Bye bye Starmer

[Rich B]

It’s not a “one use magic wand” though is it, the tech is massively more advanced and faster moving than any government, the governments can only react and push for changes as they go.

The first step in Australia has removed half the children from it and found platforms encouraging underage users to bypass checks. I would expect the second step will be to clamp down (with penalties) on the platforms who aren’t doing their job.

it will take time and lots of lessons in what the actual solutions and problems are to solve, but it’s pretty naive to think that it would be 100% successful overnight and even more naive to think they would only try one approach.

[Jobbo]

I watched this last night - excellent video not about the why/why not but about the how:



And while I think social media is not just a problem for children, if the social media providers have to improve things for kids that's a step towards improving it for everyone. I've been swayed into this being a good policy for that reason, even if that may not be the way it's being sold.

[Beany]

Honestly, I'd skip the 'ban it for under 16s' step and just force their hands on content and agorithmic hate pushing (or algorithmic feeds, period)

They're not owed a fucking living, and if their systems are incapable of turning a profit without pushing extreme content to anyone then those feeds should be neutered, end of story.

I really think governments and people opining on this are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

[V8Granite]

Does this start the argument about what is hateful ?

Death, murder, evil etc has a very broad meaning when someone is triggered by a digestive biscuit.

Dave!

[Rich B]

Does this start the argument about what is hateful ?

Death, murder, evil etc has a very broad meaning when someone is triggered by a digestive biscuit.

Dave!

Well exactly. Then you spend the next 5 years awaiting endless consultations and push back.

Let’s remove the most vulnerable quickly and then let the companies try and fight to get them back.

[Gavster]

I also agree with that. We are so far away from being able to reach a meaningful agreement about how to moderate between healthy and harmful content on-platform, that a blunt instrument, such as a ban, is far more effective. Even simply negotiating a definition of harmful content with the platforms would take years, and result in an agreement that wouldn't be what we really want.

On top of that, the scale of the moderation problem with user-generated is beyond enormous, wIth something like 10 billlion videos uploaded to TikTok alone each year, it's off the charts. It incomparable to moderating any other form of media.

[Mito Man]

Why can’t they just make a child friendly version of these apps? I feel like it’s being over complicated for no reason.

[dinny_g]

On top of that, the scale of the moderation problem with user-generated is beyond enormous, wIth something like 10 billlion videos uploaded to TikTok alone each year, it's off the charts. It incomparable to moderating any other form of media.

I know you're the expert on these things Gav but I do think that's crap.

If an algorithm can be created to route things they think I might like to my account, they can route things I've told them I don't want away from me.

[240PP]

I find it bonkers that I was not allowed to watch choreographed martial arts movies in the 80s/90s because they had an 18 rating but now people knocking eachother out in the street is available to all (and much worse).

We should have stopped any development on the internet in the mid 2000s. We could bank online, find cheap flights and download music etc. without any of the SM bullshit. It was a green and pleasant land.

[V8Granite]

Does this start the argument about what is hateful ?

Death, murder, evil etc has a very broad meaning when someone is triggered by a digestive biscuit.

Dave!

Well exactly. Then you spend the next 5 years awaiting endless consultations and push back.

Let’s remove the most vulnerable quickly and then let the companies try and fight to get them back.

There's definitely some logic there.

Half my problem is I want government out of my home, the other half is this has nothing to do with child safety and everything to do with digital ID.

Strange times.

Dave!

[Rich B]

if they really wanted to introduce digital ID they’d just do it. This government isn’t very good a subtlety or reading the room. Don’t you remember their first stab at changing the winter fuel allowance?!

[Gavster]

On top of that, the scale of the moderation problem with user-generated is beyond enormous, wIth something like 10 billlion videos uploaded to TikTok alone each year, it's off the charts. It incomparable to moderating any other form of media.

I know you're the expert on these things Gav but I do think that's crap.

If an algorithm can be created to route things they think I might like to my account, they can route things I've told them I don't want away from me.

It's not impossible for sure, however I'm convinced it's a massively different operation for the following reason:

Reccomendation algorithms are easier because the content of the video is irrelevant, all it needs to know is how you interact with it. It shows you a video, you provide physical feedback (watch time, completion, likes, shares, comments etc) which determine how much you like it. It then shows you more videos which were also liked by people who enjoyed that same first video. It occasionally throws out a few wild cards to see if you want to go in a different direction too.

For moderation, it's the other way around, the content of the video needs to be fully understood before it can be distributed. That's a judgement that has to be made about it's level of harm inisde it. It's very, very different, and especially tricky for subjects like history, where weapons, Nazis, and violence are common topics, yet the content itself educational.

[dinny_g]

[Gavster]

I mean, if the government set clear guidelines with high enough fines for hosting harmful content, or decided that the platforms are actually co-publishers, then I'm sure they'd find a way to do it.

[Jobbo]

We should have stopped any development on the internet in the mid 2000s. We could bank online, find cheap flights and download music etc. without any of the SM bullshit. It was a green and pleasant land.

Maybe ban advertising from the internet? Take away the money for clicks and there'd be no need for the sort of engagement farming which demands more and more extreme material to keep people scrolling.

[ZedLeg]

It would be better if we spent money on giving the kids support and social engagement off their phones rather than just sending subsequent generations back to the 80s for an arbitrary amount of time.

[ZedLeg]

Like, it’s not hard to see why kids feel disillusioned, we give them fuck all and take away anything they use as an outlet.

[duncs500]

It would be better if we spent money on giving the kids support and social engagement off their phones rather than just sending subsequent generations back to the 80s for an arbitrary amount of time.

Kinda like getting someone hooked on crack and then leaving a pile of crack on the table and telling them you've also put a football pitch down the road just in case they fancy it instead for a change.

[ZedLeg]

As with actual crack, which has also never disappeared with prohibition. It’s always going to be there, I think giving people something better to do is a better plan than just saying you can’t have it and leaving a big it shaped void.

[Jobbo]

Whether money is spent by the government on alternatives or not, the kids will end up using whatever alternatives they find easiest/coolest/whatever. Anything sanctioned by the state is going to be like the unused skate parks etc - a waste of money.