Best Of

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.

I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.

I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.

Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.

Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.

(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)

If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?

That comparison does not quite work - a mobile phone call is not posted on the internet by the phone company, archived forever, and indexed by Google.

What does that matter? If that were the only issue then it should be sufficient to get the site to take down the offending post and action should only be taken against them if they fail to do so. Otherwise it is exactly the same. The site is acting as the messenger system just like the phone.

The publisher analogy is even more ludicrous. A publisher - whether of a book or a newspaper - has to take an active decision to publish a statement, an article or an opinion. They are acting as editor for the published piece. That is not the case with social media, chatrooms etc.

If you want it to be like that then say goodbye to social media entirely - and to online freedom of expression. Because no social media company is going to be able to police comments in advance in the way you wish without seriously reducing the amount of legitimate comment that is published. Which of course in the end is exactly what the Government wants. Total control of the media.

Oh and you will be saying goodbye to PB as well.

PB.com doesn't use an algorithm to promote the most contentious and divisive comments (we do that organically by responding to the most contentious and divisive comments).

It's the use of algorithms to choose which content is presented to the user, which rightfully makes Facebook a publisher (in my view) but PB.com not (except of the articles at the top of the thread).

The social media companies could always bin the use of the algorithms if they didn't want to be classified as publishers.

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.

I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.

I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.

Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.

Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.

(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)

If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?

That comparison does not quite work - a mobile phone call is not posted on the internet by the phone company, archived forever, and indexed by Google.

What does that matter? If that were the only issue then it should be sufficient to get the site to take down the offending post and action should only be taken against them if they fail to do so. Otherwise it is exactly the same. The site is acting as the messenger system just like the phone.

The publisher analogy is even more ludicrous. A publisher - whether of a book or a newspaper - has to take an active decision to publish a statement, an article or an opinion. They are acting as editor for the published piece. That is not the case with social media, chatrooms etc.

If you want it to be like that then say goodbye to social media entirely - and to online freedom of expression. Because no social media company is going to be able to police comments in advance in the way you wish without seriously reducing the amount of legitimate comment that is published. Which of course in the end is exactly what the Government wants. Total control of the media.

Oh and you will be saying goodbye to PB as well.

PB is a noticeboard. We come here, write something, and it goes up, in chronological order. PB takes no active decision to publish a statement. You can search the archives and the server will respond to your search, but again no active decision is made.

That’s how social media usually started. However, today’s social media generally involves the social media company choosing to promote certain comments (or videos or whatever) above others. You might post something to X, but whether 2 people or 200 million people see it is up to X. Most of that deciding involves algorithms rather than human input, but it’s active decisions by X to promote certain content in that way. That seems like a qualitative difference and takes X closer to being a publisher. (You could also talk about how bad X is at policing its adverts, which again are there as a result of an active decision.)

Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there...
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.

It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.

Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.

It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.

Is PB on Ze List?

Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.

I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.

I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.

Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.

Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.

(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)

If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?

That comparison does not quite work - a mobile phone call is not posted on the internet by the phone company, archived forever, and indexed by Google.

What does that matter? If that were the only issue then it should be sufficient to get the site to take down the offending post and action should only be taken against them if they fail to do so. Otherwise it is exactly the same. The site is acting as the messenger system just like the phone.

The publisher analogy is even more ludicrous. A publisher - whether of a book or a newspaper - has to take an active decision to publish a statement, an article or an opinion. They are acting as editor for the published piece. That is not the case with social media, chatrooms etc.

If you want it to be like that then say goodbye to social media entirely - and to online freedom of expression. Because no social media company is going to be able to police comments in advance in the way you wish without seriously reducing the amount of legitimate comment that is published. Which of course in the end is exactly what the Government wants. Total control of the media.

Oh and you will be saying goodbye to PB as well.

Poor pathetic Kemi.

If youre going to ask an Emergency Question and actually piss off the actual Shadow Minister in the process by elbowing in

Don't try to defend your defence record whilst trying to attack Labour

All mouth no substance

Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

He pays tribute to HEALY, explaining he's only here because HEALY asked him to stay

One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

Pollard goes on to quietly explain

YES Labour are spending more

£11 Billion more in first Labour year than last Tory year

Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

Biggest investment in Armed Forces housing stock in history, 9 billion over 10 years

intake up 11%
Outflow reduced 8%

Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

Mate, the Tories did a Shit job on defence. Labour did a Shit job on defence before them, and are doing such a shit job now that the SofS and Minister both resigned in protest.

You trying to score party points on this is top quality cabaret, albeit one where I suspect you haven't realised how much of a tit you look.

Not as much avtit as the clusterfuck Tories

Btw

2010 defence spending was 2.5% of GDP was it not?

However

Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

Is told he's with the King

Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

Told he's been summoned by the King to be made a Privy Councillor

Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

Is adminished by Speaker who has confirmed Jarvis is with the King

Utter Tory clusterfuck

Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

No one no one can say Labour are not increasing defence spending

Not fast enough but who hollowed it out in the first place

Hollowed it out whilst taking funds from Putin Oligarchs, slipping security to meet the KGB and prostituting themselves for games of tennis, meals and dances with known Russian KGB Putin money nen

Thatcher got it right

THE ENEMY WITHIN

SAME OLD TORIES

CORRUPT
TREACHEROUS
TRAITORS

As someone who at least nominally agrees with you on party preference, I think with respect that you've got the tone wrong for PB. Shorter, less shouty, posts are more effective here.

It’s almost like someone has put a lot of effort into creating a caricature..

Poor pathetic Kemi.

If youre going to ask an Emergency Question and actually piss off the actual Shadow Minister in the process by elbowing in

Don't try to defend your defence record whilst trying to attack Labour

All mouth no substance

Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

He pays tribute to HEALY, explaining he's only here because HEALY asked him to stay

One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

Pollard goes on to quietly explain

YES Labour are spending more

£11 Billion more in first Labour year than last Tory year

Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

Biggest investment in Armed Forces housing stock in history, 9 billion over 10 years

intake up 11%
Outflow reduced 8%

Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

Mate, the Tories did a Shit job on defence. Labour did a Shit job on defence before them, and are doing such a shit job now that the SofS and Minister both resigned in protest.

You trying to score party points on this is top quality cabaret, albeit one where I suspect you haven't realised how much of a tit you look.

Not as much avtit as the clusterfuck Tories

Btw

2010 defence spending was 2.5% of GDP was it not?

However

Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

Is told he's with the King

Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

Told he's been summoned by the King to be made a Privy Councillor

Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

Is adminished by Speaker who has confirmed Jarvis is with the King

Utter Tory clusterfuck

Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

No one no one can say Labour are not increasing defence spending

Not fast enough but who hollowed it out in the first place

Hollowed it out whilst taking funds from Putin Oligarchs, slipping security to meet the KGB and prostituting themselves for games of tennis, meals and dances with known Russian KGB Putin money nen

Thatcher got it right

THE ENEMY WITHIN

SAME OLD TORIES

CORRUPT
TREACHEROUS
TRAITORS

Have you ever thought you might be posting on the wrong site? I do regularly. This is a Tory blog which makes ConHome look like the Canary.

Give you head a wobble.

You keep making this point. It isn't true. Just have a look through the posts now in this thread - the number of posts by left of centre and right of centre posters is roughly 50/50.

Of course it's true.

There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.

We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.

"[Senator McConnell] failed to try and impeach Trump . . "

Reminder:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the House has the sole power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), and after that action has been taken, the Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments" (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Trump was the third U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.[12] Trump is the only federal official to be impeached twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump
An impeachment is like an indictment, and, when impeached, a president is then tried by the Senate. A simple House majority is enough for an impeachment; a 2/3 Senate majority is required for a conviction.

(And I still wish Senator McConnell well.)