Best Of

Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.

One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.

This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.

I suspect it's down to parental pressure, pressing their kids take the same path or be regarded as a failure. It's pretty hard for a teenager to deal with that.

A lot of kids, regardless of their parents education, may just be happier being a gardener or a brickie than a banker or accountant.

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?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Its a far better parallel than the Guardian which has been used here.

Maybe arguing about which metaphor is better for social media is a bit of a dead end. Social media is neither like old media or a mobile phone company, while it has similarities to both. We should have rules specific for social media.

The more important question is what should those rules be? Do you agree that social media can produce some social ills? What should governments do about that?

Everything produces social ills. The government does nothing about 99% of them because they either don't care or they are working in their favour. That is an argument for shutting down pubs, banning public marches and protests, and prosecuting people just for showing support for those who the gvernment disagrees with.

Actually... maybe you are on to something here given that is exactly what the Government has been trying to do.

Governments regulate most things to stop social ills. We regulate pubs and public marches extensively, and have done so for centuries. Sorry, have you teleported here from some sort of libertarian utopia? (I’m obviously using the original etymology of “utopia”.)

We don't hold pubs responsible for what people say in them. If we did there would be no pubs left - again something that might suit the Government very well. And we already regulate social media. What is being proposed goes way beyond that.

Social media is a…well…media. If I suggest a riot in a pub it won’t go any further unless I’m holding a megaphone and stand by a window. The same cannot be said for Facebook.

Yes, I’m sure like any analogy mine breaks down under any level of scrutiny, but so does yours. But pubs are not media channels.

We regulate what radio stations and television stations can broadcast. Social media channels can’t stop what’s inputted into them but they can control how it is disseminated and to whom. And they should. Like any other media.

It’s why I have no time for the “hurty words on Facebook” narrative. It’s much, much worse to post something inflammatory there than in a drunken rant with your pals in the pub.

Also - I know people take the piss out of Bluesky but the reason it’s so dull is precisely because it doesn’t push dopamine via an algorithm. As a self-diagnosed social media addict, the fact I don’t feel compelled to spend more than 10 minutes there at a time is a good thing.

I’m not sure this ban is the right intervention but there’s no doubt something needs to happen.

'Something must be done... this is something... we must do it!'

This has never been a good argument for new laws.

Please tell me again why Russia isn't a threat to the United Kingdom.

Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do

Please tell me again why they still have an ambassador here.

If they didn't we'd still want to talk to someone from there occasionally and it's easier to have that be the ambassador than officially kick them out but still engage with them somehow?

No, tell them to F off and make it clear we don't negotiate with terrorists.

But we do, and have done so on many occasions.

...

Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.

Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do

The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.

According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?

The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.

Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?

The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.

What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.

...

Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.

Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do

The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.

According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?

The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.

It is a repeated pattern that police do not enforce the law, then complain that they need more power. Police spend more than enough time policing speech already - an unhealthy amount of time. Vandalism is a crime. The graffiti being racist is an aggravating factor. Conspiracy to do all of the above is probably a crime. Do your actual job with the powers you have, then come back and talk about needing more.

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?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Its a far better parallel than the Guardian which has been used here.

Maybe arguing about which metaphor is better for social media is a bit of a dead end. Social media is neither like old media or a mobile phone company, while it has similarities to both. We should have rules specific for social media.

The more important question is what should those rules be? Do you agree that social media can produce some social ills? What should governments do about that?

Everything produces social ills. The government does nothing about 99% of them because they either don't care or they are working in their favour. That is an argument for shutting down pubs, banning public marches and protests, and prosecuting people just for showing support for those who the gvernment disagrees with.

Actually... maybe you are on to something here given that is exactly what the Government has been trying to do.

Governments regulate most things to stop social ills. We regulate pubs and public marches extensively, and have done so for centuries. Sorry, have you teleported here from some sort of libertarian utopia? (I’m obviously using the original etymology of “utopia”.)

We don't hold pubs responsible for what people say in them. If we did there would be no pubs left - again something that might suit the Government very well. And we already regulate social media. What is being proposed goes way beyond that.

We don’t hold pubs responsible for what people say in them, but we do hold them responsible for what they sell (lots of rules around alcohol, food hygiene rules too), who they employ, what amounts they sell drinks in, what information they have to display, who they sell too (not allowed to sell to those who are inebriated), including lots of rules around children. Pubs’ main business is drinking and food, and that’s where most of the regulations affecting them are. And they have been regulated for centuries, possibly millennia, possibly multiple millennia.

Social media’s main business is people saying things. Social media, as a new technology, is comparatively little regulated. Social media clearly has some ills associated with it: frequent libel, inflames violence, foreign actors abuse it, fraud and other crime, misinformation, addictiveness, societal polarisation etc. Social media has played a role in child suicides, eating disorders, bullying, and more.

This isn’t about the government restricting discourse. There are clearly major problems associated with social media. I’m not saying that banning kids from using it is the best solution, but I find your line of reasoning here unconvincing.

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?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Its a far better parallel than the Guardian which has been used here.

Maybe arguing about which metaphor is better for social media is a bit of a dead end. Social media is neither like old media or a mobile phone company, while it has similarities to both. We should have rules specific for social media.

The more important question is what should those rules be? Do you agree that social media can produce some social ills? What should governments do about that?

Everything produces social ills. The government does nothing about 99% of them because they either don't care or they are working in their favour. That is an argument for shutting down pubs, banning public marches and protests, and prosecuting people just for showing support for those who the gvernment disagrees with.

Actually... maybe you are on to something here given that is exactly what the Government has been trying to do.

Governments regulate most things to stop social ills. We regulate pubs and public marches extensively, and have done so for centuries. Sorry, have you teleported here from some sort of libertarian utopia? (I’m obviously using the original etymology of “utopia”.)

We don't hold pubs responsible for what people say in them. If we did there would be no pubs left - again something that might suit the Government very well. And we already regulate social media. What is being proposed goes way beyond that.

"Uncle Keir" thinks social media makes young people "unhappy"..which is presumably why so many use it..💩

Loads of examples of people doing stuff that they know makes them miserable in all but the shortest term.

It's a decent working definition of addiction.

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?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Its a far better parallel than the Guardian which has been used here.

Maybe arguing about which metaphor is better for social media is a bit of a dead end. Social media is neither like old media or a mobile phone company, while it has similarities to both. We should have rules specific for social media.

The more important question is what should those rules be? Do you agree that social media can produce some social ills? What should governments do about that?

Everything produces social ills. The government does nothing about 99% of them because they either don't care or they are working in their favour. That is an argument for shutting down pubs, banning public marches and protests, and prosecuting people just for showing support for those who the gvernment disagrees with.

Actually... maybe you are on to something here given that is exactly what the Government has been trying to do.

Governments regulate most things to stop social ills. We regulate pubs and public marches extensively, and have done so for centuries. Sorry, have you teleported here from some sort of libertarian utopia? (I’m obviously using the original etymology of “utopia”.)

We don't hold pubs responsible for what people say in them. If we did there would be no pubs left - again something that might suit the Government very well. And we already regulate social media. What is being proposed goes way beyond that.

Social media is a…well…media. If I suggest a riot in a pub it won’t go any further unless I’m holding a megaphone and stand by a window. The same cannot be said for Facebook.

Yes, I’m sure like any analogy mine breaks down under any level of scrutiny, but so does yours. But pubs are not media channels.

We regulate what radio stations and television stations can broadcast. Social media channels can’t stop what’s inputted into them but they can control how it is disseminated and to whom. And they should. Like any other media.