1/ Iran has reportedly assessed that Donald Trump is "mentally incompetent" and has incorporated psychologists into its negotiating team to adapt the wording of the proposed agreement "as if the recipient were a [mental] patient ... whose capacity is limited."
They have no idea. By appearing to be mentally ill he has lulled them into agreeing a terrible deal that at the very least will see things back exactly where they were when he launched a massive invasion force and used billions of tons of ordnance that now can't be used to support Taiwan.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
No.
There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.
It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.
I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.
Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......
The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.
You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.
Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.
Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.
Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.
Gresham's Law applies?
I don't see how.
Are people hoarding editorially controlled media?
That is what Gresham's Law is about. That more valued currency gets hoarded and people prioritise spending debased ones as they do not want to hold them.
Back when cash existed, I knew many people who would spend a Scottish note as fast as possible as it was deemed worth less/more cumbersome by them despite being worth the same. That is Gresham's Law.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
You don’t see the police preventing attacks because they have successfully prevented the attack and there’s nothing to see!
Come on, the police are far from perfect, but they clearly do do a range of activities to prevent a variety of attacks. One way of preventing attacks, of course, is to stop incitement.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
No.
There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.
It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.
I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.
Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......
The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.
You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.
Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.
Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.
Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.
Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.
And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.
I watch lots of YouTube and love it. There are many amateurs producing great content. Yet every week, I get multiple scam adverts using AI to impersonate celebrities to sell a financial scam. I don’t believe it is beyond the wit of man to keep the good things about YouTube while dealing with some of the bad things, of which that is one example.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Maybe? This hasn’t all come out of nowhere. It is an issue the government has been looking at for a while. Maybe Starmer has rushed it a bit because he wants some good news coverage, but we’ve been talking here about the UK possibly following the Australian model for months.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
No.
There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.
It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.
I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.
Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......
The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.
You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.
Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.
Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.
Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.
Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.
And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.
I watch lots of YouTube and love it. There are many amateurs producing great content. Yet every week, I get multiple scam adverts using AI to impersonate celebrities to sell a financial scam. I don’t believe it is beyond the wit of man to keep the good things about YouTube while dealing with some of the bad things, of which that is one example.
YouTube Premium means no adverts. Why not YouTube Premium for under-16s? No adverts (and maybe no shorts too). There is a great deal of educational content on YouTube so it is daft to block children.
Re scams – these are mainly aimed at adults because they are the ones with money. However the cause du jour is children so you are on your own, grandad. There is probably a case for forcing social media companies to regulate paid advertising but I fear much scam bait is posted as standard messages rather than adverts.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
No.
There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.
It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.
I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.
Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......
The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.
You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.
Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.
Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.
Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.
Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.
And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.
I watch lots of YouTube and love it. There are many amateurs producing great content. Yet every week, I get multiple scam adverts using AI to impersonate celebrities to sell a financial scam. I don’t believe it is beyond the wit of man to keep the good things about YouTube while dealing with some of the bad things, of which that is one example.
YouTube Premium means no adverts. Why not YouTube Premium for under-16s? No adverts (and maybe no shorts too). There is a great deal of educational content on YouTube so it is daft to block children.
Re scams – these are mainly aimed at adults because they are the ones with money. However the cause du jour is children so you are on your own, grandad. There is probably a case for forcing social media companies to regulate paid advertising but I fear much scam bait is posted as standard messages rather than adverts.
There is YouTube Kids and that’s not banned in Australia, which is maybe a bit like that…? but I know nothing about it, being without children and my cats don’t have a social media addiction problem to worry about. (Let’s not talk about the catnip.)
Yes, lots of fraud posted as standard messages, as well as discrete adverts for drugs. Again, let’s make the social media companies do a bit more about that.
The one bit I grumble about with social media is I wish there were a setting to only see output by people you follow and not random others that it thinks you might be interested in.
I used to enjoy Facebook when it was new and was getting in touch with old Uni friends and family abroad, but I have barely touched Facebook in years.
Now any time I log in (often to use Messenger which I still use) the only things shown are random odd memes from groups I don't follow. Nothing from my friend list. Defeats the entire point, so I don't use it much anymore.
I could understand adverts being sponsored even if you don't follow them, but random crap I don't like.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?
Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?
Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.
ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.
Oh really?
I am struggling to find any reference to social media in the King's Speech, only last month. Can you?
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
There have been a few studies that link higher 'intellect' with depression.
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
No.
There is a difference discernible from outer space between a facility allowing a two way conversation as might happen routinely anywhere - like over the fence or in a shop - and a facility to communicate to an infinite audience accessible to the entire planet, that audience including the facility provider.
It requires special ingenuity, and trillions at stake, for people to be able to elide the phone call and Twitter or Facebook, but fail to elide Twitter or Facebook and the Oxford University Press or The Sun.
I could get on a shortwave radio and broadcast abhorant views to the entire world. The scale of the audience doesn't matter. Unless of course like the Government you want to have complete control of the message. Once again, that is the real reason for these attacks on social media.
Happy days of SW radio and the thrill of listening live to Moscow, Peking and Australia! If you think the BBC cannot and would not be sued for libel broadcast over the radio I have bridge......
The BBC has editorial control. Social media companies do not. At least not in advance of something being posted.
You treat lack of editorial control as if it is a force of nature, unfortunately unavoidable. This ends up with a publisher being liable for everything while losing ground, income, and place in the world to immensely powerful 'non-publishers' (LOL) who accept no responsibility for damage or damages but manage to monetise the process at the same time as killing legitimate publishers.
Because of the free for all from the start you now take as unalterable a wild west - like the pre-copyright America which stole from Dickens and others.
Lack of editorial control is an option for those who want free speech, and it is not a bad thing.
Sites with editorial control are not "losing ground" unless their editors are worse than nothing.
Your 'lack of editorial control' is for others the 'opportunity to cash in to the tune of billions on an uncontrolled loophole in law and policy while wrecking lives and trashing swathes of creative industry'.
And that's it. YouTube amateurs from nowhere are doing the right sort at big broadcasters out of their godgiven rightful revenue and attention.
I was thinking more of cheap lying journalism and comment ousting expensive thoughtful stuff, and the way copyright is breached wholesale.
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
As someone pointed out to me earlier today Meta are very happy and actively lobbying for age type bans (ideally controlled via mobile phones so Apple / Google take the pain and some of the costs). Because the other option is proper moderation and that would both cost them billions and even their current moderation is sending the poor people who do it mad - as they are required to watch things no-one should see..
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
The ayatollahs - not as bad as Ryanair?
Given them time - I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 different charges appearing long term. My last ticket purchase had the concert fee, a per ticket booking fee, a separate venue fee, and a transaction fee. if it had been elsewhere there could well have been an historic maintenance fee on top
Ticketmaster know how to grab a few quid for doing not very much...
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.
Oh don't be so bloody naive.
This is not about protecting children. It's about controlling access to social media for everyone - every single adult. And abolishing anonymity and privacy for those who use it. It is a profoundly illiberal and authoritarian measure.
Brown's "British jobs for British people" was an unfortunate turn of phrase. Jenrick's, on the other hand is channelling that other son of Wolverhampton. It will be no laughing matter when it happens and Jenrick is CoE in a Reform Government. I genuinely believe Jenrick doesn't think like Powell, I suspect it is purely performative. In some respects that is even worse.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Maybe? This hasn’t all come out of nowhere. It is an issue the government has been looking at for a while. Maybe Starmer has rushed it a bit because he wants some good news coverage, but we’ve been talking here about the UK possibly following the Australian model for months.
Norway and Spain have followed Australia with their own bans, and Ireland are talking about using their EU Presidency to make a decision on an EU-wide ban.
So this is definitely an idea that is out there and gaining momentum, independent of the impending defenestration of the British Prime Minister.
I'd rather ban the radicalisation algorithms then impose age restrictions, for multiple reasons previously discussed by many on PB.com, but Starmer is following a tide on this, and likely would have done the same even if his leadership weren't being questioned.
Thames Water has moved a step closer to public ownership after ministers formally objected to a £10 billion rescue package, warning that this would place an “undue burden” on consumers
Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, wrote to Ofwat, the regulator, on Monday to raise concerns about the plan for the struggling utility giant
The Times has been told she has raised concerns that customers will lose out
Ofwat was close to a deal with lenders under which Thames, the UK’s largest water company, would avoid any new fines over sewage leaks for four years in exchange for a cash injection into the business from its creditors
The regulator was proposing to accept “undertakings” for renewed investment in lieu of financial penalties until 2030, as part of a controversial deal to prevent Thames Water being renationalised temporarily
If the regulator fails to approve the rescue plan or the creditors pull out it increases the likelihood that Thames Water will be placed in a special administration regime, a form of temporary renationalisation
Thames Water lifeline ‘not enough’ to avert state takeover
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
The ayatollahs - not as bad as Ryanair?
Given them time - I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 different charges appearing long term. My last ticket purchase had the concert fee, a per ticket booking fee, a separate venue fee, and a transaction fee. if it had been elsewhere there could well have been an historic maintenance fee on top
Ticketmaster know how to grab a few quid for doing not very much...
A ticketing firm in Ireland - tickets.ie - had gone into liquidation with recent events owed hundreds of thousands of euros.
I find it hard to understand how they were able to manage that unless fraud was involved to some extent.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.
And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.
Given that Bluesky has users on it who openly describe themselves as Minor Attracted Persons ie paedophiles, why is it omitted from the list of banned sites if the protection of children is the concern?
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
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.
What does that matter? If that were the only issue then it should be sufficient to get the site to take down the offending post and action should only be taken against them if they fail to do so. Otherwise it is exactly the same. The site is acting as the messenger system just like the phone.
The publisher analogy is even more ludicrous. A publisher - whether of a book or a newspaper - has to take an active decision to publish a statement, an article or an opinion. They are acting as editor for the published piece. That is not the case with social media, chatrooms etc.
If you want it to be like that then say goodbye to social media entirely - and to online freedom of expression. Because no social media company is going to be able to police comments in advance in the way you wish without seriously reducing the amount of legitimate comment that is published. Which of course in the end is exactly what the Government wants. Total control of the media.
Oh and you will be saying goodbye to PB as well.
PB.com doesn't use an algorithm to promote the most contentious and divisive comments (we do that organically by responding to the most contentious and divisive comments).
It's the use of algorithms to choose which content is presented to the user, which rightfully makes Facebook a publisher (in my view) but PB.com not (except of the articles at the top of the thread).
The social media companies could always bin the use of the algorithms if they didn't want to be classified as publishers.
That might be a sensible move except we know the Government would not accept that as sufficient.
Yeah. I feel like most sensible ideas suggested on here implicitly carry the caveat that, for whatever reason, they're unlikely to be implemented by any British government.
But I still like to discuss sensible ideas, even if it's only for academic interest.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Maybe? This hasn’t all come out of nowhere. It is an issue the government has been looking at for a while. Maybe Starmer has rushed it a bit because he wants some good news coverage, but we’ve been talking here about the UK possibly following the Australian model for months.
Norway and Spain have followed Australia with their own bans, and Ireland are talking about using their EU Presidency to make a decision on an EU-wide ban.
So this is definitely an idea that is out there and gaining momentum, independent of the impending defenestration of the British Prime Minister.
I'd rather ban the radicalisation algorithms then impose age restrictions, for multiple reasons previously discussed by many on PB.com, but Starmer is following a tide on this, and likely would have done the same even if his leadership weren't being questioned.
The Left have one major trump card on this topic.
They won't be bought out.
We all know that if Musk offered Reform or The Tories £50m they would shred the legislation within weeks of getting in to power. .
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
The ayatollahs - not as bad as Ryanair?
Which reminds me of my Ryanair joke:
Michael O'Leary walks into a pub. The bartender greets him warmly "would you like our special offer? 2 pints for £1"
Mr O'Leary orders two pints and hands over his £1. The bartender then asks "now, would you like to hire some glasses for those?"
Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.
One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.
This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.
I would suggest that parents who have degrees generally have higher expectations for their children, and one of the triggers for depression can be a feeling of failure, and the shame of letting other people down.
Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s... The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.
Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.
We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.
Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.
If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.
Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.
Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.
Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.
I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.
I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.
Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?
If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.
Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.
(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)
If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?
As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.
And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.
Given that Bluesky has users on it who openly describe themselves as Minor Attracted Persons ie paedophiles, why is it omitted from the list of banned sites if the protection of children is the concern?
Too harsh? Sure. But as with the last time this came up supporting something that you don't think will work I would argue is a) irrational, and b) not even well meaning, since it distracts from looking at alternatives that might work.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Maybe? This hasn’t all come out of nowhere. It is an issue the government has been looking at for a while. Maybe Starmer has rushed it a bit because he wants some good news coverage, but we’ve been talking here about the UK possibly following the Australian model for months.
Norway and Spain have followed Australia with their own bans, and Ireland are talking about using their EU Presidency to make a decision on an EU-wide ban.
So this is definitely an idea that is out there and gaining momentum, independent of the impending defenestration of the British Prime Minister.
I'd rather ban the radicalisation algorithms then impose age restrictions, for multiple reasons previously discussed by many on PB.com, but Starmer is following a tide on this, and likely would have done the same even if his leadership weren't being questioned.
The Left have one major trump card on this topic.
They won't be bought out.
We all know that if Musk offered Reform or The Tories £50m they would shred the legislation within weeks of getting in to power. .
Mandelson is not the only politician on the left to go weak-kneed in the presence of rich people.
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
There is no tariff to travel through the Hormuz Strait, Iran is simply charging a Maritime Service Charge. Thank Ticketmaster / Live Nation for the idea of a subtle rename to make an problematic tariff more market friendly..
The ayatollahs - not as bad as Ryanair?
Given them time - I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 different charges appearing long term. My last ticket purchase had the concert fee, a per ticket booking fee, a separate venue fee, and a transaction fee. if it had been elsewhere there could well have been an historic maintenance fee on top
Ticketmaster know how to grab a few quid for doing not very much...
A ticketing firm in Ireland - tickets.ie - had gone into liquidation with recent events owed hundreds of thousands of euros.
I find it hard to understand how they were able to manage that unless fraud was involved to some extent.
Spent the cashflow, difficult to prove fraudulent as opposed to poorly managed. I have a friend who used to work for TM, their commercial proposals to venues would include the % of tickets they'd reserve for the secondary market.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Maybe? This hasn’t all come out of nowhere. It is an issue the government has been looking at for a while. Maybe Starmer has rushed it a bit because he wants some good news coverage, but we’ve been talking here about the UK possibly following the Australian model for months.
Norway and Spain have followed Australia with their own bans, and Ireland are talking about using their EU Presidency to make a decision on an EU-wide ban.
So this is definitely an idea that is out there and gaining momentum, independent of the impending defenestration of the British Prime Minister.
I'd rather ban the radicalisation algorithms then impose age restrictions, for multiple reasons previously discussed by many on PB.com, but Starmer is following a tide on this, and likely would have done the same even if his leadership weren't being questioned.
The Left have one major trump card on this topic.
They won't be bought out.
We all know that if Musk offered Reform or The Tories £50m they would shred the legislation within weeks of getting in to power. .
Yeah, Tony Blair was a straight kind of guy who would never change legislation based on financial donations.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?
Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.
ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.
Oh really?
I am struggling to find any reference to social media in the King's Speech, only last month. Can you?
As far as I can work out the latest deal with Iran involves the US paying Iran for things that were supposed to happen as a result of the ceasefire in April.
Is there anything else to it?
If Badenoch had got her way and the UK declared war on Iran, presumably we would still be fighting on?
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Yes, and then don’t ban social media per se, but ban algorithms, with strict liability on any platforms that allow them.
Given the continuously dropping costs of bandwidth (typical and atypical), there a reasonable chance that would kill YouTube and massively fragment the market. Which might be a good thing.
Dartmoor ponies could be subject to mass culling to reduce the impact on biodiversity after a controversial ruling by the government’s environmental quango
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Yes, and then don’t ban social media per se, but ban algorithms, with strict liability on any platforms that allow them.
Not sure what ban "algorithms" means there.
All software runs algorithms.
I’m not a techie, but ban the stuff that drags people in to where they shouldn’t be, but where the likes of Musk wants them to go. Publish the posts in time order, which a junk filter, like emails,
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Yes, and then don’t ban social media per se, but ban algorithms, with strict liability on any platforms that allow them.
Not sure what ban "algorithms" means there.
All software runs algorithms.
It’s about differentiating between simply providing stories in time order and using algorithms which cause radicalisation spirals.
My proposal is not to ban them - just that if you want something beyond time order, you are legally a publisher and responsible for all the content.
What's radicalising me is the government's own stupid actions. Please, Sir Keir, Can I ban you? Please pretty please. It'll make me so much happier and my Mum won't have to shout at me all the time.
** For any historians in the future: this is what passed for government policy making in the Year of Our Lord 2026. It is as yet unclear what caused this outbreak of stupidity across the Western world. **
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
So if I want to watch something on YouTube, I can no longer do so without being logged in?
And which privacy busting method are they going to use to verify my age? And how will they know it is still me when the log in is used?
And how are they going to enforce anything at device level on my Linux boxes (or, for that matter, a Windows VM which is not linked to any MS account)?
I think once people work out that this affects everyone's access, not just children, the reception won't be quite so enthusiastic.
I guess Proton VPN will be the only winners. I could do with one of their email accounts, anyway.
Dartmoor ponies could be subject to mass culling to reduce the impact on biodiversity after a controversial ruling by the government’s environmental quango
Dartmoor ponies could be subject to mass culling to reduce the impact on biodiversity after a controversial ruling by the government’s environmental quango
Any predictions for Uruguay v Saudi Arabia? I'm going for 4-1 to Uruguay.
That's a bold call. The Saudis have been competitive for a while. And can only have got better given the number of quality if over the hill players in their league.
Any predictions for Uruguay v Saudi Arabia? I'm going for 4-1 to Uruguay.
That's a bold call. The Saudis have been competitive for a while. And can only have got better given the number of quality if over the hill players in their league.
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Yes, and then don’t ban social media per se, but ban algorithms, with strict liability on any platforms that allow them.
Not sure what ban "algorithms" means there.
All software runs algorithms.
It’s about differentiating between simply providing stories in time order and using algorithms which cause radicalisation spirals.
My proposal is not to ban them - just that if you want something beyond time order, you are legally a publisher and responsible for all the content.
What's radicalising me is the government's own stupid actions. Please, Sir Keir, Can I ban you? Please pretty please. It'll make me so much happier and my Mum won't have to shout at me all the time.
** For any historians in the future: this is what passed for government policy making in the Year of Our Lord 2026. It is as yet unclear what caused this outbreak of stupidity across the Western world. **
lol why the tantrum, it's gonna be as effective as banning bebo, myspace and friends reunited
For various reasons I started rewatching Bird of Prey this week. I had a faint memory of it as just an early 'new fangled computer' thriller of somewhat ropey quality. But thought I'd mention it as it's brexit anniversary week - it also turns out to be quite conspiratorial about the European / EEC / "Brussels" way things were going back in 1982. Featuring the channel tunnel quite a bit.
Worth a go if you like a bit of odd time-capsule geekery.
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Yes, and then don’t ban social media per se, but ban algorithms, with strict liability on any platforms that allow them.
Not sure what ban "algorithms" means there.
All software runs algorithms.
I’m not a techie, but ban the stuff that drags people in to where they shouldn’t be, but where the likes of Musk wants them to go. Publish the posts in time order, which a junk filter, like emails,
I was watching a fairly depressing tech video a while back that was drawing a line between the value of targetted advertising on social media and the 'advantage' of being able to splinter people into ever narrower bubbles so you could target your ad-spend. No matter if it's radical left, right, religion, age - just get them to click that just right washing powder link.
For various reasons I started rewatching Bird of Prey this week. I had a faint memory of it as just an early 'new fangled computer' thriller of somewhat ropey quality. But thought I'd mention it as it's brexit anniversary week - it also turns out to be quite conspiratorial about the European / EEC / "Brussels" way things were going back in 1982. Featuring the channel tunnel quite a bit.
Worth a go if you like a bit of odd time-capsule geekery.
Lord, but that's going back a bit. Roughly contempraneous with "The Consultant"
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
So if I want to watch something on YouTube, I can no longer do so without being logged in?
And which privacy busting method are they going to use to verify my age? And how will they know it is still me when the log in is used?
And how are they going to enforce anything at device level on my Linux boxes (or, for that matter, a Windows VM which is not linked to any MS account)?....
He's going to do it, isn't he. He's about to authorise the killing of the old and the sick. He's abolished the concept of transsexuality. He's limited jury trials and the right of protest. He's going to authorise voluntary repatriation. And now we have to prove our age to watch YouTube. Any Labour MP with a conscience should have voted him out long ago. But they're all too worried about their jobs. "Left wing" my arse.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
I agree about the harm of algorithmic feeds, but banning the organisations per se that use it is not the answer. And banning the organisations is banning any given view by definition. Do you understand what this proposed ban *actually* involves, because your post makes me think you don't.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
I agree about the harm of algorithmic feeds, but banning the organisations per se that use it is not the answer. And banning the organisations is banning any given view by definition. Do you understand what this proposed ban *actually* involves, because your post makes me think you don't.
The policy doesn't ban them per se. It bans them for a certain age group of non-adults. We ban lots of things for non-adults.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
You don’t see the police preventing attacks because they have successfully prevented the attack and there’s nothing to see!
Come on, the police are far from perfect, but they clearly do do a range of activities to prevent a variety of attacks. One way of preventing attacks, of course, is to stop incitement.
Except in this case they didn't stop the attack. In spite of knowing about this gang before hand via social media. So your argument falls.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
I agree about the harm of algorithmic feeds, but banning the organisations per se that use it is not the answer. And banning the organisations is banning any given view by definition. Do you understand what this proposed ban *actually* involves, because your post makes me think you don't.
The policy doesn't ban them per se. It bans them for a certain age group of non-adults. We ban lots of things for non-adults.
Stating that the ban only applies to a subgroup doesn't show that there isn't a ban, it shows that there is one.
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Someone should tell them about the hole in their plan called a 'Personal Computer'.
It's a better solution for legitimate users of age restricted content than the online safely act mess, but it's going to be a fat lot of good for blocking determined kids.
How long before there is a jailbroken version of Android out there that classifies you as an adult without verification? 12 hours? I'm not sure about other manufacturers, but certainly Google Pixel phones used to have easily unlocked bootloaders (I've not had cause to try for a while).
It also doesn't stop all of this being circumvented just by running a VPN, which make the whole business pretty pointless.
The social media crackdown is inevitable. It's not a Starmer-specific policy.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
I totally agree with this, and its something I feel strongly about after what we witnessed during Covid from the anti vaccine lobby. They cynically prayed on young women claiming that the covid vacccine could affect their fertility and this had a serious cut through on social media, I know this because someone of that age close to me simple refused to have the Covid vaccine because they had become convinced through this social media campaign that was the case. And no amount of reassurance from some of us could convince them otherwise. Now this had impact not least because of the amount of young women working in the care sector both private and in the NHS at the time.
I think it would have been more than ten years ago now I attended a course through my then job which covered a segment on the influence of social media on by now quite young children because most of them now had a mobile phone along with other digital devices which gave them instant unfettered access to a totally unregulated platform in a new world where many kids very quickly become more digitally tech savvy than many of their parents. We were in a world where most parents saw their children having a phone and being able to reach/contact each other at any time as a quite rightly and reassuring vital parental safety valve. And back in the early days of mobile phones simple being able to allow you to phone or text someone it really was. And these parents also saw their kids having an instant gateway to the internet on laptop as a learning device or in some cases a harmless distraction like TV/gaming devices.
Now by this time there we were seeing an awful spate of incidents of teenage bullying/assaults whereby they were filmed and uploaded online, so not only did you have the victims going through that awful trauma you then the victims and their families having to relive the trauma again because it was there for all too find and watch again! We see this everyday online and often social media is now well ahead of the TV 24 hour news when it comes to breaking news. But young people are incredible vulnerable and sensitive and we have to admit we have not done enough to protect them over the last decade in this area as social media grows and becomes a more lawless place globally.
I don't know what the solution is but we do need to have this serious debate and we do need to address this issue and we do need to set new digital access/social media boundaries for children no matter how difficult that will be to navigate for young people, parents, and the many social media platforms who try to attract and influence them online.
The Starmer government is reaching for the bluntest instrument available. The ban.
There's a decvent historical parallel. In 1915, faced with a product that was legal, popular, and producing measurable harm, the British government did something.
The Central Control Board nationalised pubs, off-licences, and breweries in Carlisle and Gretna. And they stayed in public ownership until 1973.
The structural problem with social media is that the harm is the business model. Engagement, algorithmic anxiety, infinite scroll... they're revenue maximizing features. Banning under-16s doesn't change any of that. It just means teenagers find workarounds within forty-five minutes.
A state-owned social platform for younger users -no advertising, no engagement algorithm, no data harvesting- would be monumentally uncool. But it could nevertheless be the default option. We could even call it Gretnagram.
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
Someone should tell them about the hole in their plan called a 'Personal Computer'.
It's a better solution for legitimate users of age restricted content than the online safely act mess, but it's going to be a fat lot of good for blocking determined kids.
How long before there is a jailbroken version of Android out there that classifies you as an adult without verification? 12 hours? I'm not sure about other manufacturers, but certainly Google Pixel phones used to have easily unlocked bootloaders (I've not had cause to try for a while).
It also doesn't stop all of this being circumvented just by running a VPN, which make the whole business pretty pointless.
Easy! All the government has to do is to ban VPNs.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
Like many in the public sector, they want an easy life.
For the record, most people -public or private sector, at school, retired or whatever- want an easy life.
Good morning, my fellow non-verified potential children.
Any word on whether or not PB will now require us to submit out passports and birth certificates for approval of the Great Authoritarian's third party verification firms, should we wish to continue to enjoy the generous privilege of using the internet which his Almighty Controllership graciously permits?
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
Like many in the public sector, they want an easy life.
For the record, most people -public or private sector, at school, retired or whatever- want an easy life.
Indeed but what they want and what they get can be two different things.
The Starmer government is reaching for the bluntest instrument available. The ban.
There's a decvent historical parallel. In 1915, faced with a product that was legal, popular, and producing measurable harm, the British government did something.
The Central Control Board nationalised pubs, off-licences, and breweries in Carlisle and Gretna. And they stayed in public ownership until 1973.
The structural problem with social media is that the harm is the business model. Engagement, algorithmic anxiety, infinite scroll... they're revenue maximizing features. Banning under-16s doesn't change any of that. It just means teenagers find workarounds within forty-five minutes.
A state-owned social platform for younger users -no advertising, no engagement algorithm, no data harvesting- would be monumentally uncool. But it could nevertheless be the default option. We could even call it Gretnagram.
So Ted Heath did manage to privatise something then.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
Like many in the public sector, they want an easy life.
For the record, most people -public or private sector, at school, retired or whatever- want an easy life.
Sure, but in the private sector you are subject to targets (real ones) and performance management.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
Like many in the public sector, they want an easy life.
For the record, most people -public or private sector, at school, retired or whatever- want an easy life.
Sure, but in the private sector you are subject to targets (real ones) and performance management.
You'll like this guy then.
In May 2026 the government announced that it had introduced performance-based pay progression for the Senior Civil Service, with those who “deliver for the public at an exceptional level being rewarded with salary increases”. In a December 2024 speech, Sir Keir Starmer had observed that “too many people in Whitehall” were “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.
Russian operatives ran their sabotage and provocation campaign remotely through social media and the messaging app Telegram, we found, creating fake online far-right and Muslim groups, which were used to organise acts of vandalism in the UK and stir up division and fear.
Accounts based in Russia posted lies about the motive for the arson attacks targeting Starmer, which were spread by figures such as far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.
The social media companies don’t seem to be doing enough about this sort of thing, so I suggest government should.
According to the BBC report, the police were informed about the nefarious activities of this group, and did nothing. They broke a dozen laws, so why don't we try using those to stop the activity, rather than grabbing more power over speech to supress the resulting chatter?
The possible failings of the police don’t mean we shouldn’t also look at updating the law.
Actually they do. Why keep passing new and more draconian laws if the police won't even bother to uphold the ones we already have?
The police are oh so keen to find reasons to arrest people for incitement or hate crimes whch might cause offence but are unwilling or incapable of dealing with real crimes even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
What is really funny is I can see the police arresting someone for supposedly inciting an attack whilst not bothering to do anything to prevent the actual attack itself. Such is the state of modern law enforcement.
Like many in the public sector, they want an easy life.
For the record, most people -public or private sector, at school, retired or whatever- want an easy life.
Sure, but in the private sector you are subject to targets (real ones) and performance management.
You'll like this guy then.
In May 2026 the government announced that it had introduced performance-based pay progression for the Senior Civil Service, with those who “deliver for the public at an exceptional level being rewarded with salary increases”. In a December 2024 speech, Sir Keir Starmer had observed that “too many people in Whitehall” were “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.
Set an easy target they’re bound to achieve. Jobs a good un. Trebles all round.
Comments
Are people hoarding editorially controlled media?
That is what Gresham's Law is about. That more valued currency gets hoarded and people prioritise spending debased ones as they do not want to hold them.
Back when cash existed, I knew many people who would spend a Scottish note as fast as possible as it was deemed worth less/more cumbersome by them despite being worth the same. That is Gresham's Law.
Sonia Sodha
@soniasodha
·
3h
I'm sceptical any of this has been properly thought through. Very 2026, and very depressing.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2066556222115840358
I predict this will be dumped and then revisited when Burnham takes over in the late summer.
Come on, the police are far from perfect, but they clearly do do a range of activities to prevent a variety of attacks. One way of preventing attacks, of course, is to stop incitement.
1000x this.
Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.
Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.
https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774
He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".
Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.
Re scams – these are mainly aimed at adults because they are the ones with money. However the cause du jour is children so you are on your own, grandad. There is probably a case for forcing social media companies to regulate paid advertising but I fear much scam bait is posted as standard messages rather than adverts.
Yes, lots of fraud posted as standard messages, as well as discrete adverts for drugs. Again, let’s make the social media companies do a bit more about that.
I used to enjoy Facebook when it was new and was getting in touch with old Uni friends and family abroad, but I have barely touched Facebook in years.
Now any time I log in (often to use Messenger which I still use) the only things shown are random odd memes from groups I don't follow. Nothing from my friend list. Defeats the entire point, so I don't use it much anymore.
I could understand adverts being sponsored even if you don't follow them, but random crap I don't like.
ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.
I am struggling to find any reference to social media in the King's Speech, only last month. Can you?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2026
One frigging month ago this was not on the agenda for the year ahead. Now suddenly its a priority.
Bullshit. This is "legacy" hunting and nothing else.
Is there anything else to it?
My friend is now leading a national campaign to encourage anyone with suicidal thoughts to talk about them and get help.
His petition for a campaign to reduce the stigma of suicide and encourage people to talk about it and seek help is here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/768225
if it had been elsewhere there could well have been an historic maintenance fee on top
Ticketmaster know how to grab a few quid for doing not very much...
BREAKING - ISRAELI MILITARY SAYS IT INTERCEPTED NUMEROUS ROCKETS LAUNCHED BY HEZBOLLAH TOWARD TROOPS IN SOUTHERN LEBANON
This is not about protecting children. It's about controlling access to social media for everyone - every single adult. And abolishing anonymity and privacy for those who use it. It is a profoundly illiberal and authoritarian measure.
So this is definitely an idea that is out there and gaining momentum, independent of the impending defenestration of the British Prime Minister.
I'd rather ban the radicalisation algorithms then impose age restrictions, for multiple reasons previously discussed by many on PB.com, but Starmer is following a tide on this, and likely would have done the same even if his leadership weren't being questioned.
EXCLUSIVE
Thames Water has moved a step closer to public ownership after ministers formally objected to a £10 billion rescue package, warning that this would place an “undue burden” on consumers
Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, wrote to Ofwat, the regulator, on Monday to raise concerns about the plan for the struggling utility giant
The Times has been told she has raised concerns that customers will lose out
Ofwat was close to a deal with lenders under which Thames, the UK’s largest water company, would avoid any new fines over sewage leaks for four years in exchange for a cash injection into the business from its creditors
The regulator was proposing to accept “undertakings” for renewed investment in lieu of financial penalties until 2030, as part of a controversial deal to prevent Thames Water being renationalised temporarily
If the regulator fails to approve the rescue plan or the creditors pull out it increases the likelihood that Thames Water will be placed in a special administration regime, a form of temporary renationalisation
Thames Water lifeline ‘not enough’ to avert state takeover
I find it hard to understand how they were able to manage that unless fraud was involved to some extent.
But I still like to discuss sensible ideas, even if it's only for academic interest.
They won't be bought out.
We all know that if Musk offered Reform or The Tories £50m they would shred the legislation within weeks of getting in to power.
.
Michael O'Leary walks into a pub. The bartender greets him warmly "would you like our special offer? 2 pints for £1"
Mr O'Leary orders two pints and hands over his £1. The bartender then asks "now, would you like to hire some glasses for those?"
Most people support the ban and most people don’t think a ban will be effective. Let’s face it, most people are cretins. Ignore them and follow the evidence.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/HK3DuRaWgAABZvS.jpg
https://nitter.poast.org/cjsnowdon/status/2066523007858700521#m
I have a friend who used to work for TM, their commercial proposals to venues would include the % of tickets they'd reserve for the secondary market.
UK's social media ban for under-16s is set to be enforced at device-level, with Apple and Google forced to verify the age of all users
This is how it should be done. Verify once and done.
All software runs algorithms.
https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2066555877885153768
✅ Thanks for joining the movement.
THREE EXPLOSIONS REPORTED SOUTH OF QESHM ISLAND IN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ, WITH IRAN STATE MEDIA SAYING BLASTS POSSIBLY LINKED TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
My proposal is not to ban them - just that if you want something beyond time order, you are legally a publisher and responsible for all the content.
Exclusive from @oliver_wright
Dartmoor ponies could be subject to mass culling to reduce the impact on biodiversity after a controversial ruling by the government’s environmental quango
Oh well. I'll have to start writing postcards to people with my views instead.
Signed: Anthony Trollope (Aged 111)
** For any historians in the future: this is what passed for government policy making in the Year of Our Lord 2026. It is as yet unclear what caused this outbreak of stupidity across the Western world. **
And which privacy busting method are they going to use to verify my age? And how will they know it is still me when the log in is used?
And how are they going to enforce anything at device level on my Linux boxes (or, for that matter, a Windows VM which is not linked to any MS account)?
I think once people work out that this affects everyone's access, not just children, the reception won't be quite so enthusiastic.
I guess Proton VPN will be the only winners. I could do with one of their email accounts, anyway.
The Saudis have been competitive for a while. And can only have got better given the number of quality if over the hill players in their league.
https://conservativehome.com/2026/06/15/lord-ashcroft-my-survey-of-reform-members-will-they-win-how-will-the-civil-service-react-who-should-follow-farage/
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2026/06/15/fa-18-hornet-crashes-in-washington-state-wildfire-subsequently-reported/
Worth a go if you like a bit of odd time-capsule geekery.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380097/
https://www.ravensbourne.ac.uk/bbc-motion-graphics-archive/consultant-1983
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
The harm done by algorithmic social media is incredibly clear, particularly on developing minds aka teenagers.
This isn't a question of free speech. No one is banning any given view. It's a question of whether we should permit an addictive substance (social media) to be used by people younger than the minimum age for buying cigarettes.
And because social media has such strong network and peer pressure effects, banning mainstream social media below a certain ages is the most effective solution.
Kids are remarkably good at finding loopholes, workarounds.
The inconsistency of approach is just bad law making.
16 year olds can vote but not view a YouTube video is just ludicrous thinking
And why is Bluesky excluded from the list considering it is a Twitter dupe.
This is just Starmer trying to use his last days in office to make a splash.
The evidence from elsewhere is that it will not work. It will cut kids off from valuable resources.
It is just a headline not a properly developed policy
Burnham is likely to scrap or heavily modify it once he takes office.
How long before there is a jailbroken version of Android out there that classifies you as an adult without verification? 12 hours? I'm not sure about other manufacturers, but certainly Google Pixel phones used to have easily unlocked bootloaders (I've not had cause to try for a while).
It also doesn't stop all of this being circumvented just by running a VPN, which make the whole business pretty pointless.
I think it would have been more than ten years ago now I attended a course through my then job which covered a segment on the influence of social media on by now quite young children because most of them now had a mobile phone along with other digital devices which gave them instant unfettered access to a totally unregulated platform in a new world where many kids very quickly become more digitally tech savvy than many of their parents. We were in a world where most parents saw their children having a phone and being able to reach/contact each other at any time as a quite rightly and reassuring vital parental safety valve. And back in the early days of mobile phones simple being able to allow you to phone or text someone it really was. And these parents also saw their kids having an instant gateway to the internet on laptop as a learning device or in some cases a harmless distraction like TV/gaming devices.
Now by this time there we were seeing an awful spate of incidents of teenage bullying/assaults whereby they were filmed and uploaded online, so not only did you have the victims going through that awful trauma you then the victims and their families having to relive the trauma again because it was there for all too find and watch again! We see this everyday online and often social media is now well ahead of the TV 24 hour news when it comes to breaking news. But young people are incredible vulnerable and sensitive and we have to admit we have not done enough to protect them over the last decade in this area as social media grows and becomes a more lawless place globally.
I don't know what the solution is but we do need to have this serious debate and we do need to address this issue and we do need to set new digital access/social media boundaries for children no matter how difficult that will be to navigate for young people, parents, and the many social media platforms who try to attract and influence them online.
The Starmer government is reaching for the bluntest instrument available. The ban.
There's a decvent historical parallel. In 1915, faced with a product that was legal, popular, and producing measurable harm, the British government did something.
The Central Control Board nationalised pubs, off-licences, and breweries in Carlisle and Gretna. And they stayed in public ownership until 1973.
The structural problem with social media is that the harm is the business model. Engagement, algorithmic anxiety, infinite scroll... they're revenue maximizing features. Banning under-16s doesn't change any of that. It just means teenagers find workarounds within forty-five minutes.
A state-owned social platform for younger users -no advertising, no engagement algorithm, no data harvesting- would be monumentally uncool. But it could nevertheless be the default option. We could even call it Gretnagram.
And then SSH, Tor, etc. etc. etc.
Any word on whether or not PB will now require us to submit out passports and birth certificates for approval of the Great Authoritarian's third party verification firms, should we wish to continue to enjoy the generous privilege of using the internet which his Almighty Controllership graciously permits?
In May 2026 the government announced that it had introduced performance-based pay progression for the Senior Civil Service, with those who “deliver for the public at an exceptional level being rewarded with salary increases”. In a December 2024 speech, Sir Keir Starmer had observed that “too many people in Whitehall” were “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/senior-civil-service-performance-management/performance-management-framework-for-the-senior-civil-service-2025-to-2026-performance-year
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066531257190662650?s=61