Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Gwadien]

I've just read a part of our official published corpo stance on this: "Stupid idea" is the TL;DR. However reading some of our internal network (parent groups etc) chats it's.. Shocking.

If I dare to say this is a parental issue not a child issue I'll get crucified for the mumsnet group we have running. "I don't know how to stop my kid doing this stuff" - Mebe Google parental controls for your phones? Mebe setup family groups?

I get it, I do. But this isn't a "save kids" this is a "cbfa to raise my kids or educate myself" issue. We DO need to make the controls easier at a country/tech level, 100%, but straight up banning is not the answer. How many parents can be bothered to log into [ISP] and disable [thing]? "But then I can't watch porn" - Okay, then learn how your devices work then.

!remindme 10 years when I have to deal with this shit./

Deal with it now. If you've got a tablet kid already it's probably too late.

I do agree that parenting has got worse and parents wanna be mates with their kids.

If we dealt with social media 15 years ago we wouldn't have this issue, now we've got a bunch of kids that are all addicted to smoking and you've now got parents that are going to have to get them off it.

 

[caLLous]

Relevant:

Student Reading Ability Spikes After Removing Tech From Class

"Remove all the distractions and we can get our kids back."

www.yahoo.com

 

[Scouse]

If we dealt with social media 15 years ago we wouldn't have this issue, now we've got a bunch of kids that are all addicted to smoking and you've now got parents that are going to have to get them off it.

I mean, I did deal with social media when it was first released - I refused to join any of them, because I knew what a fucking epic shitshow they'd be. I phone my family and friends. Apparently the new gen are scared of phoning people, and the idea of just picking up a phone and calling without texting first is ghastly.

But it's not smoking. The evidence of actual, real, harm is so scant as to be almost non-existent. It's all circumstantial, emotional etc.

Having said that - I think the best thing we could do is ban mobile phones for under-16's. Give them back their freedom from their parents. Their freedom from being tracked. Make parents feel the hundred-thousand year old feeling of not knowing where your kids are, and being unable to contact them, when they walk out of a room.

I think that's the thing that damages kids and parents. Not fucking wanky social media - which just transforms pain that kids feel into something new and different - rather than increasing their overall burden.


Then we should talk about the elephant in the room - adults choose idiot stuff. They eat shit, they parent poorly, they can't control what their kids are doing, they don't teach them useful life skills. Yadda yadda yadda.

Social media is just the new moral outrage of our time. But if I'm wrong, and teenagers are suffering so badly that Starmer wants to restrict 16-18 year olds on some level, not just under 16's, then perhaps they really are not emotionally robust enough, lack enough experience at that age to be able to make good decisions. If they're not old enough to use social media, perhaps Labour should stop looking at this particular idiocy too eh?

 

[Gwadien]

I mean, I did deal with social media when it was first released - I refused to join any of them, because I knew what a fucking epic shitshow they'd be. I phone my family and friends. Apparently the new gen are scared of phoning people, and the idea of just picking up a phone and calling without texting first is ghastly.

But it's not smoking. The evidence of actual, real, harm is so scant as to be almost non-existent. It's all circumstantial, emotional etc.

Having said that - I think the best thing we could do is ban mobile phones for under-16's. Give them back their freedom from their parents. Their freedom from being tracked. Make parents feel the hundred-thousand year old feeling of not knowing where your kids are, and being unable to contact them, when they walk out of a room.

I think that's the thing that damages kids and parents. Not fucking wanky social media - which just transforms pain that kids feel into something new and different - rather than increasing their overall burden.


Then we should talk about the elephant in the room - adults choose idiot stuff. They eat shit, they parent poorly, they can't control what their kids are doing, they don't teach them useful life skills. Yadda yadda yadda.

Social media is just the new moral outrage of our time. But if I'm wrong, and teenagers are suffering so badly that Starmer wants to restrict 16-18 year olds on some level, not just under 16's, then perhaps they really are not emotionally robust enough, lack enough experience at that age to be able to make good decisions. If they're not old enough to use social media, perhaps Labour should stop looking at this particular idiocy too eh?

I wrote a paragraph in response but I realised there's no point since you still don't understand it and have no willingness to do so.

 

[Scouse]

I wrote a paragraph in response but I realised there's no point since you still don't understand it and have no willingness to do so.

I do. Kids are focussing on shitty social media apps, which promote utter utter shit to them, and they're really anxious because of it.

They can't escape "bullying" online - so the previously "safe space" that was home, is no longer a safe space.

You're a teacher. If I'm missing stuff - educate me. It's literally the whole point of forums isn't it. So if you're a teacher, on a forum, you think you'd try to make cogent, well-thought-out arguments, instead of always going "I can't be arsed"...

If my points above are mistaken, or wrong - maybe step up to your vocation - show me why.

 

[Deebs]

My grandkids have strict rules around gaming, if they are naughty once in a day they lose their 1hr of gaming time, if they keep being naughty it just rolls over. My daughter wanted a gaming pass for each of the kids so I printed some out and laminated them.

Now the rule is if they do not physically have their gaming pass in their hands they are not allowed to game, period. At the end of each session they have to hand the passes back and if they are naughty they do not get them back for the next session. It is early days but they are learning

 

[Scouse]

Just out of interest @Deebs - what did your parents do with your gaming?

 

[DaGaffer]

If we dealt with social media 15 years ago

You can say that about social media in general, but once the internet existed "social media" was inevitable, and no-one was in a position to predict the consequences; especially the weaponisation of social media for disinformation.

I actually think all this "think of the children" shit is just the usual political theatre so governments can pretend they have control of events, rather than the sad reality that they're beholden to the tech bros for their economic futures. And while this is happening on Starmer's watch, let's not pretend it wouldn't have happened under the Tories as well.

As for the ban itself, there's an argument that we protect children from physical harms such as smoking and drinking and inappropriate media (movies etc.) so this is of a piece with that, but it's a ridiculously simplistic argument; kids already have a myriad of tools built into their daily lives that rely on internet access, including education tools, and unlike drinking, smoking or scary movies, this is not (@Scouse excepted because...whatever) something you can continue to opt out of as an adult. You will be online and yes you will be engaged with social media, even if it's just Whatsapp.

The truth is this shit just avoids the real problem which is the self-serving, narcissistic and quite possibly psychopathic people who own these platforms, because its too hard.

 

[Scouse]

this is not (@Scouse excepted because...whatever) something you can continue to opt out of as an adult. You will be online and yes you will be engaged with social media, even if it's just Whatsapp.

I don't really know how Whatsapp gets qualified as "social media" - it's just a text messaging platform that you can setup groups in. It's functionally not much different from text messaging with free pictures.

But yes, I'm living proof you can opt out of social media. And I'm doing absolutely fine - I'd argue better than a lot - without it. It's not hampering me socially. It's not holding me back at work (a recruitment agent was aghast that I don't use linked-in because I think it limits employment opportunities). When I meet my family we've stuff to talk about because I've no idea what they've been up to.

And the big one, of course, is that when we go out we're not on our phones, when everyone else is. Social media makes everyone fucking rude tbh. They're such victims.

 

[Gwadien]

I don't really know how Whatsapp gets qualified as "social media" - it's just a text messaging platform that you can setup groups in. It's functionally not much different from text messaging with free pictures.

But yes, I'm living proof you can opt out of social media. And I'm doing absolutely fine - I'd argue better than a lot - without it. It's not hampering me socially. It's not holding me back at work (a recruitment agent was aghast that I don't use linked-in because I think it limits employment opportunities). When I meet my family we've stuff to talk about because I've no idea what they've been up to.

And the big one, of course, is that when we go out we're not on our phones, when everyone else is. Social media makes everyone fucking rude tbh. They're such victims.

Depends how you're using Whatsapp, there's loads of different functions that means its used differently, I asked the same question as you but when you think about it, it's not much different than other social medias, just bubbles... I also think the way it's used is different too, back in the day you'd ask for someone's phone number or it would be respectful to ask permission to give someone's phone number, that appears to be gone.

The problem is that you believe that social media is a 'choice', it's not, it's something they have to do or they're not properly taking part in 'society'.

If you don't you're a weirdo and an outsider which is fine, but try telling a kid that...

You've got people my age who grew up with Facebook having kids that are also using social media - how can you tell your kids not to use social media when you're addicted to it yourself?

This is the problem with Libertarianism, it's fine to say 'well i made the choice not to do that, everyone else is stupid' when people are still going to make that choice. Why would be people be supportive to legislate against the thing they're addicted to? It's also fine for one to have Libertarian views in the middle of nowhere, which means they don't have to deal with the clear fucked up effect social media has had on society and community (more so than Thatcherism.)

I think the analogy for addiction is perfect - society doesn't really care if people are walking around addicted to drugs/alcohol or what evs, so long as they're not an eye sore. Same applies for this, let's do some meaningless shit every time there's 'fake news' stirred up on social media, every time a kid commits suicide because of relentless bullying or every time you get a safeguarding report that another kid has posted their nudes and everyone in the community knows about it. But let's ignore the cause cos it's hard.

You can say that about social media in general, but once the internet existed "social media" was inevitable, and no-one was in a position to predict the consequences; especially the weaponisation of social media for disinformation.

I actually think all this "think of the children" shit is just the usual political theatre so governments can pretend they have control of events, rather than the sad reality that they're beholden to the tech bros for their economic futures. And while this is happening on Starmer's watch, let's not pretend it wouldn't have happened under the Tories as well.

As for the ban itself, there's an argument that we protect children from physical harms such as smoking and drinking and inappropriate media (movies etc.) so this is of a piece with that, but it's a ridiculously simplistic argument; kids already have a myriad of tools built into their daily lives that rely on internet access, including education tools, and unlike drinking, smoking or scary movies, this is not (@Scouse excepted because...whatever) something you can continue to opt out of as an adult. You will be online and yes you will be engaged with social media, even if it's just Whatsapp.

The truth is this shit just avoids the real problem which is the self-serving, narcissistic and quite possibly psychopathic people who own these platforms, because its too hard.

I also agree with everything that's been said here, I've always believed that something drastic needs to be done over the tech bros, I think this is a misguided, shit-laden and problematic step in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough.

My grandkids have strict rules around gaming, if they are naughty once in a day they lose their 1hr of gaming time, if they keep being naughty it just rolls over. My daughter wanted a gaming pass for each of the kids so I printed some out and laminated them.

Now the rule is if they do not physically have their gaming pass in their hands they are not allowed to game, period. At the end of each session they have to hand the passes back and if they are naughty they do not get them back for the next session. It is early days but they are learning

Sorry Deebs, but if this is limited to gaming then you're completely missing the point

 

[SilverHood]

I'm agreeing with Scouse! I used to have reddit, instagram, facebook on my phone and the need to check in was overwhelming. I took all the apps off my phone. Unless someone texts or calls me, it doesn't get used much anymore. I read the news, play wordle in the morning and check sports scores. I was probably one of those rude people for a while. Not anymore!

That said, I do have Facebook & Instagram just to keep in contact with my extended family. The few times I log on, my feed is full of clickbait garbage, so I can't see what they're up to anyway, but it's nice that I can send them a message.

As for gaming, I remember my first 12 hour gaming session. I think I was 11 or 12. It probably wasn't healthy, but it was cold and wet outside, and it kept me out of my parents hair for the day. Dune II: The Battle for Arrakis, I think it was. Or maybe The Settlers. Wouldn't want my kid to do that, but then, if it got me 12 hours of peace on a Saturday, I'd be tempted. At least it's not just sitting there like a zombie.

 

[Scouse]

I've got a job @Gwadien - but I will come back and answer all that seriously.

But @SilverHood, I almost fell off my chair. And Dune II was cool

 

[Deebs]

Just out of interest @Deebs - what did your parents do with your gaming?

My first gaming device was the Binatone thing that could play tennis, ie moving two blocks to bounce a dot. I was not allowed to use it until all homework was done, tea eaten and then only if there was nothing else on the TV as it was 1 TV for the whole household apart from Dad who had his own in his "den".

Very different times so cannot really compare the two. Nowadays everyone has a TV/phone which can play games or can cast to.

 

[Gwadien]

I've got a job @Gwadien - but I will come back and answer all that seriously.

But @SilverHood, I almost fell off my chair. And Dune II was cool

lolol

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm agreeing with Scouse! I used to have reddit, instagram, facebook on my phone and the need to check in was overwhelming. I took all the apps off my phone. Unless someone texts or calls me, it doesn't get used much anymore. I read the news, play wordle in the morning and check sports scores. I was probably one of those rude people for a while. Not anymore!

That said, I do have Facebook & Instagram just to keep in contact with my extended family. The few times I log on, my feed is full of clickbait garbage, so I can't see what they're up to anyway, but it's nice that I can send them a message.

As for gaming, I remember my first 12 hour gaming session. I think I was 11 or 12. It probably wasn't healthy, but it was cold and wet outside, and it kept me out of my parents hair for the day. Dune II: The Battle for Arrakis, I think it was. Or maybe The Settlers. Wouldn't want my kid to do that, but then, if it got me 12 hours of peace on a Saturday, I'd be tempted. At least it's not just sitting there like a zombie.

That's the bit I'll never understand, but then I hate everybody. I have all the social media apps (because I need them for work) but I don't feel compelled to use any of them and never have, and indeed using Facebook or X is actively repellent (especially X. I'll use Facebook for far away friends and the board for shit going on in my local village even though there are plenty of mouth-breathing fuckwits to wade through even in something as innocuous as that). But Social Media is a lot more than that; Meta knows more about my habits than I do even though I use FB infrequently; LinkedIn is simply a necessary tool if you have a job or want a new one. TikTok, which I never use, is now one the biggest shopping channels on the planet and affects you even if you don't use it, just like Amazon in fact. So when people say "Harumph, I don't use Social Media, good for you, but newsflash, you do use social media, and social media uses you.

 

[Deebs]

That's the bit I'll never understand, but then I hate everybody. I have all the social media apps (because I need them for work) but I don't feel compelled to use any of them and never have, and indeed using Facebook or X is actively repellent (especially X. I'll use Facebook for far away friends and the board for shit going on in my local village even though there are plenty of mouth-breathing fuckwits to wade through even in something as innocuous as that). But Social Media is a lot more than that; Meta knows more about my habits than I do even though I use FB infrequently; LinkedIn is simply a necessary tool if you have a job or want a new one. TikTok, which I never use, is now one the biggest shopping channels on the planet and affects you even if you don't use it, just like Amazon in fact. So when people say "Harumph, I don't use Social Media, good for you, but newsflash, you do use social media, and social media uses you.

That will always be the case regardless as anyone you have had contact with, friends, family, work etc will post on social media and mention you in their daily/hourly postings.

 

[SilverHood]

Always one more story. One more feed. I have 50+ family members living across almost all timezones, so there was always new content popping up, or it was gaming feeds or sports feeds. Once I stepped back I realized how ridiculous it all was, but the design of these apps is to keep you engaged, and when engagement drops, figure out how to re-engage you, and then keep doing that. I don't want my kid to be part of any of that.

 

[Scouse]

"Harumph, I don't use Social Media, good for you, but newsflash, you do use social media, and social media uses you.

Social media may indirectly have access to some information of mine via other-people vectors. But I don't "use" it, at all, in any way other than whatever abstract you're trying to shoehorn in. The important thing - my time - isn't wasted on it at all.

Zero hours a day. Zero days a month.

I don't get the feeds. I don't check my phone all the fucking time. I don't have anxiety. My family largely haven't got a clue where I am, what I'm doing - and the other way around. (And that's great.). I'm not subject to targetted misinformation (as much as it boggles @Gwadien's mind that people can exist out of the social media bubble, of independent thought, who consume a variety of mainstream news sources and pretty much thinks they're all bullshit agenda-led outlets - he still accuses me of being a social media misinformation victim).

So no. I don't use social media. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Always one more story. One more feed. I have 50+ family members living across almost all timezones, ... Once I stepped back I realized how ridiculous it all was ...

Yep. I've family in Oz & America. They may use bookface or instabang or whatever.

I've a friend who's a director of an advertising firm. My lack of social media use absolutely infuriates him. My lack of buying shit I don't need amuses him tho

 

[Scouse]

Depends how you're using Whatsapp, there's loads of different functions that means its used differently, I asked the same question as you but when you think about it, it's not much different than other social medias, just bubbles... I also think the way it's used is different too, back in the day you'd ask for someone's phone number or it would be respectful to ask permission to give someone's phone number, that appears to be gone.

Back in the day you'd give out phone numbers willy nilly. But whatsapp doesn't push news feeds at you, it doesn't push advertising at you. You text your mates, they text you back. It's not like all the other stuff, but whatever.

The problem is that you believe that social media is a 'choice', it's not, it's something they have to do or they're not properly taking part in 'society'.

And yet we've people on this very forum who've made that choice and feel they're absolutely taking part in "society". Just a better society - with most of the utter dross taken out.

If kids feel that way - that's just kids. They feel things about all sorts of shit. That's why we teach them differently (if we choose to). They don't get to have a choice - adults can choose differently for them. It's down to adults to show them what society is, and what shitness social media is. And that's absolutely possible.

If you don't you're a weirdo and an outsider which is fine, but try telling a kid that...

Used to be if you used a computer you were a weirdo and an outsider, in a very real way.

And again...

You've got people my age who grew up with Facebook having kids that are also using social media - how can you tell your kids not to use social media when you're addicted to it yourself?

You're not addicted. Not in a heroin-type get the shakes, dangerous to stop addiction. It's a mild compulsion. You can stop.

People don't want to stop though - because unlike smoking - people think there's no real harm happening. So they don't quit their social media accounts. But they've got fucking agency. Parents need to stop whining and lead by fucking example.

Any cunt who uses social media and yet supports a social media ban for their kids is a twat. It's not like drinking. The evidential basis for actual measurable harm is really weak.

But I still think it's fucking daft to be on those closed-wall advertising ecosystems that make victims of you. If you're worried about misinformation? Get off the fucking apps or GTFO.

This is the problem with Libertarianism, it's fine to say 'well i made the choice not to do that, everyone else is stupid' when people are still going to make that choice.

And that's their idiot choice to make.

But parents get to make the choice for their children. The whole of society shouldn't be paying for parents being a bit shit.

Why would be people be supportive to legislate against the thing they're addicted to? It's also fine for one to have Libertarian views in the middle of nowhere, which means they don't have to deal with the clear fucked up effect social media has had on society and community (more so than Thatcherism.)

They're not addicted. Are you addicted?

Not really. Not really addicted. You've got a mild compulsion. That's all. It's not real addiction. It's a victim mentality and a weak "the whole world is against me" and "tech bros exploit me" mindset.

Well, if you think tech bros are exploitative wankers (they are) - stop using their fucking products.

I've sympathy with fat people who eat ultraprocessed food in an obeseogenic environment. They're literally surrounded by shit that makes them want to eat more, that makes them ill. The food is designed to be addictive. We don't regulate our food industry - yet it's one of the primary reasons the NHS is on it's knees, that our people are overweight and obese, and unhealthy. That heart disease and cancer rates are soaring. Their products are actually addictive.

Again though - not heroin-level addictive. If you choose to eat the right food then you can maintain a healthy weight - just as cheaply as eating ultraprocessed crap.

But I've way more sympathy for these people than I do anyone who calls themselves a "social media addict". They're not addicted. Not in any meaningful sense outside of a victim mentality.

I've always believed that something drastic needs to be done over the tech bros

Yep.

People who think they're up to no good should stop funding them? It's literally the easiest thing to do. Hit uninstall.


Edit: And I think the effect that social media has "on society" is massively overstated (largely by the left tbh - because they read shit they don't like and want to stop it happening). The big effects on society are caused by financial inequality and poverty. Social media is nothing more than an amplifier IMO. Shit happens quicker. But it's the same shit that's always happened - riots, mobs, burning things, hating immigrants, pitchforks and idiots...