platforms remove the features that fall within scope, kids can use them again. I don't think they will, but the design of the 'ban' makes it possible.
This is a step that has to be attempted in good faith, even though we know the platforms are not operating in good faith.
So what happens when they don't change? As now we know that can't be the end of it.
I'm sure we are heading to the point where we have to as a society decide that smartphones are for adults, and brick phones are for kids. Like any other adult product containing things unsuitable for kids, they are sold and regulated as such.
It's the simplest answer, fits into a regulatory framework we already have (ID for booze, cigarettes, gambling etc) and doesn't violate the entire nation's privacy in the process.
New publication sounds great... :)
I agree the signal matters. Many didn’t realise what an impact the 2007 smoking ban would have, not because govt signalled ‘cigs are bad’ but because it just simply became uncool for smokers to huddle together in designated smoking areas. Ultimately culture has to change and it feels like the smartphone awareness movement is reaching an inflection point.
That still doesn’t change the how the digital world, constructed by Big Tech, has become essential to modern life in many ways. We need bigger and better conversations about creating a sustainable digital world.
Yes. There are so many voices out there suggesting this is the end point, when it's just the beginning. We got to smoking bans, drink driving legislation, seatbelts etc in small steps.
I think the conversation isn't just about what is 'essential', but who it's essential for. We can't say that it is in any way essential for kids as it stands. And we need to ask who is paying both the price and the cost of that seemingly magical frictionless online world.
Morning Omar - another great read. Thank you.
I spent some time yesterday thinking about one of the points you made - what if you went further and said, actually we will ban the platform entirely on the grounds it’s not safe (for any number of reasons - addictiveness, false information etc) until you subscribe to same media regulation other forms of media in this country are scrutinised by (eg ofcom). I appreciate this isn’t any more likely due to the reasons you outline - but it was a useful thought experiment
Thanks Tom. If something is essential then it is effectively a utility - these are normally operated or licensed by government because they tend to be monopolistic and can exploit consumers. There is a big political question to answer this century: can we continue tolerating privately owned digital infrastructure to govern our lives, which creates these piecemeal bans which probably won’t work anyway? Or can countries work together to create proper publicly accountable digital plumbing which enables innovation and free trade but ensures enforcement actually happens?