Mastodawn

A blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the wrong choice. It's not working in Australia, and it won't work in the UK.

Social media harms don't magically stop affecting people as they get older. Bans are also rarely difficult to circumvent. So by failing to ask the social media companies to bear any cost - cleaning up their act, making them legally responsible for content they actively recommend and promote through their content algorithms - Starmer has failed to tackle the problem.

Show thread

Book End

@FreakyFwoof @JubalBarca i actualy don't no what will tackle the problem, ban the content and it gos underground ban the people and they lie or cheet to gain acceess to all of the content on the plantform. its a nice idea in thery the practice is circomventable

Show thread

James Baillie Jun 15

@liseo @FreakyFwoof I think things have to be tackled more at the content and algorithms level. The problem differs for different kinds of content: scams and political disinfo don't tend to get "driven underground" for example because the underground doesn't have enough marks to make those things viable. Illegal harms type content does go underground, but in some cases just reducing public exposure there is a net benefit. There are more complex cases though.

Show thread

Martin Vermeer FCD Jun 15

@JubalBarca @liseo @FreakyFwoof Also, 'social media' isn't a homogeneous blob. Moderation matters. X isn't Mastodon. With competent moderation, there is no need to ban children. Without it, one ought to ban everybody - which shouldn't even be necessary if people had a lick of sense. Who wants to voluntarily experience the ethics-free Nazi wasteland that is X?