General News Thread

[UniFox21]

28 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

This really is completely the wrong way to go about it. Regulate infinite scrolling and stuff appearing on your feed that you didn't sign up for. Oh, and educated parents that it's not ok to give a 4 year old a smart phone.  

 

This is either completely misguided with many consequences they can't see (which loads can) or it's insidious invasions of privacy in action. 

I don't think there's a right way to go about it, whatever they brought in would have consequences currently unseen. People will get around whatever is brought in somehow, with it being incredibly difficult to actually blanket ban anything

 

 

[fox_up_north]

12 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

I work in retail and they all have phones with cards on to tap with etc so they are probably more technically advanced than some adults .

 

And presumably won’t be able to be banned from schools as parents will say their kids need them to keep in contact if something happens .

The "I need to contact my kids" argument completely falls over when presented with grooming gangs, county lines and continued self harm. 

 

I've never bought it and it's just a way for parents to keep up with the Jones'. The way this changes is like cutting smoking rates - at a cultural level.

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

I work in retail and they all have phones with cards on to tap with etc so they are probably more technically advanced than some adults .

 

And presumably won’t be able to be banned from schools as parents will say their kids need them to keep in contact if something happens .

This bit really pees me off. I understand it completely. But why not get your kid a cheap £5 phone for texting and ringing and leave the smartphone at home. 

 

Wouldn't want my kids lugging around 100s of quid worth of phone anyways, if they are owt like their dad it'll end up smashed/lost within a week. 

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

They needed to look at smart phones and tablets for children rather than social media imo.

 

Doom scrolling starts with 2 year olds being addicted to dopamine hits from scrolling images and needing constant high stimulation media from a young age. 

 

Social ban will probably do little, but if it moves towards an age ban on smart phones and tablets then it's a good thing.

This 100%. @kenny for PM.

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, nnfox said:

This 100%. @kenny for PM.

Other posters would disagree with this post....

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Fart mans reflection pool has turned green already from the algae returning. That was millions dollar worth spending for a few days . I think that reflection pool is so badly designed you can't fix it. 

"Leftists sabotaged it", apparently. 

[orangecity23]

This social media ban is very vague about what platforms are involved 

 

"An exhaustive list of which platforms the ban will apply to has not been released. However the government said it would apply to those "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material"." (BBC)

 

Will this mean it's going to apply to all forums like this? Could be ruinous for small forums, they don't have the resources to pay companies like Yoti to do age verification for a small handful of users.

 

[Zear0]

This is a good thing. No doubt there are ways around it, just like sending my bearded friend into Victoria Wine for booze when we were at school, but that is not reason to not implement this.

 

As Nandy said the other day, these companies have had years to sort the poison on their platforms out and done sod all. If Musk and co. claim their platforms are media, then they needed to be responsible for the content they hosted.

[The Bear]

The successful ban on smartphones in schools still allow basic "brick" phones for contact with parents etc, so that's not a valid excuse.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmdg38jl1jo

Edited 18 hours ago by The Bear

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

He's certainly a far cry from a high ranking government official claiming that every single person of colour in the US is "illegal", as one Greg Bovino did recently. 

He’s just showing there’s a different way of doing things and he’s so good at it. And so kind to everyone. 

[Rubbersoul]

Im in two minds where I agree that youngsters shouldn’t be exposed to the social media world but also don’t like the government thinking they can have that much power. 
 

All the digital id stuff makes me uncomfortable 

[LCFCJohn]

I like it. Kids are growing up too fast now and there’s pressure to do so. Yes it’s needs to be regulated properly and sure people will find a way around it but as a parent, if it takes the pressure off the decision as to whether to try and encourage your child to have a childhood or the worry you are going to make them stick out like a sore thumb if you don’t give them access to all this, it’s a good think in my opinion.

[izzymuzzet]

Not a parent so no particular skin in this game but the under 16s social media ban looks unworkable (kids will find a workaround through VPNs etc) and the 16 and 17 year old evening watershed is straightforwardly illiberal - if you're old enough to vote (as 16 year olds soon will be), join the army and get your leg over then you're old enough to decide what you watch and when on the internet. 

 

All this just seems like a distraction from the harder job of properly regulating social media companies, treating them as the publishers that they are and making them responsible for the harmful content that as far as I can tell is poisoning the minds of pensioners as much if not more than teenagers. 

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, Rubbersoul said:

Im in two minds where I agree that youngsters shouldn’t be exposed to the social media world but also don’t like the government thinking they can have that much power. 
 

All the digital id stuff makes me uncomfortable 

I really hate the digital ID. We have no real way of storing data securely, given the amount of big corporations that get hacked on the regular, I'd rather not give them more of my personal info. 

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, izzymuzzet said:

Not a parent so no particular skin in this game but the under 16s social media ban looks unworkable (kids will find a workaround through VPNs etc) and the 16 and 17 year old evening watershed is straightforwardly illiberal - if you're old enough to vote (as 16 year olds soon will be), join the army and get your leg over then you're old enough to decide what you watch and when on the internet. 

 

All this just seems like a distraction from the harder job of properly regulating social media companies, treating them as the publishers that they are and making them responsible for the harmful content that as far as I can tell is poisoning the minds of pensioners as much if not more than teenagers. 

But they're not banning 16 year olds.  It's kids under 16.  Very impressionable, sometimes very young brains that:

 

- Are susceptible to the harms that bad people do to them online (you were probably told not to talk to strangers, but it's very different now)

 

- Become over reliant on online relationships and lose key interpersonal skills and they are growing up to be young adults who, in times of difficulty, reach for the virtual world instead of real world relationships.

 

- Can't handle the effects of dopamine that flood their system.  It's the same chemical that drug addicts and alcoholics get from their vices and their are plenty of controls in place to protect children from them.

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, nnfox said:

But they're not banning 16 year olds.  It's kids under 16.  Very impressionable, sometimes very young brains that:

 

- Are susceptible to the harms that bad people do to them online (you were probably told not to talk to strangers, but it's very different now)

 

- Become over reliant on online relationships and lose key interpersonal skills and they are growing up to be young adults who, in times of difficulty, reach for the virtual world instead of real world relationships.

 

- Can't handle the effects of dopamine that flood their system.  It's the same chemical that drug addicts and alcoholics get from their vices and their are plenty of controls in place to protect children from them.

 

 

I get where you're coming from here, but such arguments (well, the first and third ones anyway) could easily be leveled against people of any age, given what I've seen in terms of social media activity.

 

Don't get me wrong, something has to be done, but this is just one piece of the puzzle and addressing how social media negatively affects everyone, not just kids, is a critical thing to address. 

[izzymuzzet]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

But they're not banning 16 year olds.  It's kids under 16.  Very impressionable, sometimes very young brains that:

 

- Are susceptible to the harms that bad people do to them online (you were probably told not to talk to strangers, but it's very different now)

 

- Become over reliant on online relationships and lose key interpersonal skills and they are growing up to be young adults who, in times of difficulty, reach for the virtual world instead of real world relationships.

 

- Can't handle the effects of dopamine that flood their system.  It's the same chemical that drug addicts and alcoholics get from their vices and their are plenty of controls in place to protect children from them.

 

 

Think you've misread my post. There are two proposals announced today:

 

1. Ban social media for under 16s

2. Prevent 16 and 17 year olds from using social media after 8.30pm

 

The first appears unworkable to me, even if you agree with the objectives. There is emerging evidence from Australia that children and teenagers are simply working around the ban with VPNs, fooling facial age ID checks etc.

The second seems completely illiberal to me because 16 year olds are classed as adults by the state in terms of their (soon to be) voting rights, ability to join the armed forces, freedom to consent etc. 

I don't think anyone sensible would argue that the outcomes you're describing aren't bad for children and young people, and bad for society. The question is how best to address these challenges effectively. 

[nnfox]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I get where you're coming from here, but such arguments (well, the first and third ones anyway) could easily be leveled against people of any age, given what I've seen in terms of social media activity.

 

Don't get me wrong, something has to be done, but this is just one piece of the puzzle and addressing how social media negatively affects everyone, not just kids, is a critical thing to address. 

Yes, people of all ages struggle with it but eventually you have to let adults stand on their own two feet.  We're talking here about protecting children, and actually, the adults who struggle with it are quite possibly of a generation of young adults who have grown up with unfiltered access to all of this stuff.

 

Personally, I don't think it goes far enough, this is a bit of a halfway house, but it's a step in the right direction.

[leicsmac]

Just now, nnfox said:

Yes, people of all ages struggle with it but eventually you have to let adults stand on their own two feet.  We're talking here about protecting children, and actually, the adults who struggle with it are quite possibly of a generation of young adults who have grown up with unfiltered access to all of this stuff.

 

Personally, I don't think it goes far enough, this is a bit of a halfway house, but it's a step in the right direction.

I'm going to be honest, the comments that I see from a fair few older people (shall we say) on social media beg to differ there. 

 

Do again agree with the magnitude of the problem, though.

 

 

[nnfox]

7 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Think you've misread my post. There are two proposals announced today:

 

1. Ban social media for under 16s

2. Prevent 16 and 17 year olds from using social media after 8.30pm

 

The first appears unworkable to me, even if you agree with the objectives. There is emerging evidence from Australia that children and teenagers are simply working around the ban with VPNs, fooling facial age ID checks etc.

The second seems completely illiberal to me because 16 year olds are classed as adults by the state in terms of their (soon to be) voting rights, ability to join the armed forces, freedom to consent etc. 

I don't think anyone sensible would argue that the outcomes you're describing aren't bad for children and young people, and bad for society. The question is how best to address these challenges effectively. 

Ok, yeah I missed the bit about about 16-17 year olds with a curfew.  Seems like a social media "lite" experiment - we'll have to see how it works out.

 

As for getting around it, of course kids will.  I think in Australia it's around 50% have managed to find a way?  But if it is effective for 50% then that's better than what we have now.  Better to start now and get perfect later, than wait for a perfect solution that will likely never exist.

[izzymuzzet]

Just now, nnfox said:

Ok, yeah I missed the bit about about 16-17 year olds with a curfew.  Seems like a social media "lite" experiment - we'll have to see how it works out.

 

As for getting around it, of course kids will.  I think in Australia it's around 50% have managed to find a way?  But if it is effective for 50% then that's better than what we have now.  Better to start now and get perfect later, than wait for a perfect solution that will likely never exist.

My main issue with it is that it's a way for government to look like they're doing something about the problem while putting off the harder things that would actually deal with the problem:

• Stop making government announcements on X
• Classify social media companies as publishers
• Enforce regulatory standards and levy huge fines on companies who break them 
• Work with international bodies to develop a worldwide system of social media regulation (challenging while this US administration are in power, but they won't be there forever) 

[nnfox]

17 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

My main issue with it is that it's a way for government to look like they're doing something about the problem while putting off the harder things that would actually deal with the problem:

• Stop making government announcements on X
• Classify social media companies as publishers
• Enforce regulatory standards and levy huge fines on companies who break them 
• Work with international bodies to develop a worldwide system of social media regulation (challenging while this US administration are in power, but they won't be there forever) 

All decent suggestions.  Maybe something like this will come later on.  I suspect the measures announced today could be the start of more regulation to come.

 

Unregulated social media is bad.  In the early days it was OK, but time and technology have made it a hotbed for narcissists, liars and idiots.  Something has to change.  Who knows... 20 or 30 years from now it might be under some sort of control, but there's certainly no easy fix.  

[Sampson]

This is definitely a good thing and a move in the right direction for me. I'm definitely noticing the pendulum starting to swing on the social Internet the past year or two. Know 2 people who've got rid of their smart phones and gone back to "dumb phones" the past year or two and a few more who said they want to do the same next time their 2 year planned programmed breakdown of their smartphone inevitably happens. Also just anecdotally I'm definitely noticing a growing number of people going back to reading physical books on lunch breaks in cafes, on buses or trains etc. because people are sick of feeling like their lives are controlled by their phones. My understanding is Waterstones are doing really well the past couple of years because people are wanting analogue books as alternatives to doomscrolling social media again.

 

I'd love to see this go further and outright bans of things like infinite scrolling, recommendation algorithms and autoplay of the next video/episode but I think things are starting to feel like they're heading in the right direction.

 

Personally think the need to upload ID is an extra step that many including probably myself won't bother with and thar barrier and non ease of access isn't necessarily a bad thing as it'll stop me and many others using them, although I definitely share concerns about data hacking and privacy.

 

As for it being illiberal. 5-10 years ago I would've agreed, but don't really anymore because algorithms which are specially designed to hack an individual person's brain chemistry take the choice out of the matter and feel far more illiberal themselves - and these will only get more powerful and more specific to the individual person with AI development. It's the most sophisticated and addictive technology humans have ever come up with, even over gambling, and there's no country on earth that allows for "choice" over the really hardest and most addictive of drugs and medicines afaik which hack human chemistry for that same reason.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Sampson

[Trav Le Bleu]

If social media providers did they're job properly, there's be no need for this.

 

I thought that sites like Instagram already had the ability to set up children accounts that don't have full access to their content?

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If social media providers did they're job properly, there's be no need for this.

 

I thought that sites like Instagram already had the ability to set up children accounts that don't have full access to their content?

It isn't social media dumping tablets in front of an 18 month old that is literally fascinated by everything and has no need for it.

 

So whilst you have a point, the rot starts much earlier and is being done at home IMO.