openDemocracy receives so many carefully considered messages about our work that it seems a shame to keep them to ourselves. Each week, we share some of the most thought-provoking comments from our readers.
Send us your thoughts for next week’s round-up by replying directly to any of our emails or commenting on our articles or Instagram posts.
These comments are edited for clarity, accuracy and length, and are not a reflection of openDemocracy's editorial position.
Re: Weekly Poll: Is banning social media for under-16s a good idea?
I believe a total ban on social media until the platforms can fix all of the issues. As each comes up with a solution it can be readmitted –Roy and Ginny via email
It is of no benefit to ban anything… What will work is to provide ourselves with fulfilling occupations and recreations. –June via email
I can see both sides of this argument. I was listening to something on the radio which was talking about the benefits to some young people of social media, of feeling connected to friends. But it seems this sometimes came at a price of spending time with family.
A simple policy that would help here would be for a time limit on social media for under-16s. So the sites would be limited to allowing, say, two hours a day logged in (to pluck a number out of the air), and then would show someone as being unavailable due to timeout. If that was a legal requirement, then it would be a level playing field for all social media, it would not be the 'fault of parents' so wouldn't inflame disputes within families, and would actually raise the value of time spent on social media – time would be more likely to be spent with friends, rather than other less socially healthy things.
This is just a quick idea that occurred to me within a minute or two of hearing some specific issues arising from social media. I am a UX designer and software developer, so designing software systems is native territory to me, but the debate could really do with some more nuanced solutions to more specific problems rather than just a yes/no ban or don't ban.
The fact that the government can't seem to think of any of these ideas shows a remarkable lack of imagination on their part. So, is banning social media a good idea? No, it's a lazy idea. We need better. –Pete via email
Keir Starmer is only rushing into this ban to try and deflect from the Makerfield by-election and the possible chance that Andy Burnham will become PM. He had previously rejected it earlier in the year but the aforementioned by-election has changed everything. –Mick via email
Re: Inside the Palestine Action trial that could redefine protest as terrorism
Dear prime minister, why are the decent people who rightly protest the genocide in Gaza having their lives destroyed? Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage are people you might more justly call troublemakers/terrorists. Nothing is being done about them as far as I can see. –John via email
The only terrorism is that of this government and the judge who 'made' the 'link'. –Bob via email
Shame on us. Shame on British judges. Shame on our so-called independent judiciary integrity. –Abdul via email
Re: Andy Burnham’s promises of ‘growth’ rely on real investment in social care
This is great stuff but as for a possible PM Burnham achieving “UK” growth through social care, this is devolved in Scotland where I live. Apart from the fact that Burnham would have no social care remit in Scotland, I personally would have no expectation that he would ever adopt such a strategy for England. The Labour party has been gutted and sold its soul to the highest bidders. Keep up the good work, heaven knows we need it! –Eddie via email
