We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
Ferry from Newcastle to Amsterdam or Train to Amsterdam then Nightjet from Amsterdam to Vienna?
We did the NightJet from Vienna to Amsterdam in November the new trains are great and rather comfortable (i.e. I slept through the night).
That's good to hear. I was thinking train to Brussels via channel tunnel then Nightjet to Salzburg. But I have heard mixed reviews of reliabiity and comfort!
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
I spent Christmas in that area a few times, and we did the ferry from Newcastle with an overnight in Bonn, which is a lovely place.
Bonn is a lovely city but not much of interest for kids.
The Rhine and Mosel have lots of pretty small towns, and if the kids are interested in cars the Nurburgring is a brilliant stopover, as a spectator. Those German petrol heads don't mess around.
This is true, but it's an evening stopover. Arrive, eat, sleep, breakfast, back on the road
Yes, I think what I'd be looking for is somewhere I could do exactly that, ideally including an hour's mooch before 'eat' to get a feel of an attractive European small city.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
There is strong evidence that the harm on mental health from social media is worse for children (including teenagers) than adults. So there is a quantum of harm argument for limiting the ban to children.
Then there is the liberalism argument. There's lots of harmful things we permit adults to do. That argument is a lot weaker for children, where the government bans all manner of things until they are an adult (or close).
What we should do is starting taxing social media, of the sort that is highly addictive, like we do alcohol or tobacco. And make the harm being addicted to them well known. Like alcohol, use in moderation if at all.
If it is too hard to define what social media is, then simply write a list of apps into law and update as needed.
Which is what Australia has done. It does not, and doesn't intend to do owt about screen time nor communicating overnight.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
...which they won't be able to look up because they're banned from Google.
Our generation had dictionaries and encyclopedias to learn from. But they are all online now. How are you going to teach children geography, science, history? Is it all going to come from state-approved textbooks? And if so, you don't see the danger in that?
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things, is exactly what is needed from opposition.
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things… by doing away with investigations and any consideration of inherent vice, without bothering with pilots schemes, without observing what happens in Australia as time passes, just diving straight in based on seeing something on morning television and told is hugely popular in voodoo polls, is exactly THE WRONG WAY to show you are ready again for power.
Do you see my point?
No
I followed it closely when proposed, argued and introduced in Australia. I can tell you the key piece of detail straight away - it’s not a ban on under sixteens having access to phones, devices or internet use - it’s merely a ban on platforms giving under sixteens accounts. The rest is still parenting.
So where some children will have better quality of life, better quality education and self learning, other children will be deprived this, so I liken it to those parents who banned Rock n Roll in the house, believing they were doing good. Banning Rock n Roll was actual bizarre, bad parenting.
And the real kicker here is the actual problem - predatory and addictive algorithms - problem applies to everyone, all ages, not just children. Where is the actual policy needed?
I have already said the answer will be in the detail but there is overwhelming parental support
One of my children and his wife is in a constant battle with their children over the time on line and also their peer pressure to keep in 24/7 touch including often overnight
That's always the big problem - you can have well-meaning parents but if every other kid at school has an e-scooter (actually illegal to use) and that's the way they meet up pals, what can you do?
What this legislation needs paired with is an extensive and high-quality public information campaign making it clear what is supposed to be normal and appropriate behaviour. That seems seriously lacking at the moment for some reason - particularly changes to things like the Highway Code. There's more to governance than passing laws.
Peer pressure in teenagers is very much part of the problem, and there is no way parents can control their behaviour when they are together or communicating as I said sometimes overnight
Parents can put restrictions on devices and set controls, including locking devices overnight if required.
My daughter has a phone with restrictions, including the restriction that I can see what apps she is using, that to install an app requires my consent (and we have consented to TikTok which she uses on rules my wife set). I can see how long she has spent on each app and set restrictions of time limits and time eg overnight or school hours where the device is locked.
Poor behaviour can result in the device being locked as a punishment too.
One of my sons is head of IT at a ,local school and that is what he has done
However, many parents are not IT savvy and the children run rings round them
They do need to be able to use the phone as a phone and even a whats app group
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
Algorithms can be harmful, yes, or they can be good. They can enable people to find out more, in a healthy manner, about hobbies or interests.
When those interests become dark, then yes finding out more can be dark too and that is when people can get in vicious loops and there can be harm.
The idea it is all harm though is just as ignorant as the idea there's no harm.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
There is strong evidence that the harm on mental health from social media is worse for children (including teenagers) than adults. So there is a quantum of harm argument for limiting the ban to children.
Then there is the liberalism argument. There's lots of harmful things we permit adults to do. That argument is a lot weaker for children, where the government bans all manner of things until they are an adult (or close).
What we should do is starting taxing social media, of the sort that is highly addictive, like we do alcohol or tobacco. And make the harm being addicted to them well known. Like alcohol, use in moderation if at all.
If it is too hard to define what social media is, then simply write a list of apps into law and update as needed.
Which is what Australia has done. It does not, and doesn't intend to do owt about screen time nor communicating overnight.
Who made Australia suddenly the gurus of child education? 🧐
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
There is strong evidence that the harm on mental health from social media is worse for children (including teenagers) than adults. So there is a quantum of harm argument for limiting the ban to children.
Then there is the liberalism argument. There's lots of harmful things we permit adults to do. That argument is a lot weaker for children, where the government bans all manner of things until they are an adult (or close).
What we should do is starting taxing social media, of the sort that is highly addictive, like we do alcohol or tobacco. And make the harm being addicted to them well known. Like alcohol, use in moderation if at all.
If it is too hard to define what social media is, then simply write a list of apps into law and update as needed.
Which is what Australia has done. It does not, and doesn't intend to do owt about screen time nor communicating overnight.
Who made Australia suddenly the gurus of child education? 🧐
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
"Communication" is a good word, though. It implies something happening between two real people. Or, at most, two avatars with real people underneath. (I don't look as good as Michael York, for example). It's why this place works for conversation.
The first thing that's awful about commercial SM (for want of a better term) is that not all the avatars have real humans underneath them. Partly that's about bots, and partly it's the way that some human users decide to leave their humanity at the door and act in ways that they're pretty unlikely to behave to actual real flesh'n'blood people. (Same principle as bastard bosses finding it easy to be callous when their staff and customers are just cells on a spreadsheet.) And partly it's about the big tech tendency to promote awful behaviour because it's what generates more profits.
Attractive as an age cap is, it leaves most of the problem untouched. I reckon there's a lot in the regulating away freedoms that should never have been there in the first place. If your firm creates a feed that does anything other than list posts in datestamp order, you are making editorial decisions and therefore ought to be treated like any other publisher. That probably kills a lot of SM businesses dead, but hey ho.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have the ability to use SM without some sort of trace back to an actual human identity, but I can see why that has the potential to go horribly wrong. But the harms from the current setup are pretty substantial.
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
3-6 don’t mean anything. 3: a deal can be made and therefore unmade, so its timeframe is not eternal. 4 is an intent, not a deal. 5 was always possible within existing treaties allowing US military in Greenland. 6 was always possible.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
But not by many experts in Child health care nor by organisations like the NSPCC
There was an interesting discussion early today on R4.
A guy who is carrying out a randomised trial of withholding access to social media (by randomly allocating phones with and without access) suggested it might be sensible to analyse the effectiveness of a ban before rushing to legislate.
The bill's sponsor simply dismissed the suggestion out of hand, saying current evidence of harm was all that's needed.
I'm not sure if that's true - but his refusal to even consider the point triggered my scepticism.
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
3-6 don’t mean anything. 3: a deal can be made and therefore unmade, so its timeframe is not eternal. 4 is an intent, not a deal. 5 was always possible within existing treaties allowing US military in Greenland. 6 was always possible.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
1 is probably for siting radar domes or similar kit, at the best locations to give maximum radar coverage for the Golden Dome..
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
"Communication" is a good word, though. It implies something happening between two real people. Or, at most, two avatars with real people underneath. (I don't look as good as Michael York, for example). It's why this place works for conversation.
The first thing that's awful about commercial SM (for want of a better term) is that not all the avatars have real humans underneath them. Partly that's about bots, and partly it's the way that some human users decide to leave their humanity at the door and act in ways that they're pretty unlikely to behave to actual real flesh'n'blood people. (Same principle as bastard bosses finding it easy to be callous when their staff and customers are just cells on a spreadsheet.) And partly it's about the big tech tendency to promote awful behaviour because it's what generates more profits.
Attractive as an age cap is, it leaves most of the problem untouched. I reckon there's a lot in the regulating away freedoms that should never have been there in the first place. If your firm creates a feed that does anything other than list posts in datestamp order, you are making editorial decisions and therefore ought to be treated like any other publisher. That probably kills a lot of SM businesses dead, but hey ho.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have the ability to use SM without some sort of trace back to an actual human identity, but I can see why that has the potential to go horribly wrong. But the harms from the current setup are pretty substantial.
I assume you mean the sm hosting site otherwise you've probably just killed general search and RSS aggregators.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
A day in the hills tends to fix me for a while, whether it's mountaineering or cycling or whatever. Something you can't do while holding a phone.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
Algorithms can be harmful, yes, or they can be good. They can enable people to find out more, in a healthy manner, about hobbies or interests.
The problem is, we can't trust social media companies to use algorithms that purely recommend things a person may be interested in. Far too many design the algorithm to push controversial views and deeply unpleasant content in the name of 'engagement'; X is the worst, but others do it too.
Algorithms can be harmful, yes, or they can be good. They can enable people to find out more, in a healthy manner, about hobbies or interests.
The problem is, we can't trust social media companies to use algorithms that purely recommend things a person may be interested in. Far too many design the algorithm to push controversial views and deeply unpleasant content in the name of 'engagement'; X is the worst, but others do it too.
I think the problem is that an algorithm designed to recommend things people are interested in ends up pushing controversial and unpleasant content on some people, as that is what those people are interested in and interact with.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
A day in the hills tends to fix me for a while, whether it's mountaineering or cycling or whatever. Something you can't do while holding a phone.
With three kids that kind of day becomes an ordeal, I mean just getting out of the house into the car is a nightmare! But yes, a good cycle does wonders for me as well.
I'd legitimately recommend just uninstalling tiktok entirely if you have it. Genuine brainrot.
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
Circa 45 years ago my wife and I and our 3 children did the Hull Rotterdam ferry and stayed overnight in Luxembourg before driving on to our hotel in Fuschl, Austria
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
Circa 45 years ago my wife and I and our 3 children did the Hull Rotterdam ferry and stayed overnight in Luxembourg before driving on to our hotel in Fuschl, Austria
It was fantastic and the kids loved it
And the added advantage of a boot full of gear
Enough about your drug dealing, Big_G
Well spotted - I only realised after I couldnt edit it
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
They really are gearing up for war with China. It also suggests that we might get regime changed if we ever try to turf them out of Fylingdales - and that risk might continue under a Dem president.
I've just come off a week's retreat during which I checked my phone once at night and again in the morning. You actually don't NEED it. You want it. And of course other people need you to have it in order to function in society. But I'd quite happily not.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Yes. And these are the people running the US and, increasingly, Capitalism itself. Marx wasn't far wrong.
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
Ferry from Newcastle to Amsterdam or Train to Amsterdam then Nightjet from Amsterdam to Vienna?
We did the NightJet from Vienna to Amsterdam in November the new trains are great and rather comfortable (i.e. I slept through the night).
That's good to hear. I was thinking train to Brussels via channel tunnel then Nightjet to Salzburg. But I have heard mixed reviews of reliabiity and comfort!
The new NightJets are great, old ones I'm not so sure.
Will find out in May as I'm probably using the Eurosleeper to get from Brussels to Prague.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
I would go further and ban smartphones for children.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Yes, if you spend longer interacting with unhealthy content then it feeds you more unhealthy content.
If you spend longer interacting with healthy content, then it feeds you more healthy content.
Hence why my wife's TikTok is full of student midwife mothers, while yours would not be.
It can amplify what you are interested in, which if your interests are in a dark place can be concerning, but if they're not, then its different.
We should not just assume everyone is in a dark place.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
I would go further and ban smartphones for children.
How about you parent your children, and I parent mine?
Who do you think is buying smartphones for children?
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
I think smartphones and social media are worse for adults than smoking tobacco. At least smoking tends to encourage social-ness.
OK. Having outlined the harms and comparisons with smoking. Suppose we ban for kids. Where are the education campaigns for adults and punitive taxation on users? Nowhere in the pipeline.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
I would go further and ban smartphones for children.
How about you parent your children, and I parent mine?
Who do you think is buying smartphones for children?
I have no doubt you're a great parent. Trouble is. My day job involves interacting with vast numbers of parents.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
I would go further and ban smartphones for children.
How about you parent your children, and I parent mine?
Who do you think is buying smartphones for children?
I have no doubt you're a great parent. Trouble is. My day job involves interacting with vast numbers of parents.
Of course, so no problems with your school banning phone use within the school during school hours, as many schools do. Nothing wrong with that.
We can't outlaw bad parenting unfortunately, but nor should we make an overpowerful state usurp the role of parents either.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Yes, if you spend longer interacting with unhealthy content then it feeds you more unhealthy content.
If you spend longer interacting with healthy content, then it feeds you more healthy content.
Hence why my wife's TikTok is full of student midwife mothers, while yours would not be.
It can amplify what you are interested in, which if your interests are in a dark place can be concerning, but if they're not, then its different.
We should not just assume everyone is in a dark place.
You don't necessarily need to interact with unhealthy or dark content for your feed to fill up with it.
There's so many more inputs than just basic interaction. I think YouTube is the only social media network that has a fire break in the algorithm, if it notices user clicking too much on negative content it will start to fill up their feed with videos they previously watched even from years ago that aren't negative to attempt to break the cycle.
I mean sometimes someone's fyp can change just based on a few searches even with no click through. I've even heard that keeping user comments on screen for longer than average is part of how they build the fyp.
I just think your understanding on how social media companies work is limited to your own interaction rather than what they actually do. I mean they don't offer $600k per year salaries to data scientists just to build a reinforcement model, someone who learned python from an online course could build one in a week.
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
It's a looooooong way. I would be inclined to fly to Munich and rent a car. German car rentals are generally high quality and sensible pricing. Don't know where you're going in Austria but the whole of Bavaria and across the border into the Tyrol is just full of great places to visit, and most of them are much easier to do by car, especially as a family. Munich itself is a great city to explore for a few days if you haven't been before.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Yes. And these are the people running the US and, increasingly, Capitalism itself. Marx wasn't far wrong.
Seems like he was pretty wrong on conclusions though, although maybe he gets a pass for all the people he inspired since he cannot be responsible for all they did.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Yes, if you spend longer interacting with unhealthy content then it feeds you more unhealthy content.
If you spend longer interacting with healthy content, then it feeds you more healthy content.
Hence why my wife's TikTok is full of student midwife mothers, while yours would not be.
It can amplify what you are interested in, which if your interests are in a dark place can be concerning, but if they're not, then its different.
We should not just assume everyone is in a dark place.
What baffles me is why all these midwives (and anyone else) feels the need to share their lives on TikTok.
I've just come off a week's retreat during which I checked my phone once at night and again in the morning. You actually don't NEED it. You want it. And of course other people need you to have it in order to function in society. But I'd quite happily not.
I find these behaviours aren't hard to suppress when in a new environment but its the regular homely cues that make habits hard to shift. A few extra chocolates with coffee or longer on the sofa scrolling. Something about being relaxed makes the cravings hard to resist.
The overall sum of contributed inpressions from Newsnjght is that a combined -good-cop֊bad-cop effort from UK and EU officials and leaders has got Trunp to the dealmaking stage.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
There is strong evidence that the harm on mental health from social media is worse for children (including teenagers) than adults. So there is a quantum of harm argument for limiting the ban to children.
Then there is the liberalism argument. There's lots of harmful things we permit adults to do. That argument is a lot weaker for children, where the government bans all manner of things until they are an adult (or close).
What we should do is starting taxing social media, of the sort that is highly addictive, like we do alcohol or tobacco. And make the harm being addicted to them well known. Like alcohol, use in moderation if at all.
If it is too hard to define what social media is, then simply write a list of apps into law and update as needed.
I think the harmful aspect is the use of an algorithm to curate what content is shown to users, with the aim to keep the users attention for as long as possible, which ends up meaning that the user is presented with content that is divisive and extremist, pandering to the worst impulses of the user and riling them up to drive engagement.
So you could ban/tax the use of these algorithms, or classify the companies as publishers if they used them, thus making them responsible for the content displayed.
Personally I would ban online advertising. It's advertising as the income stream that drives the use of algorithms to maximise engagement, so if you break that link then the communication app has to instead provide a service to its users that they are willing to pay for, and so it will optimise its service to satisfy the users and not the advertisers.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things, is exactly what is needed from opposition.
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things… by doing away with investigations and any consideration of inherent vice, without bothering with pilots schemes, without observing what happens in Australia as time passes, just diving straight in based on seeing something on morning television and told is hugely popular in voodoo polls, is exactly THE WRONG WAY to show you are ready again for power.
Do you see my point?
No
I followed it closely when proposed, argued and introduced in Australia. I can tell you the key piece of detail straight away - it’s not a ban on under sixteens having access to phones, devices or internet use - it’s merely a ban on platforms giving under sixteens accounts. The rest is still parenting.
So where some children will have better quality of life, better quality education and self learning, other children will be deprived this, so I liken it to those parents who banned Rock n Roll in the house, believing they were doing good. Banning Rock n Roll was actual bizarre, bad parenting.
And the real kicker here is the actual problem - predatory and addictive algorithms - problem applies to everyone, all ages, not just children. Where is the actual policy needed?
I have already said the answer will be in the detail but there is overwhelming parental support
One of my children and his wife is in a constant battle with their children over the time on line and also their peer pressure to keep in 24/7 touch including often overnight
That's always the big problem - you can have well-meaning parents but if every other kid at school has an e-scooter (actually illegal to use) and that's the way they meet up pals, what can you do?
What this legislation needs paired with is an extensive and high-quality public information campaign making it clear what is supposed to be normal and appropriate behaviour. That seems seriously lacking at the moment for some reason - particularly changes to things like the Highway Code. There's more to governance than passing laws.
Peer pressure in teenagers is very much part of the problem, and there is no way parents can control their behaviour when they are together or communicating as I said sometimes overnight
I disagree with that though. I grew up in rural Scotland; those hours playing COD with my friends all the way through my teenage years were important to reduce a sense of isolation, particularly for those living out on farms or in estate cottages. We had MSN chats (*nostalgia*) where we organised group trips to the river or into town for old-fashioned activities like getting drunk or going for a swim.
There is a big problem here, as MaxPB eloquently describes, but pinning it down is really difficult. I do think the Australians have got the balance just about right (you're allowed simple messaging like whatsapp) but I can understand why people have reservations.
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things, is exactly what is needed from opposition.
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things… by doing away with investigations and any consideration of inherent vice, without bothering with pilots schemes, without observing what happens in Australia as time passes, just diving straight in based on seeing something on morning television and told is hugely popular in voodoo polls, is exactly THE WRONG WAY to show you are ready again for power.
Do you see my point?
No
I followed it closely when proposed, argued and introduced in Australia. I can tell you the key piece of detail straight away - it’s not a ban on under sixteens having access to phones, devices or internet use - it’s merely a ban on platforms giving under sixteens accounts. The rest is still parenting.
So where some children will have better quality of life, better quality education and self learning, other children will be deprived this, so I liken it to those parents who banned Rock n Roll in the house, believing they were doing good. Banning Rock n Roll was actual bizarre, bad parenting.
And the real kicker here is the actual problem - predatory and addictive algorithms - problem applies to everyone, all ages, not just children. Where is the actual policy needed?
I have already said the answer will be in the detail but there is overwhelming parental support
One of my children and his wife is in a constant battle with their children over the time on line and also their peer pressure to keep in 24/7 touch including often overnight
That's always the big problem - you can have well-meaning parents but if every other kid at school has an e-scooter (actually illegal to use) and that's the way they meet up pals, what can you do?
What this legislation needs paired with is an extensive and high-quality public information campaign making it clear what is supposed to be normal and appropriate behaviour. That seems seriously lacking at the moment for some reason - particularly changes to things like the Highway Code. There's more to governance than passing laws.
Peer pressure in teenagers is very much part of the problem, and there is no way parents can control their behaviour when they are together or communicating as I said sometimes overnight
I disagree with that though. I grew up in rural Scotland; those hours playing COD with my friends all the way through my teenage years were important to reduce a sense of isolation, particularly for those living out on farms or in estate cottages. We had MSN chats (*nostalgia*) where we organised group trips to the river or into town for old-fashioned activities like getting drunk or going for a swim.
There is a big problem here, as MaxPB eloquently describes, but pinning it down is really difficult. I do think the Australians have got the balance just about right (you're allowed simple messaging like whatsapp) but I can understand why people have reservations.
ICQ > MSN Messenger.
Fight. Or something.
Easy. The girls I went to school with were on MSN and not on ICQ.
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
There’s another worry. If it is a sovereign base style agreement, then what if he expects that from us too? Mildenhall? Lakenheath?
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
There’s another worry. If it is a sovereign base style agreement, then what if he expects that from us too? Mildenhall? Lakenheath?
Trump may get his sort of faux win to sell to the Maga morons but has burnt even more political capital here in Europe in the process .
If anyone believes this was about security then they’re a gullible fool . The media instead of indulging this crap should have just called a spade a spade .
He could have had all the supposed elements of the deal without all this drama. Tanking the markets and a trade war with the mid-terms coming meant he had to back down from his real ambition to increase US territory with the whole of Greenland.
As for Farage and the rest of the Trump arselickers a bad few days.
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
NATO has absolutely no mandate to negotiate anything whatsoever on behalf of Greenland or over our heads,” Greenlandic MP Aaja Chemnitz, a member of the Danish parliament representing Greenland, wrote on Facebook.
“And the idea that NATO should have any say at all over our country and our mineral resources is completely absurd,” she added.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
Yes, it's best to avoid videos that are less than 10 or even 5 minutes long.
Is it still possible for the Chagos deal to be blocked?
I hope so, and with wiser heads who now view the current unfolding new world UK Foriegn policy order unfolding and now who might finally realise how important the Chagos Islands are to us and the US!
Its also important to point out that while the Conservatives were in negociations about the future of the Chagos Islands, they never signed off on any deal never mind anything resembling what the current Labour Government did! So yes they they discussed the issue, but that doesn't make them complicit in what this Labour Government is now offering!
Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom · 50m I will almost guarantee that there is no deal or framework for a deal; this is a walk-back. Congress should never have let it get this far, and the damage and humiliation can't be undone, but this is a good outcome (so far).
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things, is exactly what is needed from opposition.
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things… by doing away with investigations and any consideration of inherent vice, without bothering with pilots schemes, without observing what happens in Australia as time passes, just diving straight in based on seeing something on morning television and told is hugely popular in voodoo polls, is exactly THE WRONG WAY to show you are ready again for power.
Do you see my point?
No
I followed it closely when proposed, argued and introduced in Australia. I can tell you the key piece of detail straight away - it’s not a ban on under sixteens having access to phones, devices or internet use - it’s merely a ban on platforms giving under sixteens accounts. The rest is still parenting.
So where some children will have better quality of life, better quality education and self learning, other children will be deprived this, so I liken it to those parents who banned Rock n Roll in the house, believing they were doing good. Banning Rock n Roll was actual bizarre, bad parenting.
And the real kicker here is the actual problem - predatory and addictive algorithms - problem applies to everyone, all ages, not just children. Where is the actual policy needed?
The actual policy needed is to ban algorithms. But politics is the art of the possible. Start with under 16 and move from there.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
Most people are not particularly strategic.
The average tech employee is thinking “my job is to tweak this algorithm to increase engagement by 3%”.
They don’t think about the implications for society.
We (me, wife, three kids 16-11) are hoping to go from Manchester to Austria for a summer holiday. Would you: - overnight ferry from Hull to Rotterdam then drive with overnight stop in Germany (probably cheapest,can pack as much stuff as we want, but would take up two days travelling there and two days travelling back. If si, where would you stay? - fly then hire a car (surprisingly expenaive even with Easyjet but only two and a half hours to our destination from Munich) - train to Brussels then Brussels-Salzburg sleeper (I'd always wanted to travel that way but some reports are discouraging) - something else?
Ferry from Newcastle to Amsterdam or Train to Amsterdam then Nightjet from Amsterdam to Vienna?
We did the NightJet from Vienna to Amsterdam in November the new trains are great and rather comfortable (i.e. I slept through the night).
That's good to hear. I was thinking train to Brussels via channel tunnel then Nightjet to Salzburg. But I have heard mixed reviews of reliabiity and comfort!
2.5 hours from Rotterdam to Aachen for lunch and the cathedral
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
I was talking to someone the other day who noted that if you get 23 seconds engagement vs 18 that is huge in determining whether your short is promoted by the system
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
Denmark said that yesterday ended better than it started, so I assume so
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
A really interesting analysis of Carney's speech and on how the hubris of Realpolitik ends:
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
3-6 don’t mean anything. 3: a deal can be made and therefore unmade, so its timeframe is not eternal. 4 is an intent, not a deal. 5 was always possible within existing treaties allowing US military in Greenland. 6 was always possible.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
Let's hope so.
Rather than mock Trump as TACO or goad him further, I think we'd all prefer if this episode quietly went away and we can all get on with our lives.
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
Denmark said that yesterday ended better than it started, so I assume so
No, it appears to be an invention to save Trump's face.
Even Trumplicker Rutte denies there such an agreement.
Looks like Trump has secured Cyprus-style sovereign US bases on Greenland. America will outright own parts of Greenland, but certainly not all
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
And everyone thinks he's even more of a twat than before. He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument. But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps. Has any of this been run by Denmark? Let alone Greenland? You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised. Or is this different?
A really interesting analysis of Carney's speech and on how the hubris of Realpolitik ends:
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Disgracefully authoritarian.
Nanny state Tories. Where will it end?
It is certainly a topic of conversation with our children who really struggle with their children's [16, 14, and 13] phone use both in school and elsewhere
It is very much backed by them and childrens mental health charities
So no benefits of learning and communication get lost?
And there’s no other options to investigate and try first?
It will all be in the detail
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things, is exactly what is needed from opposition.
Wrong footing government and showing you are leading on the popular agenda from opposition, and actually achieving things… by doing away with investigations and any consideration of inherent vice, without bothering with pilots schemes, without observing what happens in Australia as time passes, just diving straight in based on seeing something on morning television and told is hugely popular in voodoo polls, is exactly THE WRONG WAY to show you are ready again for power.
Do you see my point?
No
I followed it closely when proposed, argued and introduced in Australia. I can tell you the key piece of detail straight away - it’s not a ban on under sixteens having access to phones, devices or internet use - it’s merely a ban on platforms giving under sixteens accounts. The rest is still parenting.
So where some children will have better quality of life, better quality education and self learning, other children will be deprived this, so I liken it to those parents who banned Rock n Roll in the house, believing they were doing good. Banning Rock n Roll was actual bizarre, bad parenting.
And the real kicker here is the actual problem - predatory and addictive algorithms - problem applies to everyone, all ages, not just children. Where is the actual policy needed?
The actual policy needed is to ban algorithms. But politics is the art of the possible. Start with under 16 and move from there.
You can't ban algorithms. There must be at least one algorithm to choose which videos to offer you. There is not enough space on your home screen to show the billions of videos available and even if there were, you'd need an algorithm to arrange them in some order or other.
You could ban algorithms that had certain behaviours but there'd be loopholes found and workarounds devised before teatime, and in any case, don't most people want and expect to be shown videos of the type they are interested in?
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
3-6 don’t mean anything. 3: a deal can be made and therefore unmade, so its timeframe is not eternal. 4 is an intent, not a deal. 5 was always possible within existing treaties allowing US military in Greenland. 6 was always possible.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
Let's hope so.
Rather than mock Trump as TACO or goad him further, I think we'd all prefer if this episode quietly went away and we can all get on with our lives.
Sure it is better for Trump to have a fig leaf to cover his climb down.
Only a fool would ignore what has happened. The USA is no longer our ally. "The Special Relationship" was always bollocks made up to cover British weakness and exceptionalism, but even that is now dead.
Trump may get his sort of faux win to sell to the Maga morons but has burnt even more political capital here in Europe in the process .
If anyone believes this was about security then they’re a gullible fool . The media instead of indulging this crap should have just called a spade a spade .
He could have had all the supposed elements of the deal without all this drama. Tanking the markets and a trade war with the mid-terms coming meant he had to back down from his real ambition to increase US territory with the whole of Greenland.
As for Farage and the rest of the Trump arselickers a bad few days.
Yes, what little trust there was in him has gone - regardless of what deal is struck.
He's giving a great lesson in why diplomacy matters.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
So, what you're saying is that PB doesn't give you a dopamine hit?
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
According to the @nytimes.com , Trump's U-turn followed a NATO meeting where top military officers discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the US sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic to build military bases, similar to the British scheme in Cyprus.
That was suggested by Mark Stone of Sky as the likely agreement
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
3-6 don’t mean anything. 3: a deal can be made and therefore unmade, so its timeframe is not eternal. 4 is an intent, not a deal. 5 was always possible within existing treaties allowing US military in Greenland. 6 was always possible.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
Let's hope so.
Rather than mock Trump as TACO or goad him further, I think we'd all prefer if this episode quietly went away and we can all get on with our lives.
We'd all prefer if Trump and his cult quietly went away and we can all get on with our lives.
Conservative amendment on social media ban for under 16s backed by the Lords - 261 - 150
Pathetic illiberalism.
I work in data, I have done for a pretty long time and I've had a long career in and adjacent to tech. I've led large data science teams who have worked on optimisation strategies for marketing and specifically social media. Even for third party advertisers the amount of influence we can have on people is truly terrifying.
The malign influence social media has on children can't be overstated. The simplest and best measure is to get rid. The idea that social media networks don't already know the age of everyone on their platform even without verification is ridiculous and they use that information to serve awful negative spiral content to children and teenagers to keep them scrolling and monetised with ad clicks.
Child suicide, child anxiety, adhd and many other preventable behavioural disorders are all linked to social media usage and even children who are merely social media adjacent (a kid with a parent that is a heavy user or had an older sibling that is a heavy user despite not having any accounts themselves) also see adverse outcomes.
Call it illiberal but I don't see any solutions coming from anywhere else. I'd ban tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat for under 16s overnight. The damage these big tech companies are doing to kids is irreparable and we need to act now.
In a decade the narrative will be shocked that we ever allowed kids to have unrestricted access to social media for so long.
Social media is this generation's smoking and it needs to be banned just the same as smoking was for children and properly policed.
Though given what we know about how harmful these things are, what's the argument for allowing them for over 16s?
There are things where society has concluded "you know, it's probably not that good for us, but it's not the end of the world and we'll accept that we can't stop them for everyone." Alcohol is in that category, and tobacco has historically been as well. (Rishi's law to gradually increase the age when you could buy cigarettes died with the election, but was resurrected by the Starmer government and is currently pootling around the Lords.)
Is social media only a bit harmful like that, or is it more like classified drugs; so harmful that we shouldn't let adults near them either? I think I'm inclined to the latter. In part because the engineering that has gone into them is so ruthless and precise. And I would love to know what those tech megabrains were thinking of getting involved. It's a job, sure, and the instructions to be evil came from above. But "I was only obeying orders" doesn't particularly wash.
All things can be harmful if taken to excess.
Any food, or dieting, can be harmful to excess. Exercise can be harmful if taken to excess.
Communication is not automatically harmful. It can be very beneficial and is linked, in moderation, to lower stress and lower mental health problems.
Yes, some people get harms from social media. A great many people do not, and get a great deal in benefit from it too.
Education, not elimination, is needed.
I'm sorry but your categorisation of social media as simply "communication" is utterly naïve.
Social media absolutely is a form of communication and can be used for good or ill, like all communication.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
No one is banning WhatsApp. Teenagers can continue to communicate as they have always done but without the harmful algorithms that are core to the appeal and addictiveness of popular social media.
It's seriously, seriously addictive. I struggle to read a book because it doesn't give me the constant dopamine hit that an instagram reel does (and that's nothing compared to tiktok). I've deleted them both but then I relapsed into youtube shorts. X and Facebook do it too.
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
I'm very careful around short form video content. It's literally just dopamine addiction dressed up as "content".
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
I don't use it myself, but my wife does, and it is very healthy for her.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
That's not only how the algorithm works. It will constantly serve adjacent content until you give in and click through. Additionally there's a pretty large amount of predictive behavioural analytics that go into it so for example if someone were to unfollow a healthy eating account that person might find their fyp start to serve influencers who promote unhealthy eating and eating disorder content because that's a tell for the media network. The user then hovers over said content for 8% longer than they do for other videos and a trickle of unhealthy content becomes a stream which turns into a flood. So what started as someone unfollowing Joe Wicks can turn their fyp into something negative and unrecognisable but ultimately feeding someone's dopamine addiction.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
Nothing changes until the same rules apply to electronic publication as to paper or conventional broadcast media.
The publisher should be liable for what they publish.
The small problem is, even if Greenland accepts this proposal, which is not a given, it gives America absolutely nothing they hadn't already got while the process has been strengthening Russia through dividing NATO.
So why would Greenland refuse? To piss Trump off. Because of the way he's treated them.
And that is also why Trump throughout his career has actually been a pretty poor deal maker. He cannot negotiate because he only thinks of what he wants and never understands sometimes everybody can benefit considerably from a little compromise.
It's also why he's been in constant trouble with the law.
His dementia is obviously making things much worse, but even though he's so insane that even @Leon has noticed it having been in denial for five years, he's been showing much of this ineptitude all his life. It's why he was a bad President first time round.
Comments
And thoroughly deserved too. Could have been more.
Yes there are problems, and risks, but there is too from a lack of communication too, and there are benefits from it too.
https://www.ameroncollection.com/en/bonn-hotel-koenigshof
right in the centre with a car park
It does not, and doesn't intend to do owt about screen time nor communicating overnight.
Our generation had dictionaries and encyclopedias to learn from. But they are all online now. How are you going to teach children geography, science, history? Is it all going to come from state-approved textbooks? And if so, you don't see the danger in that?
However, many parents are not IT savvy and the children run rings round them
They do need to be able to use the phone as a phone and even a whats app group
As I have said lets see the detail
When those interests become dark, then yes finding out more can be dark too and that is when people can get in vicious loops and there can be harm.
The idea it is all harm though is just as ignorant as the idea there's no harm.
BREAKING: Initial details on the Trump-Greenland deal have emerged:
1. Involves "small pockets of land" for the US
2. US involved in Greenland's mineral rights
3. Duration of the deal has an "indefinite" timeframe
4. Designed to block Russian influence in Greenland
5. US "Golden Dome" system will be involved
6. Opens door to US-backed infrastructure investment
Trump is looking to secure land, minerals, and defense in one deal.R
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2014089644288196691?s=61
I know people laugh at Bluesky but for a recovering social media addict it's an important haven. As is PB.
Trump doesn't do small.
The first thing that's awful about commercial SM (for want of a better term) is that not all the avatars have real humans underneath them. Partly that's about bots, and partly it's the way that some human users decide to leave their humanity at the door and act in ways that they're pretty unlikely to behave to actual real flesh'n'blood people. (Same principle as bastard bosses finding it easy to be callous when their staff and customers are just cells on a spreadsheet.) And partly it's about the big tech tendency to promote awful behaviour because it's what generates more profits.
Attractive as an age cap is, it leaves most of the problem untouched. I reckon there's a lot in the regulating away freedoms that should never have been there in the first place. If your firm creates a feed that does anything other than list posts in datestamp order, you are making editorial decisions and therefore ought to be treated like any other publisher. That probably kills a lot of SM businesses dead, but hey ho.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have the ability to use SM without some sort of trace back to an actual human identity, but I can see why that has the potential to go horribly wrong. But the harms from the current setup are pretty substantial.
So, 1 and 2 are what matter. 2 is vague. US companies could always have been involved. Has the US gained any rights they didn’t have before?
If 1 is the sovereign base idea, how much does that matter in practice? The US already controls the Pityfuck base (or whatever its name is). The small number of locals were cleared out years ago.
Most of Trump’s international deals are designed to look good, but involve minimal actual commitments. I presume the same will be true. MAGA-friendly media will sell it to 40% of Americans as a “win”.
(I bow to the faster wit of my piratical colleague.)
Honestly I find relaxing to a decent RPG or Civ such a great palate cleanser from social media. Long form games, old movies that don't constantly tell you the story and books are how to break the cycle. Elden Ring is probably my most played game at the moment because I can just ride around the map find random things to do, it's not particularly challenging and I'm able to switch my brain off and unwind. After the kids are asleep one of our favourite things to do is me playing Elden Ring while my wife lies across the sofa with her head in my lap reading her book. It took a bit of adjustment to find a comfortable position for us both but it's some of the best time we spend together and no phones or social media.
A guy who is carrying out a randomised trial of withholding access to social media (by randomly allocating phones with and without access) suggested it might be sensible to analyse the effectiveness of a ban before rushing to legislate.
The bill's sponsor simply dismissed the suggestion out of hand, saying current evidence of harm was all that's needed.
I'm not sure if that's true - but his refusal to even consider the point triggered my scepticism.
The algorithms go for what you interact with, which in her case is quite educational. She's chosen to have a career change and has gone to Uni to do a Midwifery course and her TikTok now is full of midwives and student midwives sharing their experiences, students speaking about university, and especially other mums talking about balancing being a student midwife with being a mum etc
Quite niche perhaps, but its her niche and its something she's found very valuable.
I'd legitimately recommend just uninstalling tiktok entirely if you have it. Genuine brainrot.
I promise not to do this to Greenland!
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1163603361423351808?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Mike Johnson says he “hasn’t seen” any of Trump’s Davos speech.
Sure. And I haven’t seen the sun.
Republicans are watching the chaos in real time, then pretending they were nowhere near the scene.
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/2014010892799664199
You actually don't NEED it. You want it.
And of course other people need you to have it in order to function in society.
But I'd quite happily not.
That's how the algorithm works. Teenage girls have committed suicide because they have been served content that send them into a spiral because the OKR is to get 10% more swipes and scrolls.
And these are the people running the US and, increasingly, Capitalism itself.
Marx wasn't far wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9y1pvy8e1o
Leavitt: His speech… it has rave reviews. The president really struck an inspirational tone.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2014053441086341515
Will find out in May as I'm probably using the Eurosleeper to get from Brussels to Prague.
If you spend longer interacting with healthy content, then it feeds you more healthy content.
Hence why my wife's TikTok is full of student midwife mothers, while yours would not be.
It can amplify what you are interested in, which if your interests are in a dark place can be concerning, but if they're not, then its different.
We should not just assume everyone is in a dark place.
Who do you think is buying smartphones for children?
Where are the education campaigns for adults and punitive taxation on users?
Nowhere in the pipeline.
Trouble is. My day job involves interacting with vast numbers of parents.
We can't outlaw bad parenting unfortunately, but nor should we make an overpowerful state usurp the role of parents either.
There's so many more inputs than just basic interaction. I think YouTube is the only social media network that has a fire break in the algorithm, if it notices user clicking too much on negative content it will start to fill up their feed with videos they previously watched even from years ago that aren't negative to attempt to break the cycle.
I mean sometimes someone's fyp can change just based on a few searches even with no click through. I've even heard that keeping user comments on screen for longer than average is part of how they build the fyp.
I just think your understanding on how social media companies work is limited to your own interaction rather than what they actually do. I mean they don't offer $600k per year salaries to data scientists just to build a reinforcement model, someone who learned python from an online course could build one in a week.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9146e13c-be1b-4151-9d03-fd4b6b0d6332
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
So you could ban/tax the use of these algorithms, or classify the companies as publishers if they used them, thus making them responsible for the content displayed.
Personally I would ban online advertising. It's advertising as the income stream that drives the use of algorithms to maximise engagement, so if you break that link then the communication app has to instead provide a service to its users that they are willing to pay for, and so it will optimise its service to satisfy the users and not the advertisers.
Last seen disappearing up Donad Trumps rectum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRImkcKgkU
Fight. Or something.
And some rights to Greenland’s mineral wealth
Seems quite a nifty compromise. European face is sort of saved, NATO endures, Trump can claim an extension of American security and enlargement of America itself - without having to pay $790bn. Though he doesn’t get to paint all of “Iceland” with Old Glory
The Art of the Deal, indeed
He could have had that if he'd asked nicely with a coherent argument.
But he won't. Cos he's Donald Fucking Trump.
Ps.
Has any of this been run by Denmark?
Let alone Greenland?
You used to be quite big on "sovereignty". Getting proper exercised.
Or is this different?
If anyone believes this was about security then they’re a gullible fool . The media instead of indulging this crap should have just called a spade a spade .
He could have had all the supposed elements of the deal without all this drama. Tanking the markets and a trade war with the mid-terms coming meant he had to back down from his real ambition to increase US territory with the whole of Greenland.
As for Farage and the rest of the Trump arselickers a bad few days.
NATO has absolutely no mandate to negotiate anything whatsoever on behalf of Greenland or over our heads,” Greenlandic MP Aaja Chemnitz, a member of the Danish parliament representing Greenland, wrote on Facebook.
“And the idea that NATO should have any say at all over our country and our mineral resources is completely absurd,” she added.
-BT
The battle for artificial intelligence between students and teachers (The Simpsons)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qzPvNX2kIAk
Its also important to point out that while the Conservatives were in negociations about the future of the Chagos Islands, they never signed off on any deal never mind anything resembling what the current Labour Government did! So yes they they discussed the issue, but that doesn't make them complicit in what this Labour Government is now offering!
Japan will allocate $6 billion for humanitarian and technical support to 🇺🇦Ukraine in 2026.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/2014011645941473435
A far more reliable ally of the western democracies than is Trump's America.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2014108570934001933
Fireworks show for the locals!
The average tech employee is thinking “my job is to tweak this algorithm to increase engagement by 3%”.
They don’t think about the implications for society.
2.5 hours from Rotterdam to Aachen for lunch and the cathedral
2.5 hours to weisbaden for an overnight
2.5 hours to Nuremberg
3 hours to Linz
https://x.com/devanaukraine/status/2014193808091852810
https://hegemon.substack.com/p/the-strong-will-suffer-what-they
A historic speech in the heart of the lion's den.
https://x.com/JDVance/status/2014051632141529577
Rather than mock Trump as TACO or goad him further, I think we'd all prefer if this episode quietly went away and we can all get on with our lives.
Even Trumplicker Rutte denies there such an agreement.
Rutte says the status of Greenland was not discussed as part of the “framework” deal Trump announced
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2014136312912101617
You could ban algorithms that had certain behaviours but there'd be loopholes found and workarounds devised before teatime, and in any case, don't most people want and expect to be shown videos of the type they are interested in?
Only a fool would ignore what has happened. The USA is no longer our ally. "The Special Relationship" was always bollocks made up to cover British weakness and exceptionalism, but even that is now dead.
He's giving a great lesson in why diplomacy matters.
Sad.
So the new deal is ...
1) Denmark has to keep paying the population of Greenland $600 million per year.
2) USA gets sovereignty over whichever parts we want for US military bases
3) USA gets mineral rights
4) China and Russia aren't allowed in Greenland
5) Cost $0.00
https://x.com/wallstreetmav/status/2014180931670622617
The publisher should be liable for what they publish.
So why would Greenland refuse? To piss Trump off. Because of the way he's treated them.
And that is also why Trump throughout his career has actually been a pretty poor deal maker. He cannot negotiate because he only thinks of what he wants and never understands sometimes everybody can benefit considerably from a little compromise.
It's also why he's been in constant trouble with the law.
His dementia is obviously making things much worse, but even though he's so insane that even @Leon has noticed it having been in denial for five years, he's been showing much of this ineptitude all his life. It's why he was a bad President first time round.