{"id":328052,"date":"2026-06-17T07:45:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T07:45:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=328052"},"modified":"2026-06-19T06:57:58","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T06:57:58","slug":"4-things-you-cannot-say-about-the-uks-social-media-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=328052","title":{"rendered":"4 Things you CANNOT say about the UK\u2019s \u201cSocial Media Ban\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Kit Knightly \u2013 Off-Guardian June 15, 2026<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>It\u2019s official, the United Kingdom is getting its own Australia-style \u201csocial media ban\u201d for everyone under 16.<\/p>\n<p>In fact it\u2019s going to be \u201cAustralia-plus\u201d according to insiders, with some kind of \u2018curfew\u2019 expected to part of the final roll-out.<\/p>\n<div align=\"center\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\" lang=\"en\">We are banning social media access for under 16s.<\/p>\n<p>These days kids must find their feet in a world where technology intrudes into every area of their life.<\/p>\n<p>I just can\u2019t let that go on anymore. So we\u2019re giving children their childhoods back. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/jn7iQrcwk8\">pic.twitter.com\/jn7iQrcwk8<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/Keir_Starmer\/status\/2066421329859936656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">June 15, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.x.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Yes,<em> Sir<\/em> Keir Starmer has been sitting on that pot for quite sometime and finally decided to\u2026well, you know.<\/p>\n<p>The total list of platforms the proposed ban will target hasn\u2019t yet been released, but it is known that YouTube, X (Twitter), Meta (Facebook), Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram will be hit, and that some others \u2013 including BlueSky \u2013 will not be.<\/p>\n<p>Despite claims to be empowered to move \u201cspeedily\u201d, the ban isn\u2019t expected to come into force until next spring, which gives a nice little window for a few things to potentially happen.<\/p>\n<p>But I\u2019m not here to analyze the ban or speculate on agendas or next steps.<\/p>\n<p>The ban is announced, it will likely happen, and it\u2019s on all of us to resist it, and the first stage of resistance is acknowledging the real problem.<\/p>\n<p>How we talk about and argue against these things matters. \u2013\u00a0 A lot.<\/p>\n<p>Because discourse that doesn\u2019t acknowledge or understand the real nature of the problem can unwittingly aid the push for authoritarianism.<\/p>\n<p>Already we\u2019re seeing the public discussion around the ban be steered, either intentionally or otherwise, in directions that actually support the government position.<\/p>\n<p>So, here\u2019s four arguments you must NOT make against the social media ban.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>1. \u201cIt won\u2019t work\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Many people\u2019s \u2013 and <a href=\"https:\/\/spectator.com\/article\/will-starmers-under-16-social-media-ban-actually-work\/\">MSM outlet\u2019s<\/a> \u2013 first instinct is to argue against the ban on the grounds that it won\u2019t work.<\/p>\n<p>This is a mistake.<\/p>\n<p>Firstly, as a point of principle, it is <em>never<\/em> correct to argue pragmatism when faced with a moral wrong. People have a right to privacy, the state breaching that right <em>is morally wrong<\/em> whether or not it works toward their stated aim.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the social media ban, arguing to ineffectiveness is doubly wrong because the government <em>do not care if it works or not. <\/em>There\u2019s no point in arguing effectiveness, because the government\u2019s stated aim is a lie. They don\u2019t want to protect children, they don\u2019t care about protecting children, so arguing that the social media ban won\u2019t protect children is a waste of time. That\u2019s not what it\u2019s for.<\/p>\n<p>If anything, as far as the government is concerned, the less it works the better because it will give them an excuse to \u201cclampdown\u201d even MORE in the future.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>2. \u201cLet\u2019s compromise!\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Another common argument doing the rounds is that a social media ban isn\u2019t the best tool for tackling the alleged \u201cproblem\u201d, and that we should deploy something else instead.<\/p>\n<p>Common \u201csomething elses\u201d 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 \u2013 <strong>age verification<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>As I wrote a<a href=\"https:\/\/off-guardian.org\/2026\/05\/26\/its-all-so-tiresome-uks-social-media-ban-trudges-ever-onward\/\"> couple of weeks ago<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>This is very much an \u201cany colour you want so long as it\u2019s black\u201d situation.<\/p>\n<p>Choose an outright ban \u2013 \u201c<em>Great, please submit your ID to prove you\u2019re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Choose screen time limits \u2013 \u201c<em>Great, please submit your ID to prove you\u2019re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Choose digital curfews \u2013 \u201c<em>Great, please submit your ID to prove you\u2019re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Any proposed \u201ccompromise measure\u201d or \u201calternative plan\u201d that also involves age verification or ID scanning is \u2013 by definition \u2013 neither a compromise OR an alternative, because the age verification and ID scanning is the entire point of the scheme.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>3. \u201cWhy isn\u2019t [platform A] included?\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Too many people have already started arguing that the ban is \u201cunfair\u201d or \u201chypocritical\u201d because some platforms are not included.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s GBNews <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gbnews.com\/politics\/social-media-ban-bluesky-keir-starmer-new-internet-clampdown\">screaming out<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Left-wing social media network could be exempt from Keir Starmer\u2019s mass internet clampdown<\/p>\n<p>This is a terrible argument, do you know why?<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThe government has heard your concerns, and decided to bow to public pressure and include BlueSky in the ban moving forward.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There, now what?<\/p>\n<p>You\u2019ve accepted the state\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>Congratulations, you just played yourself.<\/p>\n<p>As with everything else on this list, you cannot win the argument by accepting any part of the government\u2019s position.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>4. \u201c[platform B] should be excluded!\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p>As above, if you make this argument all the government has to do is say\u2026<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cYou\u2019re right, YouTube is an important resource the nation\u2019s children should have access to. We will exclude them from the ban on those grounds.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u2026and you\u2019re done.<\/p>\n<p>And, let\u2019s be honest, part of the reason the rollout is delayed until next spring is to facilitate discussions exactly like this. These back-and-forth \u201cconversations\u201d make the public feel involved and consulted and help with the illusion that the system is working \u2013 and cares.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Conclusion \u2013 Reality matters<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>In case you didn\u2019t notice there\u2019s a common thread in all four of the weak arguments I discuss, and that is <em>accepting the government\u2019s position as stated.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Argument and rhetoric \u2013 like all strategy \u2013 is all about choosing your ground.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Truth is the only level playing field, always start from there.<\/p>\n<p>And in this case the truth is very simple:<\/p>\n<p><strong>The ban is<\/strong><em><strong> not<\/strong><\/em><strong> about protecting children. The ban is about monitoring adults.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Unless you accept that, and understand it, you will never be able to argue against it.<\/p>\n<p>Moving forward we will address \u2013 as we, and others, have done in the past \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<p>But talking comes first. How we talk about things matters. Honesty matters. Reality matters.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8212;<\/p>\n<p>Support Off-Guardian:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ko-fi.com\/offguardian\">Ko-fi<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.subscribestar.com\/offguardian\">Subscribestar<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.paypal.com\/donate\/?hosted_button_id=CKFB3MH8CGB9U\">Paypal<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/off-guardian.org\/2026\/06\/15\/4-things-you-cannot-say-about-the-uks-social-media-ban\/\">Source\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The ban is not about protecting children. The ban is about monitoring adults. Kit Knightly explains<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":328054,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[59,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-328052","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-Surveillance","category-The_Media"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328052","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=328052"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328052\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":328055,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328052\/revisions\/328055"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/328054"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=328052"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=328052"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=328052"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}