Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian June 15, 2026

It’s official, the United Kingdom is getting its own Australia-style “social media ban” for everyone under 16.

In fact it’s going to be “Australia-plus” according to insiders, with some kind of ‘curfew’ expected to part of the final roll-out.

 

Yes, Sir Keir Starmer has been sitting on that pot for quite sometime and finally decided to…well, you know.

The total list of platforms the proposed ban will target hasn’t yet been released, but it is known that YouTube, X (Twitter), Meta (Facebook), Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram will be hit, and that some others – including BlueSky – will not be.

Despite claims to be empowered to move “speedily”, the ban isn’t expected to come into force until next spring, which gives a nice little window for a few things to potentially happen.

But I’m not here to analyze the ban or speculate on agendas or next steps.

The ban is announced, it will likely happen, and it’s on all of us to resist it, and the first stage of resistance is acknowledging the real problem.

How we talk about and argue against these things matters. –  A lot.

Because discourse that doesn’t acknowledge or understand the real nature of the problem can unwittingly aid the push for authoritarianism.

Already we’re seeing the public discussion around the ban be steered, either intentionally or otherwise, in directions that actually support the government position.

So, here’s four arguments you must NOT make against the social media ban.

1. “It won’t work”

Many people’s – and MSM outlet’s – first instinct is to argue against the ban on the grounds that it won’t work.

This is a mistake.

Firstly, as a point of principle, it is never correct to argue pragmatism when faced with a moral wrong. People have a right to privacy, the state breaching that right is morally wrong whether or not it works toward their stated aim.

In the case of the social media ban, arguing to ineffectiveness is doubly wrong because the government do not care if it works or not. There’s no point in arguing effectiveness, because the government’s stated aim is a lie. They don’t want to protect children, they don’t care about protecting children, so arguing that the social media ban won’t protect children is a waste of time. That’s not what it’s for.

If anything, as far as the government is concerned, the less it works the better because it will give them an excuse to “clampdown” even MORE in the future.

2. “Let’s compromise!”

Another common argument doing the rounds is that a social media ban isn’t the best tool for tackling the alleged “problem”, and that we should deploy something else instead.

Common “something elses” include digital curfews, smartphone bans, screen-time limits. The trouble with any and all of the mooted suggestions is that they are all enforced the exact same way – age verification.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago…

This is very much an “any colour you want so long as it’s black” situation.

Choose an outright ban – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.”

Choose screen time limits – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.”

Choose digital curfews – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.”

Any proposed “compromise measure” or “alternative plan” that also involves age verification or ID scanning is – by definition – neither a compromise OR an alternative, because the age verification and ID scanning is the entire point of the scheme.

3. “Why isn’t [platform A] included?”

Too many people have already started arguing that the ban is “unfair” or “hypocritical” because some platforms are not included.

The most commonly cited example is BlueSky, which Team Right members have been harping on about all day, often calling BlueSky a home for groomers and paedophiles.

Here’s GBNews screaming out…

Left-wing social media network could be exempt from Keir Starmer’s mass internet clampdown

This is a terrible argument, do you know why?

“The government has heard your concerns, and decided to bow to public pressure and include BlueSky in the ban moving forward.”

There, now what?

You’ve accepted the state’s position that there is a problem and that something must be done about it, and allowed them to paint themselves as reasonable by changing their plans in line with your objections.

Congratulations, you just played yourself.

As with everything else on this list, you cannot win the argument by accepting any part of the government’s position.

4. “[platform B] should be excluded!”

The same as point three, but reversed. Some are arguing that the presence of YouTube on the list is denying an important educational resource to school-age children, especially those taking their GCSEs (ages 15-16).

As above, if you make this argument all the government has to do is say…

“You’re right, YouTube is an important resource the nation’s children should have access to. We will exclude them from the ban on those grounds.”

…and you’re done.

And, let’s be honest, part of the reason the rollout is delayed until next spring is to facilitate discussions exactly like this. These back-and-forth “conversations” make the public feel involved and consulted and help with the illusion that the system is working – and cares.

All the while, behind the scenes, we can be absolutely certain insanely corrupt deals are going back and forth as tech CEOs lobby to get their platform excluded at the expense of rivals or reach sweetheart agreements where the government will pay them fees to cover the loss of advertising revenue from under-age users.

Conclusion – Reality matters

In case you didn’t notice there’s a common thread in all four of the weak arguments I discuss, and that is accepting the government’s position as stated.

Argument and rhetoric – like all strategy – is all about choosing your ground.

As long as you argue with tyrants on their own terms, and accept the foundational lies they build their positions on, you will always lose the argument.

Truth is the only level playing field, always start from there.

And in this case the truth is very simple:

The ban is not about protecting children. The ban is about monitoring adults.

Unless you accept that, and understand it, you will never be able to argue against it.

Moving forward we will address – as we, and others, have done in the past – practical steps to work around this kind of privacy-breaking law. What tech firms to use, where to buy de-googled phones. Tor, VPNs, independent social media platforms. They all have a place in the discussion.

But talking comes first. How we talk about things matters. Honesty matters. Reality matters.

—

Support Off-Guardian:

Ko-fi

Subscribestar

Paypal

 

 

Source