Social media to be fully banned for under-16s in UK.

[TheSword]

Exactly. In Europe you can be held accountable for what you say if you veer into criminality.

While the cyber bullying is a problem, I actually think the freedom for kids to broadcast their views isn’t really the main issue here. It’s the fact that other people can get their views get beamed directly into the child’s field of vision/hearing. This is about stopping the electronic psychological manipulation of kids.

 

[TheSword]

But this is not something I see as preventing disorder or protecting others from harm, or even public safety. They do it in the name of that, but with how they proceed, I would say it actually increases the danger to the public. Discord's hack recently demonstrated that these lax rules actually cause more harm to those who participate rather than protecting anyone from anything.

If their true intent is to create laws that protect children, then they need to construct them in ways that they actually work to protect children, not simply a way to provide the government information on who is saying what and doing what, and companies a lot more personal information that they can sell to the highest bidder.

Do you think that freedom of speech should be absolute and unqualified? Just out of interest?

 

[Bunch]

You first. That means not posting here.

Looking at the full cost of social media vs how much I've personally gained out of it, it's not clear it isn't worth the trade.

 

[jian]

Talking policy for a bit, it’s worth noting how many people use (or rather how many accounts there are) each social media platform in the U.K., taking common ones only:

• Facebook: 50+ million
• YouTube: 50+ million
• Instagram: 35+ million
• TikTok: 25+ million
• Twitter: 15+ million
• TikTok: 5+ million
• Bluesky: 3m
• Mastodon: ?150k

For reference, the U.K. population is about 70m. I’m not sure whether to include WhatsApp (30+ milllion users) because it’s mainly a messaging app.

So, if I were crafting legislation, I’d probably only include social media with > 10m users. If TikTok exceeds that at some point, then it’s covered, but right now it isn’t, and nor is Bluesky, Mastodon, or ENWorld (sorry, @Morrus).

Let’s say we’re looking at 3 (non-exclusionary) approaches to regulation:

1. Banning access for those under 16;
2. Banning algorithmic scrolling;
3. Holding social media companies responsible for content (as if they were publishers).

Approaches can be combined - for instance, you could combine 2 and 3 so that social media companies are responsible for algorithmically presented content.

What are the likely responses of SM companies to these approaches? I think:

1. Institute basic age controls (you declare that you’re over 16). About half of people under 16 obey the law, the other half break it (with VPNs or by just lying).
2. React furiously in many cases and stop operating in the U.K.; some will provide a hard to find button to turn off algorithmic scrolling.
3. React even more furiously and stop operating in the U.K. altogether. Smaller SM platforms such as RedNote become more popular until they pass the 10m threshold.

How true is that, and what do we think?

(As noted previously, it’s interesting to see what the effect has been in other countries. In Australia, the effect of 1 was roughly as above, but RedNote etc also did become more popular.)

 

[Zardnaar]

You first. That means not posting here.

Aww dont be like that.

Forums barely count. They don't have the reach.

 

[Scribe]

Aww dont be like that.

Forums barely count. They don't have the reach.

Or predatory algorithms.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or predatory algorithms.

Yeah forums are technically social media in the same way a pellet gun and nuclear bomb are both technically weapons.

 

[trappedslider]

here is a definition of social media so that it includes only what I don't like but excludes what I do like.

 

[abazaba]

• Facebook: 50+ million

That's insane. Facebook really still has such a large (active) userbase ? I do still have an account, but I never use it anymore, and haven't for years. And anytime I get tricked into clicking on links that go to a Facebook page and I look at the usual comments, I sincerely hope that these are all not coming from actual human beings, and coming from an army of trolls from an unspecified unfriendly foreign state instead, with the intent to polarize or outright destabilize the country. I refuse to believe that the average real person can be that toxic and hateful.

 

[billd91]

That's insane. Facebook really still has such a large (active) userbase ? I do still have an account, but I never use it anymore, and haven't for years. And anytime I get tricked into clicking on links that go to a Facebook page and I look at the usual comments, I sincerely hope that these are all not coming from actual human beings, and coming from an army of trolls from an unspecified unfriendly foreign state instead, with the intent to polarize or outright destabilize the country. I refuse to believe that the average real person can be that toxic and hateful.

I would not recommend spending any time on Nextdoor or Twitter.

And for that matter, avoid talkback sections of news site for any articles about politics or crime - those were toxic stews long before bots started destabilizing democracy on Facebook. I'm sure well-meaning editors and publishers had high hopes for community engagement... at one point. A friend of mine did his masters thesis on the difference between letters to the editor and call-in comments and he found that extremism generally increased inversely to the time and effort needed to engage. Letters were generally milder, less extreme, less heated. Phone calls more extreme. Now, social media and other online options increase the anonymity while also decreasing effort further. You can probably guess the trend.