Skip to content

A win is a win – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,193
edited June 15 in General
A win is a win – politicalbetting.com

If a split opposition bloc devalues a win then not only was Reform’s win in Runcorn (0.02% vs 7% Green voters) void, the entire Tory majority in 2019 was (60+ seats where the Tory majority was less than combined left vote).At least be consistent with this stuff.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,584
    What if he wins by the drawing of straws on a tie?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,799

    What if he wins by the drawing of straws on a tie?

    It's a win.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,368
    Remember that Streeting has a majority of 9/16ths of a vote in Ilford. Burnham will look to have a huuuuuuge majority even if its only a couple of thousand.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,547

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    Was Russia also behind the almost complete news blackout on this story?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,799

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    Was Russia also behind the almost complete news blackout on this story?
    There was a massive Russian misinformation campaign online which sadly some PBers fell for.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,032
    I'm not saying SKS is desperate but if he's using the argument above he's screwed.

    Makerfield was the 29th target seat for Reform (so in the 5% easiest wins) see https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk

    If Burnham can win Makerfield then Labour have an excellent chance for Reform getting nowhere in 2028..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,584

    What if he wins by the drawing of straws on a tie?

    It's a win.
    I know. But can you imagine X for the hours after that!!!!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,647

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    I was told it was extortion.
    What a surprise.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,158
    dixiedean said:

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    I was told it was extortion.
    What a surprise.
    I heard it was actually about something else.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,032

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    Was Russia also behind the almost complete news blackout on this story?
    There was a massive Russian misinformation campaign online which sadly some PBers fell for.
    Also sub judice rules once the perpetrators were identified - and even before then given the impact it could have had on the trial.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,368
    This ban on kids accessing social media sites. There's already an age limit on most of them. Which we get around by completing the details for them. How is this any different?

    And besides, it will never be enacted as its the end of the road for Starmer. Imagine this being his last policy announcement. Its appropriately daft.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,908
    Here's hoping Senator McConnell recovers soon, and completely.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668
    A win by a handful of votes would be objectively hilarious. Especially if it turns out Restore cost Reform the seat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,023
    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,910
    edited June 15
    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,339
    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,910

    What if he wins by the drawing of straws on a tie?

    I know what you meant, but I have an image of two candidates scribbling on a necktie...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,023
    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,547
    eek said:

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    Was Russia also behind the almost complete news blackout on this story?
    There was a massive Russian misinformation campaign online which sadly some PBers fell for.
    Also sub judice rules once the perpetrators were identified - and even before then given the impact it could have had on the trial.
    Sub judice rules would not have prevented reporting on the trial as it progressed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,547
    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

    40 years, not 14.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,158
    edited June 15

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    A Man’s a Man for A’ That is one of the most egalitarian poems in the language. Burns’s point is that dignity comes from common humanity, not titles, wealth or social standing. If anything, it’s a terrible choice for a genuinely reactionary slogan.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,023
    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,060

    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
    Perhaps you do
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
    Perhaps you do
    Too many tweets… etc

    D. Cameron
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,303

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

    40 years, not 14.
    It's the peace dividend enjoyed by all governments over decades including Europe and throughout labour did not demand any increase in spending

    Facts and reality do not come into mind with some, especially our own Putin appeaser who wants to abolish our nuclear deterrent
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,370

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

    You trying to score party points on this is top quality cabaret, albeit one where I suspect you haven't realised how much of a tit you look.
    Taking that point forward the parties that *haven't* done a shit job on defence - all of them, apart from Conservatives and Labour
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,369

    Here's hoping Senator McConnell recovers soon, and completely.

    He failed to try and impeach Trump and showed disgraceful behaviour when he refused to bring Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS to a vote . He then rushed through Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 . A total hypocrite.

    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mcconnells-fabricated-history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/

    He might be a critic of Trump now but history won’t be kind to McConnell .
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668
    Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
    The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

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

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

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

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

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

    Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,739
    dixiedean said:

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

    Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals

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

    I was told it was extortion.
    What a surprise.
    Did the Met arrest this man because they thought his first name had an L at the end?

    Petro Pochynok, 35, was found not guilty of conspiracy to commit arson.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,060
    FWIW iOS now contains the ability for me to share my age with apps (for example, Reddit). This makes the process very painless.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,370
    Sweeney74 said:

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    A Man’s a Man for A’ That is one of the most egalitarian poems in the language. Burns’s point is that dignity comes from common humanity, not titles, wealth or social standing. If anything, it’s a terrible choice for a genuinely reactionary slogan.
    Wasn't the poem a call against the Union and for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament?
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668
    Battlebus said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    A Man’s a Man for A’ That is one of the most egalitarian poems in the language. Burns’s point is that dignity comes from common humanity, not titles, wealth or social standing. If anything, it’s a terrible choice for a genuinely reactionary slogan.
    Wasn't the poem a call against the Union and for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament?
    Not really. Burns had Scottish patriotic and reformist sympathies, but the poem itself is fundamentally about human equality and the worth of ordinary people over rank and privilege. It’s one of the reasons it’s been claimed by everyone from socialists to liberals to nationalists over the years.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,553

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    Considering that men celebrate Burns' birthday each year by putting on a skirt I think that is a contentious argument.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,553
    Sweeney74 said:

    Battlebus said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    A Man’s a Man for A’ That is one of the most egalitarian poems in the language. Burns’s point is that dignity comes from common humanity, not titles, wealth or social standing. If anything, it’s a terrible choice for a genuinely reactionary slogan.
    Wasn't the poem a call against the Union and for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament?
    Not really. Burns had Scottish patriotic and reformist sympathies, but the poem itself is fundamentally about human equality and the worth of ordinary people over rank and privilege. It’s one of the reasons it’s been claimed by everyone from socialists to liberals to nationalists over the years.
    One of the greatest poems IMHO. I love Burns.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668

    Sweeney74 said:

    Battlebus said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    A Man’s a Man for A’ That is one of the most egalitarian poems in the language. Burns’s point is that dignity comes from common humanity, not titles, wealth or social standing. If anything, it’s a terrible choice for a genuinely reactionary slogan.
    Wasn't the poem a call against the Union and for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament?
    Not really. Burns had Scottish patriotic and reformist sympathies, but the poem itself is fundamentally about human equality and the worth of ordinary people over rank and privilege. It’s one of the reasons it’s been claimed by everyone from socialists to liberals to nationalists over the years.
    One of the greatest poems IMHO. I love Burns.
    Completely agree.
    For those wishing to read the poem to see what we're on about:
    https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/mans-man-0/
  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 322
    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,060

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,739
    The Lady Chief Justice: "Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property"

    The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.

    How does the Chief Justice not know that?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,339

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,613

    The Lady Chief Justice: "Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property"

    The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.

    How does the Chief Justice not know that?

    They also, like Palestine Action, set back the cause tgey purported to represent.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,478

    The Lady Chief Justice: "Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property"

    The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.

    How does the Chief Justice not know that?

    Ah, but many of the suffragettes were upper and upper middle-class ladies. Not scruffy students.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,087
    edited June 15
    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The tobacco industry may have been responsible for a couple of billion premature deaths over the years, but they sure made great adverts. Swings and roundabouts.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,060

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
    I agree but that’s the reality - newspapers are edited, social media is not. You can argue that algorithms change this but at the end of the day that’s the equivalent of recommendation rather than editing. All content is otherwise visible.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
    If you choose to do something automatically at enormous scale, you arguably bear more responsibility, not less.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    The whole point of automation is that you build rigorous testing, quality assurance, monitoring and controls around it.

    Social media companies seem to have persuaded policymakers that because content is selected and promoted by algorithms rather than editors, they should bear less responsibility. I’ve never really understood that argument.

    If anything, an editor can make a few bad decisions a day. An algorithm can make millions.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,060
    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    This reads like a shitty LinkedIn post
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,613

    The Lady Chief Justice: "Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property"

    The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.

    How does the Chief Justice not know that?

    Ah, but many of the suffragettes were upper and upper middle-class ladies. Not scruffy students.
    Are the students in Palestine Action particularly working class?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,613
    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    Feel better now?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010
    edited June 15
    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

    Give you head a wobble.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776
    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
    If you choose to do something automatically at enormous scale, you arguably bear more responsibility, not less.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    The whole point of automation is that you build rigorous testing, quality assurance, monitoring and controls around it.

    Social media companies seem to have persuaded policymakers that because content is selected and promoted by algorithms rather than editors, they should bear less responsibility. I’ve never really understood that argument.

    If anything, an editor can make a few bad decisions a day. An algorithm can make millions.
    In US law, people have been prosecuted for automating fire transfers. And getting hit with hundreds of thousands of counts of Wire Fraud.
  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 322
    edited June 15

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
    Indeed - the responsibilities can be different, but that does not mean they don’t exist.

    Interestingly the latest stats on payment fraud are out. 250,000 cases and £576 million stolen last year - and online services (usually meta) were responsible for introducing victims in two-thirds of cases for a third of value. The Banks generally have to pay out to the victims.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776
    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    Feel better now?
    The full sized cut out of Kemi in his room hasn't asked for forgiveness. Yet.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,613

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

    Give you head a wobble.
    You keep making this point. It isn't true. Just have a look through the posts now in this thread - the number of posts by left of centre and right of centre posters is roughly 50/50.
  • If Burnham wins, Labour can find some comfort in holding the Red wall
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010
    edited June 15
    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,032
    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    Have you used a Microsoft Product in the last 5 years? I'm 100% sure they've now adopted the Meta approach of use customers as your beta users.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,303

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    As someone who at least nominally agrees with you on party preference, I think with respect that you've got the tone wrong for PB. Shorter, less shouty, posts are more effective here.
    Wise words as ever @NickPalmer
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 132
    Still waiting in vain for someone to stop blaming someone else for the problems with defence and laying all the blame yet again on spending.

    We have one realistic enemy that can severely damage us conventionally and to do that it has to come through or pass our European Allies from Norway to Turkey.

    That is where our forces need to be and what they need to be for.

    We don’t need a big Navy to do that.

    We aren’t playing a key role in the Gulf let alone in protecting global trade and shipping.

    We can defend ourselves fine if we simply accept that we are a major European power not the global one we like to pretend.

    Peter.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,516

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    As someone who at least nominally agrees with you on party preference, I think with respect that you've got the tone wrong for PB. Shorter, less shouty, posts are more effective here.
    Wise words as ever @NickPalmer
    I do like old Brixian and enjoy discussing Brum and midlands football and the midlands with him, as I do with Mexicanpete, but when it comes to politics. Oh dear.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668
    eek said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    Have you used a Microsoft Product in the last 5 years? I'm 100% sure they've now adopted the Meta approach of use customers as your beta users.
    I use Azure and Azure DevOps daily. I stay away from the OS side though, not used Windows for years.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,735
    eek said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    Have you used a Microsoft Product in the last 5 years? I'm 100% sure they've now adopted the Meta approach of use customers as your beta users.
    Microsoft eliminated most of it’s programmatic QA roles in the mid 2010s.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010
    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    As someone who at least nominally agrees with you on party preference, I think with respect that you've got the tone wrong for PB. Shorter, less shouty, posts are more effective here.
    Wise words as ever @NickPalmer
    I do like old Brixian and enjoy discussing Brum and midlands football and the midlands with him, as I do with Mexicanpete, but when it comes to politics. Oh dear.
    What's wrong with my a plague on all your houses politics (particularly Reform)?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,516

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    A lot of which is self publishing. People will consider what they write before they publish.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,166

    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
    She doesn't try to shift the blame onto Starmer. Starmer comes up in the conversation.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 668
    eek said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.

    In software engineering we’ve spent the last decade automating deployments through CI/CD pipelines. Nobody would accept “the release was automatic” as an excuse if a company repeatedly shipped defective or harmful code into production.

    Have you used a Microsoft Product in the last 5 years? I'm 100% sure they've now adopted the Meta approach of use customers as your beta users.
    And where is my mind...
    I sometimes forget that c# .net is a Microsoft product. Since they open sourced, it is bloody amazing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,516
    edited June 15

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    Yup.

    That’s now me, having voted for them at every election since 87, my first one !

    Reform haven’t won me over yet and today’s announcement makes me less likely to go to them, rather than more.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,166

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Just because you do something automatically, does not mean you can avoid responsibility for it.
    Indeed - the responsibilities can be different, but that does not mean they don’t exist.

    Interestingly the latest stats on payment fraud are out. 250,000 cases and £576 million stolen last year - and online services (usually meta) were responsible for introducing victims in two-thirds of cases for a third of value. The Banks generally have to pay out to the victims.
    Social media companies are ducking the costs of the social ills for which they are responsible. I don't know that this under-16s ban is the right answer (we should ban over-65s if we want to stop radicalisation!), but I think we do need a new relationship between society and social media companies.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
    Almost right.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,023

    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
    She doesn't try to shift the blame onto Starmer. Starmer comes up in the conversation.
    There are several cuts, but you can hear how she starts out by taking ownership of the decision to ban it, but then after her daughter starts getting upset she introduces "this government guy" in an omitted section.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,908
    edited June 15
    "[Senator McConnell] failed to try and impeach Trump . . "

    Reminder:
    Under the U.S. Constitution, the House has the sole power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), and after that action has been taken, the Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments" (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Trump was the third U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.[12] Trump is the only federal official to be impeached twice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump
    An impeachment is like an indictment, and, when impeached, a president is then tried by the Senate. A simple House majority is enough for an impeachment; a 2/3 Senate majority is required for a conviction.

    (And I still wish Senator McConnell well.)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
    Almost right.
    OK

    @malcolmg - you are apparently a fence sitter who may vote Tory at the slightest provocation. How do you answer that?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,776
    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    Originally, the policy of takedown of offensive/illegal posts was considered enough to avoid getting into trouble.

    The mods here do a good job.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,553
    algarkirk said:
    Very interesting, especially on the historical support for the BNP in Makerfield which helps explain the strong showing for Restore in some of the constituency polling.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,516

    algarkirk said:
    Very interesting, especially on the historical support for the BNP in Makerfield which helps explain the strong showing for Restore in some of the constituency polling.
    I never realised that. He’s always good, always has something of interest to offer.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,613

    Pulpstar said:

    Very bizarre tweet from a Lib Dem MP talking to her young child about banning YouTube:

    https://x.com/JessBrownFuller/status/2066270208688333161

    Her daughter isn't convinced by the arguments being made to ban Youtube.
    Yes, after realising that her daughter isn't impressed, she decides to shift the blame onto Keir Starmer.

    I don't know what possessed her to post it online. Maybe it's MPs who need banning from social media.
    She doesn't try to shift the blame onto Starmer. Starmer comes up in the conversation.
    I don't know why parents like this insist om referring to themselves in the third person. "Do you know how many mummies and daddies have written to your mummy?". What's wrong with the word 'me'? I'm sure the child would understand it. It's a weird twee affectation and it grates. I'm sure it grates with the child too.
  • Sweeney74 said:

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

    The detail is the problem. Even people who agree social media is toxic for kids oppose this policy because, on past form, the government will implement it in a way that destroys privacy and is a gigantic data breach waiting to happen.

    It's not hard to implement an age verification process which requires no data to be submitted beyond what the platforms already have. But the government seems to have no interest in such a system, which fuels (rightly in my view) the suspicion that the whole policy is about surveillance and intimidation, not 'thinkofthechildern!!'.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,992

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    Considering that men celebrate Burns' birthday each year by putting on a skirt I think that is a contentious argument.
    Careful, the unblinking eye of JK Sauron will alight upon you.

    https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2065916054660935694?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,992

    viewcode said:

    To misquote Burns, "A win's a win by a'that"

    A very transphobic poem.
    Considering that men celebrate Burns' birthday each year by putting on a skirt I think that is a contentious argument.
    Careful, the unblinking eye of JK Sauron will alight upon you.

    https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2065916054660935694?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,516
    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    It’s all self publishing. Plenty of people are held to account for their posts on social media already.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,673
    edited June 15

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
    Almost right.
    OK

    @malcolmg - you are apparently a fence sitter who may vote Tory at the slightest provocation. How do you answer that?
    I always think of Malc as someone roleplaying a particular type of Scotsman !

    I am not certain whether it is the Cow with a Cough Scotsman, the Yappy Terrier Scotsman, the Shammy Leather Scotsman, or the Opening Door Scotsman, but the content bears some resemblance - was it not "you fucking English bastard !".

    (runs and hides)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,010

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
    Almost right.
    OK

    @malcolmg - you are apparently a fence sitter who may vote Tory at the slightest provocation. How do you answer that?
    He's a bloomin' Tory!
  • eekeek Posts: 34,032
    edited June 15
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

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

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

    There are an awful lot of fence sitters, but the pro-Tory posters are relentless at the moment and I'll count them for you. We have one, er, we have, er, one Labour poster and it was to him I was addressing my post.
    We have a fair number of non-Tories who don't support Labour.
    They are the fence sitters. I naturally include Lib Dems in their number.
    So someone who is a Lib dem member, and even stands for the Lib Dems at election is a fence sitter?

    A long term SNP supporter and voter is a fence sitter?

    An avowed Green party member and voter is a fence sitter?

    Really?
    Almost right.
    OK

    @malcolmg - you are apparently a fence sitter who may vote Tory at the slightest provocation. How do you answer that?
    I always think of Malc as someone roleplaying a Scotsman !

    (runs and hides)
    Didn't we work out he was an 18 year old (now 28) from Bradford (-on-Avon)..
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,487
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    It’s all self publishing. Plenty of people are held to account for their posts on social media already.
    Yes, indeed. But that is like saying that every article in the Guardian is nothing to do with the staff who work for the Guardian or the company, so they are never accountable, but if you like you can sue the anonymous person, who might live in a cave 3000 miles up the Amazon, who wrote the article and suggest to the police that they give him or her a visit.

    That is where we are with the internet and its less careful platforms.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,585
    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,326

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The tobacco industry may have been responsible for a couple of billion premature deaths over the years, but they sure made great adverts. Swings and roundabouts.
    Generated a lot of tax too. Keeps the NHS afloat.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,673

    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
    That comparison does not quite work - a mobile phone call is not posted on the internet by the phone company, archived forever, and indexed by Google.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,992

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Poor pathetic Kemi.

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

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

    All mouth no substance

    Eviscerated by erm Luke Pollard

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

    One wonders where the actual Shadow Minister is?

    Pollard goes on to quietly explain

    YES Labour are spending more

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

    Working to phase out old technologies and build or purchase new

    Biggest Armed Forces pay rise in 20 years

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

    intake up 11%
    Outflow reduced 8%

    Ashen faced Tories totally exposed for 14 years of wilful neglect

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

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

    Btw

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

    However

    Badenoch calls Dan Jarvis, a former Army Officer a coward

    Is told he's with the King

    Swayne calls Jarvis a coward

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

    Leigh calls Jarvis a Coward

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

    Utter Tory clusterfuck

    Took defence spending from 2.5 % to below 2%

    Labour increasing by 11 billion a yrar

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

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

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

    Thatcher got it right

    THE ENEMY WITHIN

    SAME OLD TORIES

    CORRUPT
    TREACHEROUS
    TRAITORS

    As someone who at least nominally agrees with you on party preference, I think with respect that you've got the tone wrong for PB. Shorter, less shouty, posts are more effective here.
    It’s almost like someone has put a lot of effort into creating a caricature..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,478
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    Sweeney74 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
    I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
    I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
    Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

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

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

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

    It’s all self publishing. Plenty of people are held to account for their posts on social media already.
    True, but the platform isn't.
Sign In or Register to comment.