Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Scouse]

We're not a bunch of cunts

Correction. @Deebs is.

Deebs is a cunt.

 

[Scouse]

Meanwhile - Starmer and this labour government needs to die in a hole.

New rules on social media could target ‘doomscrolling’ and ban for under-16s, Starmer says – UK politics live

Prime minister says outcomes of consultation on social media ban should be implemented quickly as technology minister says Australia-style ban is not inevitable

www.theguardian.com

Starmer suggested that one option will be to limit the technology that allows “doomscrolling”.

What? He's going to limit the ability of teenagers to click on links?

They're fucking retards. Or worse (and I suspect it is worse) they're just treating the UK public like a bunch of thick knuckle-dragging wankers.

 

[Deebs]

Meanwhile - Starmer and this labour government needs to die in a hole.

New rules on social media could target ‘doomscrolling’ and ban for under-16s, Starmer says – UK politics live

Prime minister says outcomes of consultation on social media ban should be implemented quickly as technology minister says Australia-style ban is not inevitable

www.theguardian.com

What? He's going to limit the ability of teenagers to click on links?

They're fucking retards. Or worse (and I suspect it is worse) they're just treating the UK public like a bunch of thick knuckle-dragging wankers.

Yeh I read that and thought WTF? Next they will not be allowed outside unaccompanied in case they see me watching pr0n on my phone or swearing which is extremely fucking rare I'll have you twats know.

 

[Gwadien]

Meanwhile - Starmer and this labour government needs to die in a hole.

New rules on social media could target ‘doomscrolling’ and ban for under-16s, Starmer says – UK politics live

Prime minister says outcomes of consultation on social media ban should be implemented quickly as technology minister says Australia-style ban is not inevitable

www.theguardian.com

What? He's going to limit the ability of teenagers to click on links?

They're fucking retards. Or worse (and I suspect it is worse) they're just treating the UK public like a bunch of thick knuckle-dragging wankers.

But then you've repeatedly denied the damage that this causes to the youth and politics, so this isn't a surprise, it's actually a good step.

Doom strolling = reduced attention spam from kids.

 

[Scouse]

But then you've repeatedly denied the damage that this causes to the youth and politics, so this isn't a surprise, it's actually a good step.

Doom strolling = reduced attention spam from kids.

This is because you're not a technologist. You simply don't understand why it's so fucking retarded to say "we'll look at the technologies that enable doomscrolling".

It's retarded because it's utter utter bullshit from a technology standpoint. With that statement Kier is screaming, loudly, that his government is so technically incompetent that it is incapable of governing and should step the fuck down. OR (more likely) that he's treating the British public like the technically illiterate idiots that the vast majority are - and saying "stuff" to get them to shut the fuck up.

I'd actually support an Australia style ban on social media for under 16's. But this bullshit about "doomscrolling" shows either ineptitude or disgusting shysterism.

It's absolutely fine that you don't get it - you're a teacher, not a technologist. But plenty round here have been doing this this shit for a living since long before the internet was invented and can see though that transparent asshattery.

It's the same thing with cryptography and back-doors. They can get in a hole and die.

 

[caLLous]

This is because you're not a technologist. You simply don't understand why it's so fucking retarded to say "we'll look at the technologies that enable doomscrolling".

It's retarded because it's utter utter bullshit from a technology standpoint. With that statement Kier is screaming, loudly, that his government is so technically incompetent that it is incapable of governing and should step the fuck down. OR (more likely) that he's treating the British public like the technically illiterate idiots that the vast majority are - and saying "stuff" to get them to shut the fuck up.

I'd actually support an Australia style ban on social media for under 16's. But this bullshit about "doomscrolling" shows either ineptitude or disgusting shysterism.

It's absolutely fine that you don't get it - you're a teacher, not a technologist. But plenty round here have been doing this this shit for a living since long before the internet was invented and can see though that transparent asshattery.

It's the same thing with cryptography and back-doors. They can get in a hole and die.

Christ, you're condescending.

End-to-end encryption is a fundamental part of an application that cannot be circumvented, even if the social media companies wanted to. They could do any number of things to stop their apps being so addictive, if they chose (or were made) to.

They all design their apps to trap users in a reward-seeking loop so the user can't "escape". Bring in pagination, limit the number of posts that can be loaded in one go before a "continue" button appears or a delay is implemented, flash up a full screen warning after x minutes reminding the user of the time or how much time they've been in the app, force a boring chronological feed rather than allowing them to use algorithms to capture users, block apps from sending notifications at night, etc etc etc. It's all psychological and deliberate, it's not a difficult problem to fix, if there's either a willingness or legislation to fix it.

If you're throwing doomscrolling in the same bucket as cryptography, in terms of the power the companies have to do something about it, then it's you who doesn't get it.

 

[Gwadien]

Christ, you're condescending.

End-to-end encryption is a fundamental part of an application that cannot be circumvented, even if the social media companies wanted to. They could do any number of things to stop their apps being so addictive, if they chose (or were made) to.

They all design their apps to trap users in a reward-seeking loop so the user can't "escape". Bring in pagination, limit the number of posts that can be loaded in one go before a "continue" button appears or a delay is implemented, flash up a full screen warning after x minutes reminding the user of the time or how much time they've been in the app, force a boring chronological feed rather than allowing them to use algorithms to capture users, block apps from sending notifications at night, etc etc etc. It's all psychological and deliberate, it's not a difficult problem to fix, if there's either a willingness or legislation to fix it.

If you're throwing doomscrolling in the same bucket as cryptography, in terms of the power the companies have to do something about it, then it's you who doesn't get it.

Precisely as I thought, but what the fuck do I know.

 

[Scouse]

Christ, you're condescending.

I don't give a fuck. Gwad doesn't get tech. That's fair. I was having a go at Labour, sympathising with Gwadien.

You clearly do, a bit - fron an engineering standpoint only, otherwise you wouldn't have come up with this utterly fantastical diatribe:

They all design their apps to trap users in a reward-seeking loop so the user can't "escape". Bring in pagination, limit the number of posts that can be loaded in one go before a "continue" button appears or a delay is implemented, flash up a full screen warning after x minutes reminding the user of the time or how much time they've been in the app, force a boring chronological feed rather than allowing them to use algorithms to capture users, block apps from sending notifications at night, etc etc etc. It's all psychological and deliberate, it's not a difficult problem to fix, if there's either a willingness or legislation to fix it.

You're like the EU's hugely effective "agree to cookies" commissioner. Everything you said there is failure-ridden drivel on so many levels it's ridiculous. Especially when the objective is to help children.

Ban social media for under 16s.

Frankly, ban mobile phones for under 16's. We long lived without them and the world didn't fall apart - and patterns learned in childhood are taken on into adult life - and not having mobile fucking phones would do them, mentally, the world of good. (And parents too tbpfh).

 

[Scouse]

Precisely as I thought, but what the fuck do I know.

As much as @caLLous tbh.

If he can't see what utter crap he's talking (not just from an implementation standpoint but from a fallout standpoint - in terms of blast radius of user impacts, political implications, social implications for people not in the target group, business implications, economic implications and on and on and on).

If you want to protect kids - protect kids! The simple things work. Follow Australia - ban social media for under 16's. Their brains could do without that shit completely.

 

[Gwadien]

I still don't understand this accusation that 'I don't get tech'.

I disagree with you and you're condescending in response every time then you get upset I don't engage, it's really fucking confusing.

But I'll go for your use of 'teacher' as an insult.

Yeah, I work in schools, I see it in action on a daily basis - kids scrolling through TikTok watching absolute brain rotting shit, or divisive politics shoved in their face.

You know, it's almost as if that China is intentionally making people stupid (especially encouraging a shorter attention span) and it seems that Labour are attempting to do something about it without completely calling China out.

 

[caLLous]

As much as @caLLous tbh.

If he can't see what utter crap he's talking (not just from an implementation standpoint but from a fallout standpoint - in terms of blast radius of user impacts, political implications, social implications for people not in the target group, business implications, economic implications and on and on and on).

If you want to protect kids - protect kids! The simple things work. Follow Australia - ban social media for under 16's. Their brains could do without that shit completely.

Oh no, the horrors of trying to stop these companies from lulling young users into a trance-like state by allowing them to load more and more content with no interruption. How would society survive? Political implications? What?

I'm not against an outright ban at all but, despite all your angry hand waving, these companies can and should be compelled to act more responsibly towards young users.

Youtube Kids exists (it used to be its own app but now it's accessed via a "child profile" in the main app) - autoplay limits, timers, stronger parental controls, a much narrower scope on content recommendations, less chance of falling into rabbit holes, no comments (largely), general added friction... all the things that should exist for children in any social media platform are already in there. It had a rocky start with stuff slipping through the cracks and Google took a lot of shit at the start - it still has its critics but it's in a much better place now. And nobody even told them to do it - they recognised how unsuitable the normal Youtube was for kids and set out to create something more appropriate. They've also listened to all the (heavy) criticism since the outset and addressed all (or most) of the concerns. Whatever their motive ("think of the children" vs. "money, please"), it's a demonstration that it can be done. And that's for under 13s, measures in other apps wouldn't need to be half as aggressive. And, if kids hate it and it drives them off of social media until they're 16 then, so be it.

These companies actively try to keep users in their apps as long as possible, with every nasty trick they can think of, indefinitely if it was humanly possible. Stop them doing that and you've solved most of the problem. Saying it's unimplementable is like saying it's not possible to make tobacco companies cover their cigarette packets with health warnings or for bookies to put "gamble safely" all over their ads.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not against an outright ban at all but, despite all your angry hand waving, these companies can and should be compelled to act more responsibly towards young users.

And how do you do that, specifically. How do you specifically change everything about the design. And which bits of design. Specifically? And in what way? Specifically? And is it in one of the many UI's of the phones you're objecting to, or the thousands of specific applications, and which / what interactions with them? And how do you make 100% sure you only hit young users - and in a way that isn't easily circumventable (like the ridiculously easily circumventable children can access pornography shit that Labour just brought in)? And how do you force foreign companies do do that? Ones you've got no control over? Ones that will push back legally and that have legal protections and impediments? And much much much more...

It's a fucking dumb shitshow minefield, even attempting it would be an act of lunacy.

What CAN work is a ban. It's easy. It his the right people too.

 

[Scouse]

I get the desire to smack big companies, and, by proxy, hundreds of thousands of smaller companies which would have to start redeveloping things.

Or, if social media is really that dangerous for young minds - ban it.

 

[caLLous]

Some of those hypothetical problems would also exist for a total ban - targeting users under a certain age and forcing foreign companies to comply to name two - and have apparently been solved in Australia. Not knowing the age of a user is very much a pre-AI problem, whether it's aging a selfie or inferring a user's age from how they use the platform.

I don't know why you think it'd be so difficult to implement for these massive corporations - it's not a case of changing everything about the design, why would it be? It's behavioral changes to make it less addictive for children. It's tweaks to change how the feed loads - both in terms of physically capping how many items can load before interrupting in whatever way and algorithm changes to make the content itself more basic/chronological and narrow the scope of recommendations. It's about snapping kids out of the trance-like state they get in from the seamless, infinite scrolling. I also think it's within their capabilities to implement a timer. And what's it got to do with 3rd party apps?

I bet the companies would rather go to the effort of making some changes to their offering for children than kick them off altogether.

 

[Scouse]

what's it got to do with 3rd party apps?

You never doomscrolled the guardian? News websites? Do you think the Guardian should put a limit on the amount of articles people should be able to read?

Starmer specifically mentioned "doomscrolling". This is what he was specifically talking about.

So, aside from putting limits, for children (how?) on news websites. What else is he talking about? Just twatter or ticktok? What about mobile gaming? Should companies make games more shit and less "addictive"? Or just mobile games?

There's absolutely a parallel with computer gaming - there's well-established effects with excessive computer game use and lower academic achievement. Or aren't we bothered with that? Is that no longer the moral outrage of our times?

It's self-evidently an absolute unworkable can of worms. If mobile phone use is so dangerous to children (and the evidential base is pretty fucking weak at the moment) then ban 'em from using phones.

Frankly, it'll do 'em good to be bored. That's where creation comes from.

I bet the companies would rather go to the effort of making some changes to their offering for children than kick them off altogether.

This we agree on. But should we care about them?

Kids could do with reading more IMO