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

[abazaba]

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.

Yeah, I briefly had a Twitter - excuse me, 'X' experience (Thanks, Elon) - and had a similar experience.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Morrus]

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

Size isn't really the point. It's whatever the resultant legislation defines it as which will decide whether it affects places like this. All the rest is just hot air.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Average person no. 30-40% fundamentally disagree with you anywhere in the world regardless of what one believes.

The truly devoted poo kickers are a smaller number 15% maybe.

Problem being 25-33%ish (varies by country) dont vote and social media gave a megaphone to the truly devoted types.

 

[abazaba]

Average person no. 30-40% fundamentally disagree with you anywhere in the world regardless of what one believes.

The truly devoted poo kickers are a smaller number 15% maybe.

Problem being 25-33%ish (varies by country) dont vote and social media gave a megaphone to the truly devoted types.

I do not mind people (fundamentally) disagreeing with me. Or having an argument with me. What I am talking about is the (enormous amount of) accounts posting outright toxic and truly hateful things. The kind of things I am talking about I do not even know if I am allowed to post here because of the site's policy.

Here is an example about the kinds of things I am talking about - but not limited to that - which I am going to put behind a 'spoilers 18+ content' warning, in the hope that that gets the message across without me getting outright banned from the site.

Spoiler: 18+ toxic hateful things regularly posted online

For example, someone posts a perfectly fine video of a funny/cute thing their pet did. And the kind of toxic hatred they regularly get then ranges from roughly 'I hate cats what a stupid video' to 'I know where you live, you should keep your cat inside from now on or else I'm am going to mess it up."

I think you can think of more horrific posts, but I feel I can not post about them here. But I think you know what I mean.

This is not normal behavior, and I simply cannot accept these kinds of posts are being made by the average person, instead of an army of trolls funded by hostile nation states attempting to disrupt other nations.

 

[Umbran]

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

And add - does freedom of speech require anonymity?

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).

There is another option:

4. Remove anonymity from social media, and hold speakers responsible for harmful content, rather than social media companies.

This doesn't look a whole lot different from age verification in practice, in that everyone must verify their identity to use social media.

The spam-reduction alone, though, might be worth it.

 

[billd91]

There is another option:

4. Remove anonymity from social media, and hold speakers responsible for harmful content, rather than social media companies.

This doesn't look a whole lot different from age verification in practice, in that everyone must verify their identity to use social media.

The spam-reduction alone, though, might be worth it.

Even a suggestion like this has drawbacks. A friend of mine lives under an assumed name because the ex-husband who tried to murder her was unexpectedly released from prison. How would someone like her participate in social media, one of the few ways she has to interact with her old friends?

Honestly, I'd love to see a ban on algorithmic feeds. That would help keep social media like TikTok from bombarding suicidal kids with unsolicited suicide content.

 

[Bunch]

And add - does freedom of speech require anonymity?



There is another option:

4. Remove anonymity from social media, and hold speakers responsible for harmful content, rather than social media companies.

Unless the governments are going to coordinate and make a free age verification process this is likely to kill all but large social media sites.

This doesn't look a whole lot different from age verification in practice, in that everyone must verify their identity to use social media.

The spam-reduction alone, though, might be worth it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I do not mind people (fundamentally) disagreeing with me. Or having an argument with me. What I am talking about is the (enormous amount of) accounts posting outright toxic and truly hateful things. The kind of things I am talking about I do not even know if I am allowed to post here because of the site's policy.

Here is an example about the kinds of things I am talking about - but not limited to that - which I am going to put behind a 'spoilers 18+ content' warning, in the hope that that gets the message across without me getting outright banned from the site.

Spoiler: 18+ toxic hateful things regularly posted online

For example, someone posts a perfectly fine video of a funny/cute thing their pet did. And the kind of toxic hatred they regularly get then ranges from roughly 'I hate cats what a stupid video' to 'I know where you live, you should keep your cat inside from now on or else I'm am going to mess it up."

I think you can think of more horrific posts, but I feel I can not post about them here. But I think you know what I mean.

This is not normal behavior, and I simply cannot accept these kinds of posts are being made by the average person, instead of an army of trolls funded by hostile nation states attempting to disrupt other nations.

Well the troll army makes things worse.

Generally speaking asshats are everywhere. People like to surround themselves with like minded people. Ive worked at farms. Ports, construction sites, warehouses etc. Even there they're rare bymut thats where you find them.

Wife works in logistics.

Theres some really unique types out there putting it mildly.

 

[Morrus]

Unless the governments are going to coordinate and make a free age verification process this is likely to kill all but large social media sites.

Nah, it's a competitive commercial world. Third party plugins are already available, and there will be more as time goes on. Private enterprise will plug the gap. Software like Xenforo, which we use for these forums, will integrate various services, just like they currently do for the spam filtering services and Captchas. There may be ethical or moral hurdles for some, but I don't think there will be major technical hurdles.

 

[Umbran]

Even a suggestion like this has drawbacks.

Do you expect anything you do with several hundred million of your closest friends to be perfect?

A friend of mine lives under an assumed name because the ex-husband who tried to murder her was unexpectedly released from prison. How would someone like her participate in social media, one of the few ways she has to interact with her old friends?

1) The account, for legal purposes, has to have verification to a real person on the back end. That doesn't mean your display name is equal to your real name, or

2) Change your legal name (which, in such a situation, ain't the worst idea anyway), then have your accounts under your new name.

Honestly, I'd love to see a ban on algorithmic feeds.

I understand what you mean, but because it matters, "see the newest items from my chosen friends, and nothing else" is still an algorithm. It is just a very simple algorithm. The difference matters when you start talking about legislation - you can't just say "no algorithms".

What we want is for social media providers to not be in the business of adding content into our feeds that we do not choose.