| Social media ban for under 16’s 08:16 - Jun 15 with 14993 views | loftboy |
Personally I agree with it. But is it going to be easy to monitor, of course it isn’t. |  |
| |  |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 07:24 - Jun 17 with 1959 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 23:21 - Jun 16 by TwoHalves |
Think I’m almost as confused as ‘Confused of Shepherd’s Bush’ now. |
In summary, anecdotal evidence and a Daily Mail ragebait story that doesn't change the fact that only 0.4% of the country are transgender.
No data on those that identify as a cat. |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 08:29 - Jun 17 with 1883 views | TwoHalves |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 07:24 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
In summary, anecdotal evidence and a Daily Mail ragebait story that doesn't change the fact that only 0.4% of the country are transgender.
No data on those that identify as a cat. |
I refer you to the Anyone Want To Work For QPR FC? thread. |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 09:33 - Jun 17 with 1810 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 16:49 - Jun 16 by hubble |
This is a gross intrusion and majorly ill-thought-out autocratic move from our increasingly autocratic government who will soon attempt to demand that you have digital ID to access just about anything - not just kids - all of us.
And while kids in China, for example, are studying all the latest thinking in AI and everything else, this government will demand that even 16 or 17 year olds, who are choosing to accelerate their own learning by watching YouTube, sometimes all night (for example), will be digitally nannyed to bed at 10pm. Dumbed down and lagging behind while others leap ahead.
Sure, there are insane and massive problems with social media and kids and how they access it, but this law is not the solution. To truly tackle the problem is huge, of course, because it means going to the root of all sorts of issues (parenting, social cohesion, the degradation of morality - a big philosophical debate to be had there - and how society seems to be polarising and simultaneously disintegrating.. etc. etc.) whilst at the same time allowing young people to benefit from the incredible learning potential the internet brings. And it's not me saying this; I am merely paraphrasing what an incredibly intelligent young woman I know said about this law.
The father of the young woman who is cited as the progenitor of this law described it as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and he's not wrong. I think the onus on us as parents is to keep our children informed and aware, not to proscribe and prohibit. Yes: limitations and boundaries are essential too. How do we balance all of this? We have to give our kids the right information and tools to navigate this rapidly evolving world. We have to give them the best chance. So how do we limit their access to the welter of dark shit that's out there? I don't think we can, but we can teach them self-defence (both physical and mental). But for me this is an authoritarian attempt at controlling the narrative and what kids can learn and where they get their information from. Schools are already far too politicised. Kids need alternatives and alternative views to grow properly and heathily. [Post edited 16 Jun 16:50]
|
Read this earlier this morning, hubble, and it's really got me thinking.
Well argued and thought provoking. Thanks. |  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 09:45 - Jun 17 with 1779 views | TheChef |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 09:33 - Jun 17 by BrianMcCarthy |
Read this earlier this morning, hubble, and it's really got me thinking.
Well argued and thought provoking. Thanks. |
Yeah our dear leaders like to use the "protect the children" excuse for this kind of stuff.
Although I could quite easily live without social media, but it's a slippery slope from here (and it's pretty obvious to me we're being tracked/monitored already with our smartphones).
1984 here we come. |  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 10:39 - Jun 17 with 1731 views | numptydumpty |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 07:24 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
In summary, anecdotal evidence and a Daily Mail ragebait story that doesn't change the fact that only 0.4% of the country are transgender.
No data on those that identify as a cat. |
Ok, if it is 0.4% that are transgender, thats actually 280,000 in the UK. That's actually the ones known.
You have got this non binary also, where they refer to themselves in the plural. I am aware of a woman whose daughter has now said she is non binary. It is sadly an issue.
I think personally the rise of the Internet and social media is an out of control jungle, that is especially offering younger vulnerable people options in life, that can be extremely dangerous for their mental health and really are dangerous as options on a way of life. The teacher supporting the child who identified as a cat, actually happened. Appreciate currently that particular ideal is rare, but the fact that it happened in the first place is scary. It was reported widely at the time.
As said, I can't see this ban achieving anything, but just because you dont know anyone in this situation, doesnt mean it isn't a major issue for younger people's mental health. [Post edited 17 Jun 11:00]
|  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:25 - Jun 17 with 1662 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 10:39 - Jun 17 by numptydumpty |
Ok, if it is 0.4% that are transgender, thats actually 280,000 in the UK. That's actually the ones known.
You have got this non binary also, where they refer to themselves in the plural. I am aware of a woman whose daughter has now said she is non binary. It is sadly an issue.
I think personally the rise of the Internet and social media is an out of control jungle, that is especially offering younger vulnerable people options in life, that can be extremely dangerous for their mental health and really are dangerous as options on a way of life. The teacher supporting the child who identified as a cat, actually happened. Appreciate currently that particular ideal is rare, but the fact that it happened in the first place is scary. It was reported widely at the time.
As said, I can't see this ban achieving anything, but just because you dont know anyone in this situation, doesnt mean it isn't a major issue for younger people's mental health. [Post edited 17 Jun 11:00]
|
I think it's a reactionary response that lets the real issues of the hook.
We used to call people who obsessed about children's genitals nonces. [Post edited 17 Jun 11:27]
| | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 12:11 - Jun 17 with 1604 views | QPR_Jim |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 10:39 - Jun 17 by numptydumpty |
Ok, if it is 0.4% that are transgender, thats actually 280,000 in the UK. That's actually the ones known.
You have got this non binary also, where they refer to themselves in the plural. I am aware of a woman whose daughter has now said she is non binary. It is sadly an issue.
I think personally the rise of the Internet and social media is an out of control jungle, that is especially offering younger vulnerable people options in life, that can be extremely dangerous for their mental health and really are dangerous as options on a way of life. The teacher supporting the child who identified as a cat, actually happened. Appreciate currently that particular ideal is rare, but the fact that it happened in the first place is scary. It was reported widely at the time.
As said, I can't see this ban achieving anything, but just because you dont know anyone in this situation, doesnt mean it isn't a major issue for younger people's mental health. [Post edited 17 Jun 11:00]
|
I don't really understand what part scares you, the fact the child wants to be recognised as a cat or the fact the teacher supported it. All seems fairly trivial to my untrained eye.
What I find more troublesome is people like Andrew Tate who have a reach of millions of people through social media and identity as misogynist and share content that impression young men and make young girls lives more dangerous. There were polls that showed he's very well known amongst under 16 males, so any legislation that will help protect them from this kind of influence would help. Coincidentally you also have data saying that domestic abuse cases increase when England play by between 26-38% depending on the the result. |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 12:49 - Jun 17 with 1538 views | Orthodox_Hoop |
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread would they like to have a pint with certain people; well I'd definitely be up for a pint with the likes of hubble and Baz who have managed to have a coherent and respectable discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks on one another and announcing they'll be blocking each other because they fundamentally disagree on a subject. Refreshing to see.
I believe the ban on indoor smoking was mentioned earlier, and it's a decent comparison. In my opinion, that ban was hysterical, unnecessary, illiberal, initially mostly myth-based, costly, and damaging (as the malaise of the pub trade shows - although it wouldn't be fair to just point to that reason as to why pubs are struggling of course). It was supported by a bunch of curtain-twitching busybodies more concerned with imposing their personal taste on places they didn't frequent in the first place, and it legitimised moral panic as a basis for making public policy. Which brings us to this so-called ban...
The law should not be a gesture. We should not make law on the basis that, though the problem is lacking evidence and the solution is proven not to work, it will nonetheless change the culture. You try to change the culture by making arguments, not by sucking up to politicians and having them dictate terms to your fellow citizens. You live the culture you want by using the tools you already have at your disposal. Here's a thought: ban your kid from using smartphones, or at the very least monitor your kid's internet usage - which you already can do btw... newsflash: it isn't a new concept, both iphones and android phones have built-in options for strong parental controls. Then you can provide the evidence that your views produce better results and work from there. What you don't do is force every adult in the country to hand over their data, their ID, their right to privacy, on the basis of mere vibes. You may not like the choices other people make, but you do not have the right to impose your whims on them.
Genuine question: does this ban even see the light of day if Musk didn't purchase Twitter, and Harris miraculously wins the last election? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:09 - Jun 17 with 1496 views | wombat |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 12:49 - Jun 17 by Orthodox_Hoop |
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread would they like to have a pint with certain people; well I'd definitely be up for a pint with the likes of hubble and Baz who have managed to have a coherent and respectable discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks on one another and announcing they'll be blocking each other because they fundamentally disagree on a subject. Refreshing to see.
I believe the ban on indoor smoking was mentioned earlier, and it's a decent comparison. In my opinion, that ban was hysterical, unnecessary, illiberal, initially mostly myth-based, costly, and damaging (as the malaise of the pub trade shows - although it wouldn't be fair to just point to that reason as to why pubs are struggling of course). It was supported by a bunch of curtain-twitching busybodies more concerned with imposing their personal taste on places they didn't frequent in the first place, and it legitimised moral panic as a basis for making public policy. Which brings us to this so-called ban...
The law should not be a gesture. We should not make law on the basis that, though the problem is lacking evidence and the solution is proven not to work, it will nonetheless change the culture. You try to change the culture by making arguments, not by sucking up to politicians and having them dictate terms to your fellow citizens. You live the culture you want by using the tools you already have at your disposal. Here's a thought: ban your kid from using smartphones, or at the very least monitor your kid's internet usage - which you already can do btw... newsflash: it isn't a new concept, both iphones and android phones have built-in options for strong parental controls. Then you can provide the evidence that your views produce better results and work from there. What you don't do is force every adult in the country to hand over their data, their ID, their right to privacy, on the basis of mere vibes. You may not like the choices other people make, but you do not have the right to impose your whims on them.
Genuine question: does this ban even see the light of day if Musk didn't purchase Twitter, and Harris miraculously wins the last election? |
how much of the recent news would people NOT know about if it wasnt for platforms like X making it public knowldge ? |  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:15 - Jun 17 with 1483 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 12:49 - Jun 17 by Orthodox_Hoop |
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread would they like to have a pint with certain people; well I'd definitely be up for a pint with the likes of hubble and Baz who have managed to have a coherent and respectable discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks on one another and announcing they'll be blocking each other because they fundamentally disagree on a subject. Refreshing to see.
I believe the ban on indoor smoking was mentioned earlier, and it's a decent comparison. In my opinion, that ban was hysterical, unnecessary, illiberal, initially mostly myth-based, costly, and damaging (as the malaise of the pub trade shows - although it wouldn't be fair to just point to that reason as to why pubs are struggling of course). It was supported by a bunch of curtain-twitching busybodies more concerned with imposing their personal taste on places they didn't frequent in the first place, and it legitimised moral panic as a basis for making public policy. Which brings us to this so-called ban...
The law should not be a gesture. We should not make law on the basis that, though the problem is lacking evidence and the solution is proven not to work, it will nonetheless change the culture. You try to change the culture by making arguments, not by sucking up to politicians and having them dictate terms to your fellow citizens. You live the culture you want by using the tools you already have at your disposal. Here's a thought: ban your kid from using smartphones, or at the very least monitor your kid's internet usage - which you already can do btw... newsflash: it isn't a new concept, both iphones and android phones have built-in options for strong parental controls. Then you can provide the evidence that your views produce better results and work from there. What you don't do is force every adult in the country to hand over their data, their ID, their right to privacy, on the basis of mere vibes. You may not like the choices other people make, but you do not have the right to impose your whims on them.
Genuine question: does this ban even see the light of day if Musk didn't purchase Twitter, and Harris miraculously wins the last election? |
On the last thing.
I think the push for a ban started after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which no one has mentioned yet but is the biggest reason for reform (not the party!) in my view. | | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:41 - Jun 17 with 1439 views | PunteR |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 12:49 - Jun 17 by Orthodox_Hoop |
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread would they like to have a pint with certain people; well I'd definitely be up for a pint with the likes of hubble and Baz who have managed to have a coherent and respectable discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks on one another and announcing they'll be blocking each other because they fundamentally disagree on a subject. Refreshing to see.
I believe the ban on indoor smoking was mentioned earlier, and it's a decent comparison. In my opinion, that ban was hysterical, unnecessary, illiberal, initially mostly myth-based, costly, and damaging (as the malaise of the pub trade shows - although it wouldn't be fair to just point to that reason as to why pubs are struggling of course). It was supported by a bunch of curtain-twitching busybodies more concerned with imposing their personal taste on places they didn't frequent in the first place, and it legitimised moral panic as a basis for making public policy. Which brings us to this so-called ban...
The law should not be a gesture. We should not make law on the basis that, though the problem is lacking evidence and the solution is proven not to work, it will nonetheless change the culture. You try to change the culture by making arguments, not by sucking up to politicians and having them dictate terms to your fellow citizens. You live the culture you want by using the tools you already have at your disposal. Here's a thought: ban your kid from using smartphones, or at the very least monitor your kid's internet usage - which you already can do btw... newsflash: it isn't a new concept, both iphones and android phones have built-in options for strong parental controls. Then you can provide the evidence that your views produce better results and work from there. What you don't do is force every adult in the country to hand over their data, their ID, their right to privacy, on the basis of mere vibes. You may not like the choices other people make, but you do not have the right to impose your whims on them.
Genuine question: does this ban even see the light of day if Musk didn't purchase Twitter, and Harris miraculously wins the last election? |
Genuine question. Do you have you're own young kids? |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:43 - Jun 17 with 1427 views | Orthodox_Hoop |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:41 - Jun 17 by PunteR |
Genuine question. Do you have you're own young kids? |
Yes. | | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:24 - Jun 17 with 1354 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:15 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
On the last thing.
I think the push for a ban started after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which no one has mentioned yet but is the biggest reason for reform (not the party!) in my view. |
Go back 40 pages to my post, where I espoused my views on SM, and added a throw away line, that SM of itself, needs to be considered with the effects of AI factored in (not followed the thread since).
Folks could do a lot worse then invest some time looking at how damaging and nasty AI 'is' when overlayed with SM, and how it's set to play out. After which,up to you what you do.
Frankly, it's scary. The IT companies know more about us, how we think and, worryingly, how we can be manipulated, as a result of everything we do online etc. Cambridge Analytics was and is, the tip of what's coming. It's all about data, for which chunks of it we might not have consciously consented to disclosing, and which is sold for a range of purposes I think more scary than healthy.
I could ramble on, and no doubt far more learned posters than I could enlighten us even more. But SM is about keeping you glued-in via the dopamine-effect and we're just giving it all up without a hint of control or protection (google how much info Palantir gather on us, and how the UK government is paying them millions to do it!).
We're over the cusp and running headfirst into a world that frankly, Orwell more than warned us about! |  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:28 - Jun 17 with 1355 views | Sonic_Hoop |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:15 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
On the last thing.
I think the push for a ban started after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which no one has mentioned yet but is the biggest reason for reform (not the party!) in my view. |
I think that ship has sailed. It looks like we've been entirely captured by a reactionary group of technocrat billionaires who are ideologically opposed to Enlightenment values like equality & democracy.
They've got control of most social media and most of the USA - see Musk & Thiel https://www.theguardian.com/te
They're so effective in manipulating discourse and truth that they've convinced a significant % of the UK that it's the white majority that are discriminated against. |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:37 - Jun 17 with 1338 views | DaBurgh |
Coming to a constabulary near you.
https://youtube.com/shorts/l8U |  |
| When you reach the place beyond thoughts, the only thing you'll find is love and the only purpose of life becomes to ease the suffering of others.
|
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:45 - Jun 17 with 1312 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:28 - Jun 17 by Sonic_Hoop |
I think that ship has sailed. It looks like we've been entirely captured by a reactionary group of technocrat billionaires who are ideologically opposed to Enlightenment values like equality & democracy.
They've got control of most social media and most of the USA - see Musk & Thiel https://www.theguardian.com/te
They're so effective in manipulating discourse and truth that they've convinced a significant % of the UK that it's the white majority that are discriminated against. |
Before they even open their mouths, just looking at some of these smug looking twunts should be warning enough.
They are like bad impersonations of Bond villans. Ironic, seeing as Ernst Blofeld Bezos has bought the franchise, so I'd suggest it is unlikely we'll see the next baddie being based on a white supremist with designs to take over the world.
'Do you expect me to post, Goldfinger?'
'Nein, nein Herr Bond, I expect you to... buy!' | |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 15:40 - Jun 17 with 1261 views | kensalriser |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 14:28 - Jun 17 by Sonic_Hoop |
I think that ship has sailed. It looks like we've been entirely captured by a reactionary group of technocrat billionaires who are ideologically opposed to Enlightenment values like equality & democracy.
They've got control of most social media and most of the USA - see Musk & Thiel https://www.theguardian.com/te
They're so effective in manipulating discourse and truth that they've convinced a significant % of the UK that it's the white majority that are discriminated against. |
It is astonishing that people believe rising inequality is all the fault of immigrants and trans people rather than power crazed billionaires. But that's what holding all the levers of power gives you, as every autocrat knows. |  |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 17:19 - Jun 17 with 1190 views | PunteR |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 13:43 - Jun 17 by Orthodox_Hoop |
Yes. |
Cool, fair do's. I just find it interesting you're against the ban, when, i assume, you have have to deal with SM with your kids. You think Tik TOK , and Snap Chat perfectly fine , with proper adult supervision? I don't know what age your kids are, but I've had major issues with mine, with those particular platforms and i like to consider myself a pretty responsible parent and Grandparent.
You seem to think its an attack on peoples rights, and then use the smoking ban. Seems an odd example to use.
Theres loads of laws in place that are there to protect the majority. Wearing seatbelts is a good example. Age restriction on porn is another good thing , implemented recently, as well as age restriction on energy drinks and alcohol . As a parent , im happy enough , those things are in place.
I dont really think its that deep either. All these conspiracy theories about its the government taking control and introducing ID cards or whatever, just seems to me , social media propaganda (funnily enough). On the surface , to me anyway, i think the ban is a good thing. [Post edited 17 Jun 17:28]
| |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 17:48 - Jun 17 with 1157 views | numptydumpty |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 17:19 - Jun 17 by PunteR |
Cool, fair do's. I just find it interesting you're against the ban, when, i assume, you have have to deal with SM with your kids. You think Tik TOK , and Snap Chat perfectly fine , with proper adult supervision? I don't know what age your kids are, but I've had major issues with mine, with those particular platforms and i like to consider myself a pretty responsible parent and Grandparent.
You seem to think its an attack on peoples rights, and then use the smoking ban. Seems an odd example to use.
Theres loads of laws in place that are there to protect the majority. Wearing seatbelts is a good example. Age restriction on porn is another good thing , implemented recently, as well as age restriction on energy drinks and alcohol . As a parent , im happy enough , those things are in place.
I dont really think its that deep either. All these conspiracy theories about its the government taking control and introducing ID cards or whatever, just seems to me , social media propaganda (funnily enough). On the surface , to me anyway, i think the ban is a good thing. [Post edited 17 Jun 17:28]
|
The ban is a good thing if it works but highly unlikely to work. As said they did this in Australia but 80% kids still manage to gain access afterwards and to this day.
And kids "socialise" in their eyes over the internet. Its all they have ever known amd for me its too late to reverse this, because the addictions are there for all to see and in theory this idea is whats needed. Sadly in practice, it just wont be possible to achieve.
Am also incredibly dubious about the timing of this, in the week a certain Mayor of Manchester is aiming to enter parliament to oust the sitting PM. Its got no hope of changing his ultimate fate, but am certain the timing of this social media announcement isnt entirely co-incidental.
And am very surprised some on here have said they dont see the impact both social media and now AI will impact the world in even more negative ways. For me it all needs to be looked at and managed in much better ways as its heading down very dark back alleys, if not monitored very very closely. Not just the young but in ways to spread hate or whip up propoganda.
And again the porn thing being restricted. Again i would be very interested to see how many kids can still easily get access. Simple use of a VPN overrides the adult verification methods and would think like with very much the lack of impact on access when Australia banned social media for kids, i would that the vast majority of kids can easily access porn and parents are unlikely to be aware.
As with all progressive things some good but some bad.
The law of the internet jungle looms large. [Post edited 17 Jun 18:37]
| |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 18:05 - Jun 17 with 1141 views | numptydumpty |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:25 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I think it's a reactionary response that lets the real issues of the hook.
We used to call people who obsessed about children's genitals nonces. [Post edited 17 Jun 11:27]
|
i dont understand where your second sentence comes from or your meaning behind it.
Thats still the case but no one was discussing that subject so not understanding your reason for bringing that up. | |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 08:09 - Jun 18 with 982 views | Bluce_Ree |
On the one hand, the idea of kids just being kids rather than phone-addicted zombies is definitely a good idea. It's brutal seeing how much of their childhoods is taken up with screen time now.
But I do remember when Labour were in before and they were obsessed with ID cards and shit like that. So I'm always going to think this is more of a control thing than a safety thing. |  |
| Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. He runs like a cheetah, his crosses couldn't be sweeter. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. |
| |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 19:56 - Jun 18 with 846 views | TwoHalves |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 15:10 - Jun 15 by E17hoop |
No one has been able to answer this yet - if these platforms are so harmful, why does the govt still use them for comms? |
It’s a start: UK attorney general tells staff to stop using X amid disinformation concerns.
https://www.theguardian.com/te | | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:33 - Jun 19 with 745 views | DavieQPR |
We must stop right wing influencers online undoing all the conditioning that our teachers are doing. They must not be allowed to form their own opinions. Anyone would think this is a free country. |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:44 - Jun 19 with 717 views | Maggsinho |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:33 - Jun 19 by DavieQPR |
We must stop right wing influencers online undoing all the conditioning that our teachers are doing. They must not be allowed to form their own opinions. Anyone would think this is a free country. |
What, like Andrew Tate claiming women are subordinate to men, or maybe his holocaust denial? Those sort of opinions? |  | | |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:46 - Jun 19 with 712 views | TwoHalves |
| Social media ban for under 16’s on 11:33 - Jun 19 by DavieQPR |
We must stop right wing influencers online undoing all the conditioning that our teachers are doing. They must not be allowed to form their own opinions. Anyone would think this is a free country. |
Bless. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.