UK Politics Thread

I’m sure some have interacted with 13 year olds, just not been caught.

Don't have kids of my own, but a good friend has two teenage boys and up until their mid teens managed to limit their access to social media. One being 15 now, he's now let him have access to Instagram and tiktok confident he's old enough and wise enough.

Though only a few months in during conversation about the impacts of social media, his son piped up with "Andrew Tate, I don't always agree with him, but he usually has a good point on most things".. "his videos are always appearing on my feed" to horrified looks all round.

When our TV content is so carful with what it shows and when, it does seem insane that such toxic content can be force fed to kids 24/4 in the hunt for screen time.

As already mentioned, one of the main issues for parents seems to be effectively distancing their children from other friendship groups, making them the odd one out.

At least they get 3 days a week off.

Considering how fucking toothless Ofcom is these days when it comes to channels like GB News I have zero expectation of them getting more responsibility handed to them with online issues via the OSA.

No form of media is intrinsically good or bad. Throughout history every single new form of media has been demonised based on the potential negative side (usually in the form of “won’t someone think of the children” type rhetoric) but in time that thinking always ends up looking reductive and regressive. Social media scaremongering will be the same.

Almost identical sentiments were said about TV and how it was completely different to anything because it beamed its message directly into your brain, preying on the susceptible and impressionable.

Blanket scaremongering doesn’t help anyone.

The assesment of harmful effects of social media use is an evolving field. What sets it apart from most other forms of media is how it highjacks the same chemical pathway in our brains as gambling or addictive drugs do. The impact of, or even the definition of what constitutes, harmful social media use is an ongoing matter of investigation at an early stage. A quick Google found this for example from at year: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707397/

Indicating that there were things in the past that were subject to moral panics at their introduction doesn't mean that any new thing will inevitably follow the same trend, of course. So it's a weak argument to use. But sure, we probably are at a stage of social media's incorporation in to social norms that makes that a possible outcome.

And even if society does adapt and incorporate something as part of a new normal, it doesn't mean there aren't harms associated with them. It's just that we've adopted a tolerance of them or put in place regulation and safeguards to protect against them. I'm sure there were people banging on about the risks of cars when they were introduced. We've adopted them as a normal part of life, but we've implemented a shit load of legislation and safety procedures in that time as well to mitigate the risks

For all the good social media have done, IMHO, there's also an equal amount of evil doing, with people having a platform to spew bile, racist or hateful comments, bully others, instill unrealistic or even criminal standards on vulnerable people on a far greater scale than television could ever do. I'd argue that the village idiots, once locally contained individuals, can now reach like-minded people across the globe and validate themselves, expand their idiotic ideas, convince willing bystanders to follow them etc.

For recent examples just see the rise of right-wing ideologies and leaders across the western world, the anti-vaxx movement during the pandemic, the various culture "wars" etc.

I understand it's not easy to quantify or nice to generalize, but frankly I wouldn't shed a tear if social media disappeared overnight.

I think the original point was more certain aspects of social media and how it impacts kids. I don't think social media is the devil, it's definitely done alot of good in bringing a huge proportion of the world within touching distance. For that alone it's been revolutionary in making the world feel more as one whole.

But let's not pretend the social good was the original goal for Facebook or Twitter. Now more than ever they aggressively want our screen time, with little to no internal censorship or concern to what effect the content they host has on people. In the case of Instagram, they've actually tried to suppress internal research showing the negative impacts on younger children.

So in the case of Tate, it's somehow become the norm that a physically abusive misogynist, who's made his money through deals with the mafia and convincing young girls to work on his webcam business can preach to everyone else's kids all hours and become a hero for young boys.

The world is all the better for being so connected, but kids shouldn't be anywhere near social media or in the very least the feature set and content should be heavily restricted in my opinion.

anthonyuk Jack Dorsey has actually been very candid about his original intent for Twitter and his regret about what it eventually became, and how he hopes to rectify it through Bluesky, which is currently a little utopia in the world of nasty social media experiences. As for Facebook it didn’t invent social media. It was just a rip off of amihotornot that turned into something else.

We have a tendency when talking about social media to use it as a shorthand for Facebook, Twitter, IG etc but again, it is vast and takes many forms. I am in several Slack groups with other people who do my job all around the world and the community is immeasurably positive and useful. I can only begin to imagine how many other niche forms of it are out there that provide life changing benefits for all sorts of people. I do think again it is somewhat privileged to say the world is better off without it when there are probably millions of people who are connected in life-changing ways by it.

I’m just saying the same thing over and over but there’s nothing helpful in generalising about the good or the bad.

Ok, I stand corrected, there's absolutely no evidence that social media have helped making an existing situation worse.

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Not to be a dick about it but I didn’t see you present any evidence, just some very flawed received wisdom. 

I mean really, the idea that all the far right went into hiding since WW2 and have only resurged since the invention of social media is blatantly untrue. In fact the far right rallies are still not on the same scale as those that happened in the 70s and 80s, long before social media came along. 

Which is really my point. There is a correlation between the current surge of extremism and social media, but has causation been proven? Maybe social media is actually helping suppress it by shining more light? Maybe it would be even worse without it?

Again it’s an easy (and sorry but somewhat lazy) link but it’s classic demonisation of the media, which is actually a symptom of much more complex causes. IMO anyway…

Probably for the best that far right extremists etc are discussing online where it’s traceable, rather than in secret down the legion