Re: "Britain to ban social media for under-16s", (World, June 16).
The UK is following Australia's example and banning social media by restricting access to under-16s. The concern they and other countries share is that children will circumvent their restrictions.
It is a common, faulty approach to treat the symptoms rather than the illness. With few exceptions, perhaps the influencers of the world, we would be better without the easy access to time-wasting media feeds, but they are so addictive. I am amazed at how YouTube gets me in, and I spend time there that I should be elsewhere. Would it be better to try to get social media app companies to modify their methods by first suggesting changes, then legislating them, and finally fining them? A simple idea that simply won't work.
A better idea might be to get them a soccer ball, watch a few games with them, and go to the local park and join others. The World Cup is on for a few weeks and might give us that opportunity to get them out of the basement, physical or metaphorical. Cheer for Australia, we are nice people, and our team needs a lot of help when it gets serious.
Dennis Fitzgerald
Facts first, please
Re: "The real roots of the violence in Belfast", (Opinion, June 17).
It would help if Gwynne Dyer checked his facts. The starting point of this violence was an attack (attempted beheading) on an RC man in the RC Ardoyne area.
The attacker was interrupted by a man bearing a hurley stick, which probably saved the victim's life. As loyalists/Protestants do not routinely possess such an item, it is to be assumed that it would be Catholics/Republicans who initially began rioting.
How Mr Dyer imagines these people as future "Protestant"/Loyalist paramilitaries, he may wish to clarify. Has he ever described INLA or PIRA as Catholic terrorists or paramilitaries, I wonder.
Norman Byrott
False equivalence
Re: "Who gets nukes?", (PostBag, June 16) & "Nuclear weapons spending hits record high", (World, June 10).
Khun Karl Reichstetter has written more than one letter to the Post asking the same question: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Isn't it only fair that Iran can also have nuclear weapons?
Using that logic, let's harken back to World War II: The Americans had nuclear weapons. Shouldn't it have only been fair that Nazi Germany had been able to develop nuclear weapons?
Nazi Germany tried to develop nuclear weapons. But pesky Norwegian guerrilla fighters blew up their staging grounds!
I'd venture to say that the majority of Europe and indeed the entire free world was overjoyed that the Norwegian "Heroes of Telemark" thwarted the Nazi plans to develop nukes.
The world is still in shock at the catastrophe the Nazis unleashed with conventional weapons. What would the world have been like if Hitler's Reich had nuclear weapons?
Thank heavens only the US and not the Nazis had the "unfair" advantage of having nuclear weapons.
Ben Levin
