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.

Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.

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.

Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.

Childhood suicide is higher in US counties with more poverty (but that could be the ecological fallacy): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2759427

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?

Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.

ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?

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?

No.

There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.

It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.

I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.

Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......

The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.

You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.

Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.

Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.

Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.

Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.

And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.

I watch lots of YouTube and love it. There are many amateurs producing great content. Yet every week, I get multiple scam adverts using AI to impersonate celebrities to sell a financial scam. I don’t believe it is beyond the wit of man to keep the good things about YouTube while dealing with some of the bad things, of which that is one example.

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?

No.

There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.

It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.

I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.

Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......

The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.

You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.

Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.

Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.

Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.

Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.

And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.

I watch lots of YouTube and love it. There are many amateurs producing great content. Yet every week, I get multiple scam adverts using AI to impersonate celebrities to sell a financial scam. I don’t believe it is beyond the wit of man to keep the good things about YouTube while dealing with some of the bad things, of which that is one example.

YouTube Premium means no adverts. Why not YouTube Premium for under-16s? No adverts (and maybe no shorts too). There is a great deal of educational content on YouTube so it is daft to block children.

Re scams – these are mainly aimed at adults because they are the ones with money. However the cause du jour is children so you are on your own, grandad. There is probably a case for forcing social media companies to regulate paid advertising but I fear much scam bait is posted as standard messages rather than adverts.

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

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?

No.

There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.

It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.

I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.

Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......

The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.

You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.

Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.

Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.

Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.

Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.

And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.