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.
Good morning, everyone.
That effectively ends social media or has it entirely governed by AI/bot censors.
There's already a problem with history videos not being allowed to depict swastikas etc for fear of being hit with video takedowns (the channel formerly known as Ten Minute History, I forget its current name, regularly has to 'insert joke here' because showing a hammer and sickle or naming Stalin is fine but Hitler has to be called the Angry Moustache Man or similar).
Dial that up to 11 and apply it t everything, and that's an AI bot censored social media landscape.
Regardless of whether you think that's ok, social media is fundamentally different from traditional print media because the content is made by ordinary people (mostly...) for free, as opposed to paid employees with content accepted or rejected or edited by the publisher pre-release.
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.
There's deal making and deal making.
The key issue in assessing whether a Deal is a good Deal is whether it is a one off or part of a series.
So a one off deal (such as a real estate deal) can be a rip off with only one winner. This is Trump's background.
Most Deals are part of an evolving commercial relationship, with a long term expectation of further business, and for these to be a success then both parties need to feel that they have a good deal. The best customer is a returning customer because they have made the decision to buy even before stepping over the threshold.
Trumps Deal-making is all short term because he does not plan ahead or think strategically.
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.
There's deal making and deal making.
The key issue in assessing whether a Deal is a good Deal is whether it is a one off or part of a series.
So a one off deal (such as a real estate deal) can be a rip off with only one winner. This is Trump's background.
Most Deals are part of an evolving commercial relationship, with a long term expectation of further business, and for these to be a success then both parties need to feel that they have a good deal. The best customer is a returning customer because they have made the decision to buy even before stepping over the threshold.
Trumps Deal-making is all short term because he does not plan ahead or think strategically.
It's the same mistake that the "Europe can go whistle" types made here post 2016. And that some politicians make when they promise the Earth without worrying how they will deliver it in the event of victory.
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.
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?
I was simplifying.
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
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.
That statement is reminiscent of Chamberlain's speech after a visit to Munich. His plan too was "we can all get on with our lives".
I am not sure Trump is being goaded, he was appeased by NATO.
And those of us who are not Trump-aligned weren't laughing at him, we were simply horrified.
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:
I do remember an article by Mr @Sean_F on exactly this issue on a certain website...
Many thanks. I expanded on my PB article in Militaria. It would be flattering if Mark Carney had read it.
Even the mightiest empires at their zenith cannot operate by force alone. There has to be something in it for their allies to remain as loyal allies. Intelligent mafia bosses understand that those lower down the food chain have to be allowed to wet their beaks. Bosses that get too greedy usually get killed.
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?
I was simplifying.
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
Banning advertising would reduce putting things on the net to those who are either reasonably well off enough that they can pay someone else to run their hosting or to those who are technically capable and inclined to do it themselves at either home or on rented kit.
I can see why it’d be attractive to the old guard as it reduces the competition that’s currently beating them, but not why it’d be attractive to the general population.
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.
Good morning, everyone.
That effectively ends social media or has it entirely governed by AI/bot censors.
There's already a problem with history videos not being allowed to depict swastikas etc for fear of being hit with video takedowns (the channel formerly known as Ten Minute History, I forget its current name, regularly has to 'insert joke here' because showing a hammer and sickle or naming Stalin is fine but Hitler has to be called the Angry Moustache Man or similar).
Dial that up to 11 and apply it t everything, and that's an AI bot censored social media landscape.
Regardless of whether you think that's ok, social media is fundamentally different from traditional print media because the content is made by ordinary people (mostly...) for free, as opposed to paid employees with content accepted or rejected or edited by the publisher pre-release.
The thing is that social media companies only work by not attempting an important part of their job. If your business model depends on selling adverts around videos, you have a duty to understand (and yes, censor if necessary) the videos your business depends on.
It can't be done by humans- the content comes in an unimaginable torrent. It can't be done by AI- computers are too dumb, and there's an awkward tendency for the AIs trying to get round the rules always being one step ahead of the ones enforcing the rules.
It's sad to say, but I'm not sure these businesses can safely exist.
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.
There's deal making and deal making.
The key issue in assessing whether a Deal is a good Deal is whether it is a one off or part of a series.
So a one off deal (such as a real estate deal) can be a rip off with only one winner. This is Trump's background.
Most Deals are part of an evolving commercial relationship, with a long term expectation of further business, and for these to be a success then both parties need to feel that they have a good deal. The best customer is a returning customer because they have made the decision to buy even before stepping over the threshold.
Trumps Deal-making is all short term because he does not plan ahead or think strategically.
It also goes back to our discussions about Nonconformists starting off by doing good, and finishing by doing well, because they gained a reputation for being honest and trustworthy. Trump is not the kind of man who bargains hard, but delivers his end of the deal. He will always cheat you, if he thinks it is in his interest.
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.
There's deal making and deal making.
The key issue in assessing whether a Deal is a good Deal is whether it is a one off or part of a series.
So a one off deal (such as a real estate deal) can be a rip off with only one winner. This is Trump's background.
Most Deals are part of an evolving commercial relationship, with a long term expectation of further business, and for these to be a success then both parties need to feel that they have a good deal. The best customer is a returning customer because they have made the decision to buy even before stepping over the threshold.
Trumps Deal-making is all short term because he does not plan ahead or think strategically.
It's the same mistake that the "Europe can go whistle" types made here post 2016. And that some politicians make when they promise the Earth without worrying how they will deliver it in the event of victory.
Yes, and it was why Trump is so short term in his economics. His whole approch to boost the economy is by borrowing and spending with that short term injection of extra money into the economy providing a boost to asset holders so that his supporters feel richer. He basically is doing Corbynomics.
His own attitude to wealth is similar. He has piled up additional personal wealth of $1.3 billion in his first year back in office. Quite why isn't obvious as clearly the Grim Reaper is getting closer every day. To build a legacy perhaps? But most likely his legacy will be to be as fondly remembered as Jimmy Saville.
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:
Was Carney projecting what might happen or confirming what is actually happening?
Middle powers Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and a nuclear armed Pakistan are forming a defence pact. Türkiye is a NATO member and Saudi are currently having a tussle with the UAE. Then there's CRINK v Ukraine.
And while the world turns, everyone gets hooked on the latest Trumpfart.
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?
I was simplifying.
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
Banning advertising would reduce putting things on the net to those who are either reasonably well off enough that they can pay someone else to run their hosting or to those who are technically capable and inclined to do it themselves at either home or on rented kit.
I can see why it’d be attractive to the old guard as it reduces the competition that’s currently beating them, but not why it’d be attractive to the general population.
More likely banning advertising would just mean more undeclared advertising by "influencers". Its better that the adverts are visible ratather than unlabelled.
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.
That statement is reminiscent of Chamberlain's speech after a visit to Munich. His plan too was "we can all get on with our lives".
I am not sure Trump is being goaded, he was appeased by NATO.
And those of us who are not Trump-aligned weren't laughing at him, we were simply horrified.
Chamberlain knew perfectly well he couldn't trust Hitler. He - possibly wrongly, but reasonably - believed the German war machine was miles ahead of where it was. He hoped to buy himself 18 months to tool Britain up. I think he was something of a hero - he sacrificed his reputation to give the country the best chance in the conflict he probably believed was inevitable. That's my reading, anyway.
Public sector net borrowing came in below expectations at just over 11.5 billion . Forecast was 14 to 15 billion.
Not exactly time to get the bunting out but she’ll take any good news she can !
As this weeks Trump climbdown ripples through the markets it will be interesting to see what happens to Japanese bond yields. A couple of days back they were looking as if they might cascade through to other heavily indebted economies such as the USA.
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?
I was simplifying.
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
The paid version of Twitter is around $7 per month and gets rid of 90% of the ads.
That’s probably the best way forward.
If the product is free to the user, than the user is the product.
Public sector net borrowing came in below expectations at just over 11.5 billion . Forecast was 14 to 15 billion.
Not exactly time to get the bunting out but she’ll take any good news she can !
Borrowing for the 9 months of the fiscal year to date also a shade below 2024. It’s not austerity, but it’s a lot better than some countries. The US forecast is $1.8 trillion of additional debt for the current fiscal year.
The other news that will be welcomed by some and greeted with horror by others: house prices only up 2.5% on the year, that’s lower than inflation and much lower than nominal GDP of wage growth. It’s been a hidden trend of the last few years: housing affordability is improving.
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?
I was simplifying.
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
The paid version of Twitter is around $7 per month and gets rid of 90% of the ads.
That’s probably the best way forward.
If the product is free to the user, than the user is the product.
Unless it gets rid of the bots and troll farms it isn't worth it.
The adverts are annoying but the whole point of SM alogorithims is to feed you and hook you onto what the owner wants you to see. Social Media is not a "free for all" it is carefully managed to push the broligatchs preferred world view.
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:
It is good, but the point it misses is that Carney didn't say the rules based order was a fiction; he called it a partial fiction.
And in reality that's true of any legal system. All are artificial creations - in the case of a country, the "hegemon" is the government itself - and in the end depend on the continuing acceptance of shared rules.
And one of the conditions for acceptance is that the hegemon obeys those rules itself.
In this analysis, there's no bright line between international law and domestic law. In the case of liberal democracies, that acceptance is very deeply embedded , as is the way in which governments are bound by their own rules. But as we're seeing in the US, those two things are not an absolute given.
The Soviet system, or Putin's Russia, are at the opposite end of the spectrum.
So- did DJT blink, or was this another 'create a panic/solve the panic' cycle allowing those near DJT to do a shabby grift on the markets?
Not that either of them is especially good news for the rest of us, and not that either of them allows us to treat Americans as reliable allies, but it would be useful to know which model they are following.
In the UK, we’d be examining trading patterns - looking for people who shorted the market then switched to a buy position yesterday, which sent the markets shooting inexplicably (at the time) upwards - by now.
That markets changed course and shot upwards, well before any announcement, is the glaring clue.
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.
If that’s how things are in a libertarian household, I fear for all the other kids….
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
He wants to keep these bases after he leaves NATO and sells out the Europeans to Russia.
So he'll be after the same deal for RAF Fylingdales.
After sleeping on it I think this is a terrible mistake by the Europeans.
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.
That statement is reminiscent of Chamberlain's speech after a visit to Munich. His plan too was "we can all get on with our lives".
I am not sure Trump is being goaded, he was appeased by NATO.
And those of us who are not Trump-aligned weren't laughing at him, we were simply horrified.
Chamberlain knew perfectly well he couldn't trust Hitler. He - possibly wrongly, but reasonably - believed the German war machine was miles ahead of where it was. He hoped to buy himself 18 months to tool Britain up. I think he was something of a hero - he sacrificed his reputation to give the country the best chance in the conflict he probably believed was inevitable. That's my reading, anyway.
The evidence tends support that. Chamberlain was intimately involved with rearmament and war planning long before Munich, and was within cabinet one of the strongest advocates for rearmament.
But much of that was secret until well after the war, when he was dead and his reputation as an appeaser indelibly established.
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?
The sleeper tickets are insanely popular, given such limited supply, and probably sold out as soon as they went on sale, assuming the ones for your travel date already are. So you can probably discount that option.
I’d take the ferry and car option, and you should get an early start off the ferry. If you want to break the back of the driving on the first day, go stay in Tubingen - the hotel schloss at the top of the hill is a great place to stay, and the whole old town is laid out beneath you. Or, to balance the driving between the two days, you could look at Heidelberg, or one of the characterful small towns along the Rhine around Mannheim. If you are driving to Germany, make sure you have your emissions sticker sorted for the vehicle well ahead.
For a party of five, the costs of individual plane or train tickets probably make the car an economic option; the downside is obviously the travel time there and back, which you may or may not see as part of your holiday.
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?
When Facebook started it didn't have an algorithm. It showed you posts from your friends in reverse chronological order (ok, technically that definition is an "algorithm" but for the purposes of this discussion there's a fundamental difference between a reverse chronological order list of things from people you've chosen to follow and serving you up things from everyone else to maximise engagement.)
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.
I'm not going to go this far (yet) but I do think a genuine societal conversation on what the appropriate age to give children smartphones is worth having. Social norms can govern behaviour through peer pressure as much peer pressure.
My argument for the norm being much older than present is that smartphones are full of addictive apps, algorithmic social media being the most damaging of which, which are addictive and distract from everything else. Childhood is different for every child, but it should be about playing and learning and socialising and trying new things. A smartphone in your pocket takes away from that, and parental controls can be beaten (it only takes the most tech savvy person in school to share knowledge more widely).
I would suggest that from the age children gain some independence (e.g. walking to school alone) until about the age of 16, 'dumbphones' combined with monitored access to tablets / computers at home is a better balance for children. They can continue to communicate and get in contact, but access to the internet is in a more controlled environment.
I think society is slowly waking up to the fact we have been giving fundamentally 'adult' devices to children because they have the same name as something called a phone. Smartphones aren't phones, they are personal computers. And there's no need for 12 year olds to have 24-hour a day access to a computer.
Read 'the anxious generation' if you want the case put more eloquently than I have.
Comments
That effectively ends social media or has it entirely governed by AI/bot censors.
There's already a problem with history videos not being allowed to depict swastikas etc for fear of being hit with video takedowns (the channel formerly known as Ten Minute History, I forget its current name, regularly has to 'insert joke here' because showing a hammer and sickle or naming Stalin is fine but Hitler has to be called the Angry Moustache Man or similar).
Dial that up to 11 and apply it t everything, and that's an AI bot censored social media landscape.
Regardless of whether you think that's ok, social media is fundamentally different from traditional print media because the content is made by ordinary people (mostly...) for free, as opposed to paid employees with content accepted or rejected or edited by the publisher pre-release.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/jan/21/traitors-is-rachel-the-best-traitor-ever-and-will-she-win?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The key issue in assessing whether a Deal is a good Deal is whether it is a one off or part of a series.
So a one off deal (such as a real estate deal) can be a rip off with only one winner. This is Trump's background.
Most Deals are part of an evolving commercial relationship, with a long term expectation of further business, and for these to be a success then both parties need to feel that they have a good deal. The best customer is a returning customer because they have made the decision to buy even before stepping over the threshold.
Trumps Deal-making is all short term because he does not plan ahead or think strategically.
Q. Was the status of Greenland discussed
A. We are focused on the security of the huge Arctic region and the Chinese threat
The policy has to be to break the link between advertising and algorithms. (Not to ban advertising as someone else said).
I am not sure Trump is being goaded, he was appeased by NATO.
And those of us who are not Trump-aligned weren't laughing at him, we were simply horrified.
Even the mightiest empires at their zenith cannot operate by force alone. There has to be something in it for their allies to remain as loyal allies. Intelligent mafia bosses understand that those lower down the food chain have to be allowed to wet their beaks. Bosses that get too greedy usually get killed.
I can see why it’d be attractive to the old guard as it reduces the competition that’s currently beating them, but not why it’d be attractive to the general population.
It can't be done by humans- the content comes in an unimaginable torrent. It can't be done by AI- computers are too dumb, and there's an awkward tendency for the AIs trying to get round the rules always being one step ahead of the ones enforcing the rules.
It's sad to say, but I'm not sure these businesses can safely exist.
And she’s done an America: just made Stephen realise she’s not reliable ally.
His own attitude to wealth is similar. He has piled up additional personal wealth of $1.3 billion in his first year back in office. Quite why isn't obvious as clearly the Grim Reaper is getting closer every day. To build a legacy perhaps? But most likely his legacy will be to be as fondly remembered as Jimmy Saville.
Public sector net borrowing came in below expectations at just over 11.5 billion . Forecast was 14 to 15 billion.
Not exactly time to get the bunting out but she’ll take any good news she can !
Middle powers Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and a nuclear armed Pakistan are forming a defence pact. Türkiye is a NATO member and Saudi are currently having a tussle with the UAE. Then there's CRINK v Ukraine.
And while the world turns, everyone gets hooked on the latest Trumpfart.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/turkeys-dangerous-defense-pivot
That's my reading, anyway.
That’s probably the best way forward.
If the product is free to the user, than the user is the product.
The other news that will be welcomed by some and greeted with horror by others: house prices only up 2.5% on the year, that’s lower than inflation and much lower than nominal GDP of wage growth. It’s been a hidden trend of the last few years: housing affordability is improving.
The adverts are annoying but the whole point of SM alogorithims is to feed you and hook you onto what the owner wants you to see. Social Media is not a "free for all" it is carefully managed to push the broligatchs preferred world view.
Basically it is The Matrix.
And in reality that's true of any legal system. All are artificial creations - in the case of a country, the "hegemon" is the government itself - and in the end depend on the continuing acceptance of shared rules.
And one of the conditions for acceptance is that the hegemon obeys those rules itself.
In this analysis, there's no bright line between international law and domestic law.
In the case of liberal democracies, that acceptance is very deeply embedded , as is the way in which governments are bound by their own rules. But as we're seeing in the US, those two things are not an absolute given.
The Soviet system, or Putin's Russia, are at the opposite end of the spectrum.
‘I’m for it’: Johnson endorses impeachment for judges who rule against Trump
https://x.com/politico/status/2014046357804499352
That markets changed course and shot upwards, well before any announcement, is the glaring clue.
So he'll be after the same deal for RAF Fylingdales.
After sleeping on it I think this is a terrible mistake by the Europeans.
Chamberlain was intimately involved with rearmament and war planning long before Munich, and was within cabinet one of the strongest advocates for rearmament.
But much of that was secret until well after the war, when he was dead and his reputation as an appeaser indelibly established.
I’d take the ferry and car option, and you should get an early start off the ferry. If you want to break the back of the driving on the first day, go stay in Tubingen - the hotel schloss at the top of the hill is a great place to stay, and the whole old town is laid out beneath you. Or, to balance the driving between the two days, you could look at Heidelberg, or one of the characterful small towns along the Rhine around Mannheim. If you are driving to Germany, make sure you have your emissions sticker sorted for the vehicle well ahead.
For a party of five, the costs of individual plane or train tickets probably make the car an economic option; the downside is obviously the travel time there and back, which you may or may not see as part of your holiday.
NEW THREAD
My argument for the norm being much older than present is that smartphones are full of addictive apps, algorithmic social media being the most damaging of which, which are addictive and distract from everything else. Childhood is different for every child, but it should be about playing and learning and socialising and trying new things. A smartphone in your pocket takes away from that, and parental controls can be beaten (it only takes the most tech savvy person in school to share knowledge more widely).
I would suggest that from the age children gain some independence (e.g. walking to school alone) until about the age of 16, 'dumbphones' combined with monitored access to tablets / computers at home is a better balance for children. They can continue to communicate and get in contact, but access to the internet is in a more controlled environment.
I think society is slowly waking up to the fact we have been giving fundamentally 'adult' devices to children because they have the same name as something called a phone. Smartphones aren't phones, they are personal computers. And there's no need for 12 year olds to have 24-hour a day access to a computer.
Read 'the anxious generation' if you want the case put more eloquently than I have.