EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: tom66 on June 15, 2026, 09:26:52 am
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt)
I've mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, social media is genuinely really bad to childhood development. We have enough empirical evidence of this to know that action is needed. Schools that ban phone use have higher educational outcomes, too. The brain is still developing until about 25 years old, and before a child is 18 years old, they have many fewer safeguards on addictive and dangerous behaviour. Suicides have been reported when kids have been "cyber bullied". Kids are becoming dependent upon dopamine release from these platforms by doomscrolling, rather than obtaining it "naturally" by doing things with friends or family. I see it with my nieces - they are on their phones all day, and once their dad tells them to put their phones down and have an honest conversation, they just can't seem to manage it. It's frankly disturbing. Some parents are better than others, but so many times parents just give in and give their kid a phone to keep them busy. I've seen 5 year olds just staring into YouTube endlessly, it's really creepy. The industry has broadly been resistant to any meaningful change, like ending doomscrolling, seemingly in brinkmanship with the state.
But on the other hand, I'm concerned about the overreach into the internet here, which should be free. Provided age assurance can be done heurestically in the way Australia has required it (no photo ID for almost everyone) then I'm OK with it. But once you start asking Meta and X to verify identity, collecting deeply personal information, then that becomes a serious problem. It is the same problem I have with the OSA in the UK. It would have been OK to have age assurance at a device level (phone/browser attests user's age) but to require it to be implemented at the site level is a bad idea. I'm also concerned about kids that might find personal social interaction hard but interacting on the internet is easier, like autistic kids; perhaps they do need more exposure to in-person interaction but if this ban happens will they receive it or will they become ever more lonely and disconnected?
Of course, teenagers will find ways around this block, either by using VPNs or altering their profile to make themselves look older. But I suspect even if the numbers online fall by only, say, 50%, then this will have an immediate positive impact on the lives of kids.
-
I've mixed feelings on this
Likewise, especially with the inclusion of YouTube in the 'hit list'. I have to agree, YT hasn't helped itself any by going down the same route as others in farming ever greater viewing time and doom scrolling e.g. shorts. However, on the other hand used correctly (and there's the devil in the detail) I don't think anyone here would disagree with it being in principle an excellent educational resource too, and that kids with an interest in hobbies well served by it (such as electronics, obviously..) will be 'poorer' for losing access to it.
-
I've mixed feelings on this
Likewise, especially with the inclusion of YouTube in the 'hit list'. I have to agree, YT hasn't helped itself any by going down the same route as others in farming ever greater viewing time and doom scrolling e.g. shorts. However, on the other hand used correctly (and there's the devil in the detail) I don't think anyone here would disagree with it being in principle an excellent educational resource too, and that kids with an interest in hobbies well served by it (such as electronics, obviously..) will be 'poorer' for losing access to it.
If they allow only full length videos and just block comments for U16's, I think that would meet the requirements that have been set out. The "anti-doomscrolling" stuff is not going to be in the first draft of the legislation from my understanding, so YouTube shorts won't be banned yet.
-
I've only been reading the BBC online content so far, where details on implementation seem thin at this time.
However, the impression it creates is that YT will be subject to a blanket ban for the under-16s. Is that not the case?
-
I've only been reading the BBC online content so far, where details on implementation seem thin at this time.
However, the impression it creates is that YT will be subject to a blanket ban for the under-16s. Is that not the case?
They've suggested the Australian model. That has meant that YouTube allows viewership but you can't log in, comment, or run a channel (the latter could be a problem for some younger content creators; I was making videos when I was 13... I wasn't successful!... but it was a way to show off things I was doing.)
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/16758081?hl=en
-
yea banning stuff for kids works really well,all it does it make it more attractive because its banned look at alcohol,smoking/vaping and porn for a start
-
I'm a bit confused.
Others topis leave the impression that this is a technical forum and we should not have political discussions.
Isnt that topic a fully political one?
-
yea banning stuff for kids works really well,all it does it make it more attractive because its banned look at alcohol,smoking/vaping and porn for a start
If there's a chance of it stopping or reducing the number of underage kids stabbing each other, it will be worth it.
None political in my opinion, I couldn't care less which party or government introduces it. It's the on-line technology and its effect on kids that's the issue. There was plenty of discussion (probably including Dave) on the Australia ban.
-
It's banned. Move on now. Rinse & repeat.
The UK at it again ?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt)
I've mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, social media is genuinely really bad to childhood development. We have enough snip
Canada has also announced their intention of banning under 16s from having access to Social Media. My biggest objection is that I think the age limit needs to be considerably higher.
-
Looks like the Commonwealth is on fire.
Yes, India too: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/17/india-age-based-social-media-curbs.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/17/india-age-based-social-media-curbs.html)
Yes, Singapore too: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/app-stores-to-verify-under-18-singapore-users-via-singpass-facial-scans-credit-card (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/app-stores-to-verify-under-18-singapore-users-via-singpass-facial-scans-credit-card)
...
:-+
-
Hmm, so the 14yr old fires up her fav vpn service and pops out in Russia.
So then the govt starts to control the ISP traffic.
Yep, commie-ism creeping back in ...... again.
Maybe start with parenting. True fact, the internet has made parenting much harder. That's life, be a parent in the 21st century.
-
It's not about safety. It's all about control. Identifying and arresting dissidents by linking social media posts to real ID.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt)
I've mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, social media is genuinely really bad to childhood development. We have enough snip
Canada has also announced their intention of banning under 16s from having access to Social Media. My biggest objection is that I think the age limit needs to be considerably higher.
Exactly. I'd say 30 to match the minimum age someone should be before getting a tattoo.
-
Canada is also doing this. We are losing our freedom one bit at a time.
-
I think what a lot of people are missing is that they are not banning people under 16. You have to prove you are over 16 with an ID.
-
I wonder if teenage pregnancy will go back up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/us/iphone-birthrate-decline-studies.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/us/iphone-birthrate-decline-studies.html)
-
I'm a bit confused.
Others topis leave the impression that this is a technical forum and we should not have political discussions.
Isnt that topic a fully political one?
By framing it as a binary, tech vs. political, you are ignoring nuance.
For example, how can one technically police the internet? Backdoors to encrypted apps are one technical approach, but then you have the political question of how can you ensure the backdoors won't be misused by authorities (misuse of backdoors by hackers is a social question rather than strictly political).
In summary, you cannot compartmentalise tech vs. political into separate bins.... they are inextricably intertwined.
-
It's not about safety. It's all about control. Identifying and arresting dissidents by linking social media posts to real ID.
That conspiracy theory is an attempt to steer the topic away from real world impacts of social media harm to adolescents.
-
I think what a lot of people are missing is that they are not banning people under 16. You have to prove you are over 16 with an ID.
1) How is requiring people to prove they are over 16 before accessing a service not banning access to the service for those under 16? 1 + 2 has exactly the same value as 2 + 1
2) Nobody missed that. How could you bar access to a product, service or resource, especially one being accessed remotely and not face to face, based on age without some form of age verification?
And how is this any different to what many countries do and have done for decades with things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, firearms and the driving of motor vehicles? In the case of the former, if you're lucky enough to be young and look young, then you're already not 'drinking anonymously' (at least not in public) - you handed over your ID card before you received drink one.
Sometimes, just sometimes 'they' aren't out to get you, and it is just paranoia.
-
The Australian model requires social media sites to heuristically estimate the user's age by looking at the other users they associate with, the content they view, and the times they access these sites (e.g. not during school hours = pretty big clue, busier during summer holidays = also big clue). For users that are misidentified they can submit government ID, but obviously most kids don't have ID.
-
It's not about safety. It's all about control. Identifying and arresting dissidents by linking social media posts to real ID.
That conspiracy theory is an attempt to steer the topic away from real world impacts of social media harm to adolescents.
"Every opinion I don't like is a conspiracy theory"
If the government really care about adolescents, why don' they target the platforms instead of the users? Ban "Recommended for you" algorithm and force social media posts to "Friends" and "Sort by time" only. This will solve doomscrolling
I think what a lot of people are missing is that they are not banning people under 16. You have to prove you are over 16 with an ID.
Exactly, their objective is to de-anonymize the internet.
-
Doomscrolling isn't the only issue though. It's the addiction to social media that seems to be preventing normal social development and increasing the risk of depression and suicide. And cyber bullying either by private messages or in public.
-
Force the social media companies to remove addictive engagement-farming algorithm to make social media not (or at least less) addictive to its users, adolescents or adults.
-
Force the social media companies to remove addictive engagement-farming algorithm to make social media not (or at least less) addictive to its users, adolescents or adults.
How do you propose we do that?
Taking the UK as the example, what exactly could the government do to *force* their compliance? That doesn't involve banning their services (as effective as that won't be), or toothless fines and court challenges that will simply go ignored by the US corporations?
-
Lol, obviously the Chinese already solved this problem. It's called the Great Firewall of China.
It's hard not to see the irony in that.
-
Speaking of China, which is supposed to be this horrible totalitarian regime, they haven't even gone as far as those social media bans for children. Not that they haven't done anything: the time allocated for children on social media is limited (30 min max per day, IIRC) and they have a system in place for that. But they haven't banned them altogether, which seems completely unrealistic. Kids will find ways to overcome that in no time. But I think that 30 min per day max is reasonable - even adults should not spend more time than this, but that's not something you can solve by banning stuff. That never works.
-
Force the social media companies to remove addictive engagement-farming algorithm to make social media not (or at least less) addictive to its users, adolescents or adults.
If the social media companies were motivated by the need to do good rather than by sheer greed I doubt we would be discussing this. As NE666 says, how do you force companies that will twist and turn like slippery eels to continue to do harm to the young (and probably the rest of us too).
-
Speaking of China, which is supposed to be this horrible totalitarian regime, they haven't even gone as far as those social media bans for children. Not that they haven't done anything: the time allocated for children on social media is limited (30 min max per day, IIRC) and they have a system in place for that. But they haven't banned them altogether, which seems completely unrealistic. Kids will find ways to overcome that in no time. But I think that 30 min per day max is reasonable - even adults should not spend more time than this, but that's not something you can solve by banning stuff. That never works.
How better (and cheaper) for a "horrible totalitarian regime" to get a 'subtle message' across to the young than social media. It seems counter-intuitive for them to introduce bans.
-
Well UK. Welcome to Russia. Welcome to the world of VPN. You want to watch YouTube? You need a VPN. It's banned, but everyone watches it! You want to visit FaceBook? You need a VPN. It's banned, but some people have it!
Frankly, ban on social media is the least of Britain's concerns. They have much bigger problems on their hands these days. :-//
-
So while I agree social media is bad for kids. No agruements there. In fact I would go as far as to say that "Social media" the core of it, aka FB, IG, Tiktok etc. are bad for EVERYONE.
Meta publishes pyscological papers based on experiments done to it's user base.
https://online210.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/PSY-210_Unit_Materials/PSY-210_Unit09_Materials/Hughes_Facebook_AVClub_2014.pdf
That should tell you enough. Manipulating people's "attention" for profit should be banned? Experimenting on the masses using high tier shrinks should probably be banned.
However the better option is to just ban it for yourself.
Where I get annoyed about this ban is the technical and political aspects of "how". The UK government already facilitate many 3rd party identity verification providers like Yoti set to make an absolutely fortune in 2027. The government side technical infra to receive the data is running in billion dollar deals with Oracle including AI infra.
If such a ban goes the way the OSA seems to point, it will simply happen that you open Facebook or YouTube and it says, "Submit to a biometric facescan to prove you are over 16"
At this point it does not matter if you are 12, 15, 16, 72 or 50. You will be asked to submit to the "age" check.
From experience of having to go through the full Digital ID (by the backdoor) sign up for a job background check I can tell you ... it doesn't go very well. If any of your documentation is expired, even by 24 hours, it will be rejected outright. If any two of the additional options do not exactly coorelate, eg, First Middle Surname is noted as Middle First Surname on one document... they all get rejected.
In the case of employment, the employer is "legally required" to check manually for the right to work and identity, receiving copies of those documents. Meta, YouTube et. al... and the 3rd parties they use have no such legal requirements. So if YouTube dislikes you photo, dislikes your passport and driving license... tough. You get a kiddy account or banned.
Worse. If you are not a "Happy path" case. If your "on device" facescan fails. It is likely your entire flow will be added to an analysis and training database. ie. stored where it can be leaked. This is the most common leak route from this infra. If your check fails, it gets sent to another database and another 3rd party agency receives the full file for review. This consultancy layer leaks like a sieve.
-
the interesting part is the research that shows contrary to the 'harm' idea. I wonder if in 10 years it will be seen like the crazy 80's assault on fat in food. I don't think kids are ever too 'good' and parents always wanna blame something to exonerate their kids. A school teacher knows how many parents are with assigning blame. They already have a history of nonsense involving 'brain scans' and chicken eggs to prove 'scary' points. "look at this scary blob we decided to color red on a heat map of a scan of a system we barely understand".. thats usually how far the 'science' goes
-
It's straight up commie-ism.
Just look at what china is doing, a complete real-life copy of Black Mirror "Nosedive" !
If you want a safe internet, or an "E" rating equivalent, then go after those who put up shit content. Trying to solve the problem by going after the users is as stupid as it gets.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jJeSgO_MGo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jJeSgO_MGo)
-
the interesting part is the research that shows contrary to the 'harm' idea. I wonder if in 10 years it will be seen like the crazy 80's assault on fat in food. I don't think kids are ever too 'good' and parents always wanna blame something to exonerate their kids. A school teacher knows how many parents are with assigning blame. They already have a history of nonsense involving 'brain scans' and chicken eggs to prove 'scary' points. "look at this scary blob we decided to color red on a heat map of a scan of a system we barely understand".. thats usually how far the 'science' goes
The crazy 80s "fatty food" thing is nothing different from the current day "Sugar is poison" non-sense.
Your kid is getting fat because they don't exercise and they eat like a horse.
Your weight and much of you diet/appetite is decided while you are in your Mum's womb. If you are a heavy weight person, ask you Mum what and how she was eating in pregnancy.
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-to-ban-social-media-for-under-16s-following-australia/?action=dlattach;attach=2845578;image)
-
It's straight up commie-ism.
Just look at what china is doing, a complete real-life copy of Black Mirror "Nosedive" !
If you want a safe internet, or an "E" rating equivalent, then go after those who put up shit content. Trying to solve the problem by going after the users is as stupid as it gets.
... and how do you that precisely? The social media companies have demonstrated that they are unwilling / incapable of going after the shit peddlers, even when called out. Musk, in his quest for 'free speech', unblocked a whole lot of unacceptable shit peddlers when he took of over twitter. They're never going to weed out harmful content that makes them loads of cash. They will always be ahead of the regulators and slow to take reported stuff down, while polishing their cleaner than clean public images.
-
It's straight up commie-ism.
Just look at what china is doing, a complete real-life copy of Black Mirror "Nosedive" !
If you want a safe internet, or an "E" rating equivalent, then go after those who put up shit content. Trying to solve the problem by going after the users is as stupid as it gets.
... and how do you that precisely? The social media companies have demonstrated that they are unwilling / incapable of going after the shit peddlers, even when called out. Musk, in his quest for 'free speech', unblocked a whole lot of unacceptable shit peddlers when he took of over twitter. They're never going to weed out harmful content that makes them loads of cash. They will always be ahead of the regulators and slow to take reported stuff down, while polishing their cleaner than clean public images.
The problem comes from online content that is available only to those who are allowed to subscribe, meaning the content is not always open to the public.
Govt needs laws that 1) make social media platforms the actual publisher, not unlike books, and 2) law that allows Govt to comb the publisher's content.
And yes, it's dicey to allow Govt to comb data where we believe such content should be 100% private. But if we want to strike a balance, due to the problems social media has brought us, then something with teeth needs to be selected.
When I say "Govt" I perhaps mean a hired 3rd party ran by public interests (Parents of Kids, Clean Internet, etc) that decide what technology to use to find the shit content (which will be AI), from there the red-flagged stuff gets reported to law enforcement.
Pros & Cons.
-
Yes, free market can work well for lots of things.
But social media is like a pollution on society, we do not allow a factory to spew out toxic gases because it is a "common space" that we all breathe, why should we allow social media to drive people "mad" in the same way?
I honestly believe Facebook and its related ilk will go down as top 5 worst inventions of the 21st century, if not first place, looking back on this in 50 years time. No hyperbole here.
-
wonder if the new boss will be the same as the old boss
-
So while I agree social media is bad for kids. No agruements there. In fact I would go as far as to say that "Social media" the core of it, aka FB, IG, Tiktok etc. are bad for EVERYONE.
Yes. And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
This is not the job of the government.
I see only two reason to do this.
Kids might even get the word out about their sa, or ask for help, and the current and past UK governments institutionally wanted to sweep that under the rug.
And there has been a large number of arrests happening in the UK due to social media.
This is just some ridiculous amount of bullshit happening there. You expect this to go on in some religious dictatorship to go on, not in west Europe.
-
And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
And in an ideal world that would be the only correct stance. Unfortunately, we don't any of us live there. Most people can reproduce. Fewer have what is required to be a good parent. There are still far too many infantilised adults raising offspring who will be very lucky to 'break the mold', much less realise the need to do so.
A sensible society cannot just sit back and assume that all parents can do the right thing, or even appreciate what that might be in a given situation. Some don't have the first interest in doing so.
So there does need to be some level of backstop via government to catch those who would otherwise fall.
-
And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
And in an ideal world that would be the only correct stance. Unfortunately, we don't any of us live there.
No unfortunately not. To make the discussion short, I don't want the government to have anything to do with the religious stance, sexual orientation and (extreme left wing) political orientation teaching of my children.
Since they absolutely do do that now, and people seem unable to compromise, at all, the only way forward for me is stonewalling any argument about it. No. It's not the government's kid.
A sensible society
What you call a sensible society, I see batshit crazy lunatics from both sides.
BTW I just saw that Keir resigned. So maybe it's time to close the thread. Unless the next idiot continues where he left off.
-
Well. now that Starmer is out............... :-//
-
Because you think the new one will be any better? :popcorn:
-
Because you think the new one will be any better? :popcorn:
Not sure. Historically speaking, it's been a shitshow there for a long time.
-
Yes. And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
This is not the job of the government.
That's a very Utopian view to take. Utopia being famously a place that does not exist.
The unavailability of the ideal solution is not an excuse for not seeking another. I would say that it takes courage to deal with difficult problems and putting ones head in the sand until the ideal solution fixes everything is to vainly hope they go away.
Furthermore it may not be the job of the government to decide what is good for kids. But kids can't do it for themselves and it certainly shouldn't be up to to a social media company with the conflicted interest of making money for shareholders. Far better to put it in the hands of elected representatives. They might actually do it one day.
-
Because you think the new one will be any better? :popcorn:
Not sure. Historically speaking, it's been a shitshow there for a long time.
Indeed, 4 prime ministers in 4 years. That's some power vacuum chaos. I can't help but believe its due to the severe polarization of politics these days.
-
And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
And in an ideal world that would be the only correct stance. Unfortunately, we don't any of us live there. Most people can reproduce. Fewer have what is required to be a good parent. There are still far too many infantilised adults raising offspring who will be very lucky to 'break the mold', much less realise the need to do so.
A sensible society cannot just sit back and assume that all parents can do the right thing, or even appreciate what that might be in a given situation. Some don't have the first interest in doing so.
So there does need to be some level of backstop via government to catch those who would otherwise fall.
In an ideal world the government doesn't want mass surveillance or expanding power and doesn't arrest people saying things they don't like. In the real world absolute power corrupts absolutely so government overreach needs to be prevented.
-
Yes. And it's up to the parents to decide what is good and what isn't for their kids.
This is not the job of the government.
That's a very Utopian view to take. Utopia being famously a place that does not exist.
The unavailability of the ideal solution is not an excuse for not seeking another. I would say that it takes courage to deal with difficult problems and putting ones head in the sand until the ideal solution fixes everything is to vainly hope they go away.
Furthermore it may not be the job of the government to decide what is good for kids. But kids can't do it for themselves and it certainly shouldn't be up to to a social media company with the conflicted interest of making money for shareholders. Far better to put it in the hands of elected representatives. They might actually do it one day.
It's been the parent, and the local tribe's job for about a million year now. Or if you don't believe in that, then 6000 years.
Just think about the "government" as some childless cat lady who was elected by some people on the other side of the country, with completely differential political views than yours. Who are absolutely fine with brainwashing your kid.
Besides if you read that particular recent report, the UK government, local officials, police, child protective services should be kept as far away from your children as possible. It's much much worse than anything I ever imagined.
-
It's been the parent, and the local tribe's job for about a million year now. Or if you don't believe in that, then 6000 years.
Yes. Both. Millions of years ago, wild tribes. 6,000 years ago, civilisations/societies, self domestication.
Everyone knew the village idiot. They didn't get to broadcast to the world.
Everyone knew the creeps. Creeps got dealt with.
Everyone else looked out for each other. When a teenager was "on the loose" there were never far from a pair of eyes which could send messages to the parents. Stuff got dealt with in communities. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
That "Village" has gone. The villiage idiot now has a facebook channel and a youtube channel with a following.
The eyes behind the curtain at No.28 ... nobody knows who they are. The "pastor" that might have a run a decent YouthClub now can't afford the liability insurance because of "good minded parents" and fear of that particular systems record.
Gone in 20 years. Still going. COVID whacked it over the head the last time it tried to rise. Or rather, COVID brought it out in people naturally. Community spirity, get to gether under shared threat. Then social media and polarising politics (masks, vaccines) beat it over the head and put it back out of the count.
This is somewhere around the point I think society will actually break soon. Have no idea of the trigger, but I see a backlash against globalisation coming.
-
Indeed, 4 prime ministers in 4 years. That's some power vacuum chaos. I can't help but believe its due to the severe polarization of politics these days.
And it's not just about the quality or ethics of politicians themselves, we're their enablers. The electorate's of many countries are starting to reap the benefits of the politics they have come to deserve.
Powers of rational, reasoned debate, healthy pragmatism, a sense of proportion have all given way to dog whistling and constant ad hominem attacks. You only need to look at the inflammatory language some posters constantly use in these forums. Everyone who's views or politics they don't share are 'clowns' and 'idiots'. Every conversation sees someone spitting venom. There's no empathy or tolerance, and no appreciation that many of the situations we expect our leaders to tackle are not only complex multi-decade problems. Everyone wants overnight change and no one wants to face the reality that we can't any longer have it all - low taxation with excellent public services and high standards of living are a fantasy if you don't already have that.
We, the people, are doing this to ourselves. If you want to talk about control by our governments, first please speak to how we are being controlled by the constant drip feed of agitation via MSM and social media. They are the king makers now.
This nonsense means that in the UK we're now about to have yet another change of PM. Enter a man who has said nothing whatsoever to the electorate during his 'campaign' as to what he stands for, or how his approach will be different from that of the man he's replacing. But that's somehow ok because the BBC interviewed a woman this morning who said that she'd met him once and "he was a nice man".
-
The last time I tracked the money on this I found Oracle and TBI at the bottom.
I was stupid enough to ask an LLM "Is it just about money?"
Expecting. Yes.
Thats not what it said. What it gave me was actually fairly terrifying. Larry Ellison is a signed and certified "Totalitarian" nut job!
If you want to know why the PM change and why "who next". I would suggest looking at the TBI and whos in favour to have a run at Larry's ideas next.
Also... right at the moment this is all (data collection and centralisation) about to kick off. "Coincidentally" the UK Information Comissioner got ousted. The ICO is now headless and toothless. I doubt the EU will lift a finger, why would they, UK has it's own GDPR and juristiction.
-
Indeed, 4 prime ministers in 4 years. That's some power vacuum chaos. I can't help but believe its due to the severe polarization of politics these days.
And it's not just about the quality or ethics of politicians themselves, we're their enablers. The electorate's of many countries are starting to reap the benefits of the politics they have come to deserve.
Powers of rational, reasoned debate, healthy pragmatism, a sense of proportion have all given way to dog whistling and constant ad hominem attacks. You only need to look at the inflammatory language some posters constantly use in these forums. Everyone who's views or politics they don't share are 'clowns' and 'idiots'. Every conversation sees someone spitting venom. There's no empathy or tolerance, and no appreciation that many of the situations we expect our leaders to tackle are not only complex multi-decade problems. Everyone wants overnight change and no one wants to face the reality that we can't any longer have it all - low taxation with excellent public services and high standards of living are a fantasy if you don't already have that.
We, the people, are doing this to ourselves. If you want to talk about control by our governments, first please speak to how we are being controlled by the constant drip feed of agitation via MSM and social media. They are the king makers now.
This nonsense means that in the UK we're now about to have yet another change of PM. Enter a man who has said nothing whatsoever to the electorate during his 'campaign' as to what he stands for, or how his approach will be different from that of the man he's replacing. But that's somehow ok because the BBC interviewed a woman this morning who said that she'd met him once and "he was a nice man".
Indeed it is wild and I agree. It does appear to me that modern society has let itself be led to warring factions by the "new" entertainment channels and the social media system algorithm that has determined that rage is the best way to get eyes on advertisements.
In the US, before 1988 anyone broadcasting on the airwaves had to present balanced views. You couldn't present one side without including the others.
I've certainly seen the issue with people calling or implying others are dumb with impunity on this forum. And this is just about the only social media I'll do because the others are just complete dumpster fires.
If this legal stuff to limit children access was replaced with govern platforms for balance and make hate driven algorithms illegal I could see it as more helpful.
The UK is a great country. I remain hopeful for the leadership change.
-
yea 6 pm's in 10 years is a bit of a joke,but at least ours bugger of when there popularity wanes instead of trying to rig the system to hold onto power.
-
yea 6 pm's in 10 years is a bit of a joke,but at least ours bugger of when there popularity wanes instead of trying to rig the system to hold onto power.
I've never seen any politician not try to rig the system to hold onto power in general. Maybe the ones that retire on their own accord but not all of them.
Probably the ones that die in office are likely not trying rig it but who knows what powers the afterlife brings.
-
yea 6 pm's in 10 years is a bit of a joke,but at least ours bugger of when there popularity wanes instead of trying to rig the system to hold onto power.
I've never seen any politician not try to rig the system to hold onto power in general. Maybe the ones that retire on their own accord but not all of them.
Probably the ones that die in office are likely not trying rig it but who knows what powers the afterlife brings.
The power is another thing, but once you've been in the pm job in the UK for even just one day you get the pension for life... easy street for the rest of their days, however much they screwed the job up.
-
yea 6 pm's in 10 years is a bit of a joke,but at least ours bugger of when there popularity wanes instead of trying to rig the system to hold onto power.
I've never seen any politician not try to rig the system to hold onto power in general. Maybe the ones that retire on their own accord but not all of them.
Probably the ones that die in office are likely not trying rig it but who knows what powers the afterlife brings.
The power is another thing, but once you've been in the pm job in the UK for even just one day you get the pension for life... easy street for the rest of their days, however much they screwed the job up.
There's money in the power too. Pelosi is a famous example in the US congress who has somehow always been able to pick great stocks to invest in. Amazingly so many congress people enter office relatively average if not some poor and become amazingly wealthy rapidly. And, as much as these waring political factions seem to want to portray they don't like each other, none of them appear to be interested in putting in laws and policies to be sure that unethical or unseemly enrichment is eliminated.
I am a fan that whatever your current income is, is what you get while serving. If you make less due to service you are made whole, if you are making the same then you get nothing. I don't think that it should offer a retirement fund at all. That encourages career politicians and I for one don't think that's good.
I wasn't aware that they were funded for life once they served one day. I'm ready for my day in office. :)
-
Because you think the new one will be any better? :popcorn:
Not sure. Historically speaking, it's been a shitshow there for a long time.
The next one, Burnham, seems to be almost a clone. :clap:
-
In an ideal world the government doesn't want mass surveillance or expanding power and doesn't arrest people saying things they don't like. In the real world absolute power corrupts absolutely so government overreach needs to be prevented.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a government at all. The worst mass murders and genocides in human history were made possible by governments possessing enough power and resources to carry them out on a massive scale.
That's why I don't see the problem merely as "government overreach". The existence of an institution that claims a monopoly on force creates the risk in the first place. History repeatedly shows that powers granted for protection are later used for control, terror and crime.
Governments usually present themselves as protectors and providers, but even when governments genuinely provide useful services, they do so not in good faith, but because those services help them acquire legitimacy, dependence, and power, which is later used for surveillance, coercion, censorship, war, repression, etc. That is why concentration of power itself should be viewed with skepticism.
Your comment reminded me of a story that illustrates this concern perfectly. I even saved it:
The most dangerous deal is not the one that attacks you.
It is the one that makes you feel safe while taking everything.
A flock of sheep lived in fear of the tigers beyond the valley.
Then a wolf arrived. 🐺
He did not threaten them.
He did not chase them.
He came with glasses, a calm voice, and an offer.
“Let me protect you,” he said.
“No tiger will come near this valley.
In return, I ask for only one sheep each month.”
The flock looked at one another.
“Only one a month?”
“That is better than living in fear every day.”
“At least now we have protection.” 🌿
So they agreed.
At first, the deal looked wise.
The wolf drove the tigers away.
The valley grew quiet.
The fear began to fade.
Month after month, the grass stayed peaceful.
No attacks.
No panic.
Just one sheep gone each time.
And because the danger outside disappeared, the flock stopped noticing the danger within. 🍂
By the time they understood the truth, the valley was almost empty.
They were no longer afraid of the tigers.
They were afraid of the one collecting the price.
By the twelfth month, only one sheep remained.
The wolf stepped forward with a polite smile.
“Today is the final payment for your protection plan.
As promised, not a single tiger touched you”.
The last sheep looked at him and said:
“Yes... you protected us from the tigers, only so you could keep us all for yourself”.
⚠️ Lesson
That is how people lose everything.
Not all ruin arrives with noise.
Sometimes it comes dressed like order.
Calm voice. Clear terms. Small cost.
And that is why people accept it.
They think they are buying peace.
They do not see they are feeding the thing that will finish them slowly.
A bad deal is rarely obvious at the beginning.
It usually feels reasonable.
Manageable.
Even smart.
Until one day the price is no longer small.
It is your freedom.
Your peace.
Your future.
So the real question is never only,
“Does this solve today’s fear?”
The real question is,
“What is this teaching me to tolerate?”
And who becomes stronger every time I agree?
Because some protectors do not protect.
They simply make sure no one else touches what they want to keep for themselves.
💬 What lesson do you take from this story?
At what moment should the sheep have seen the truth?
To me, this old story about sheep and wolves perfectly illustrates the logic behind proposals to restrict internet access through ID verification "for the protection of children". So, it becomes clear what is actually behind all the loud rhetoric about ID verification.
-
In the UK there are no tigers or wolves, but those darned Heffalumps are always a threat... they tell us...
-
In the UK there are no tigers or wolves, but those darned Heffalumps are always a threat... they tell us...
Chickens and foxes then.
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
I think governments should be banned for anyone under 40. People need a chance to experience freedom before deciding how much slavery they're willing to accept. :)
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
I prefer anti-social media.
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
Perhaps there are other life critical skills that should be delayed until cognitive maturity; for example, jury duty, driving a vehicle, parenting?
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
Perhaps there are other life critical skills that should be delayed until cognitive maturity; for example, jury duty, driving a vehicle, parenting?
Yes, and add voting to that list.
I think that the fact that pre-adolescent kids all over the world are killing themselves over negative postings about them on Social Media is inescapable proof that many of them are incapable of enough maturity to be on Social Media at that age.
The anti-gun media used to demand a total and complete ban on private ownership of guns in the US claiming that "if it saves one child, then it's worth it". I think the same can be said about a ban of pre-adolescent children on Social Media.
All of the things that you brought up are already banned for children in most countries. I don't know of any jurisdiction that allows 16 year olds to serve on a jury, to drive without significant restrictions, or to marry without parental consent or to even engage in sex at that age (statutory rape is the term for that in the US).
-
In the US, you can sign up with your parents permission to the military at age 16. I did. During the 2 years before active duty you will train. At 18 you will enjoy the right to be a the trigger of some amazingly deadly weapons. Or even a part of a team that maintains nuclear arms. Drives a 3 billion dollar sub. Gard the president and other members of state. Visit strange countries to you, meet strange people to you, then, well, we know what happens then.
-
I think social media should be banned for anyone under 30 y/o. No joke. Your brain isn't fully developed until you're into your 20's, and I think you need some time as an adult WITHOUT social media to understand and decide how it COULD be incorporated into your ADULT life.
Perhaps there are other life critical skills that should be delayed until cognitive maturity; for example, jury duty, driving a vehicle, parenting?
I don't know of any jurisdiction that allows 16 year olds to serve on a jury, to drive without significant restrictions, or to marry without parental consent or to even engage in sex at that age (statutory rape is the term for that in the US).
Well if you bothered to read the post I was replying to, MikeK was suggesting the minimum age be 30 years old, NOT 16.
i.e. if a 28-year old is too immature for social media, are they also too immature to serve on a jury, drive unrestricted, and marry?
-
In the UK there are no tigers or wolves, but those darned Heffalumps are always a threat... they tell us...
Chickens and foxes then.
Fish and chips.
-
In the UK there are no tigers or wolves, but those darned Heffalumps are always a threat... they tell us...
Chickens and foxes then.
Fish and chips.
With lots of acid
-
In the US, you can sign up with your parents permission to the military at age 16. I did. During the 2 years before active duty you will train. At 18 you will enjoy the right to be a the trigger of some amazingly deadly weapons. Or even a part of a team that maintains nuclear arms. Drives a 3 billion dollar sub. Gard the president and other members of state. Visit strange countries to you, meet strange people to you, then, well, we know what happens then.
The military has a particular way of making you grow up fast into what they want/need. Not exactly a "fair" comparison.
Not unless you support the concept of mandatory military service. Quite a few countries have it as 1 year of service before 30yo. The idea is, the country can run a smaller peace time defensive military and if war actually breaks out the "Draftees" already know how to break down, clean and rebuild, then fire a rifle.
-
In the US, you can sign up with your parents permission to the military at age 16. I did. During the 2 years before active duty you will train. At 18 you will enjoy the right to be a the trigger of some amazingly deadly weapons. Or even a part of a team that maintains nuclear arms. Drives a 3 billion dollar sub. Gard the president and other members of state. Visit strange countries to you, meet strange people to you, then, well, we know what happens then.
The military has a particular way of making you grow up fast into what they want/need. Not exactly a "fair" comparison.
Not unless you support the concept of mandatory military service. Quite a few countries have it as 1 year of service before 30yo. The idea is, the country can run a smaller peace time defensive military and if war actually breaks out the "Draftees" already know how to break down, clean and rebuild, then fire a rifle.
I didn't consider it a comparison per se. I was intended to introduce the concept that arbitrary barriers often have substantial gaps. The same solder that I was at 18 was also barred from having a beer but I could die for my country. Though having a drinking age seems perfectly sensible.
-
The anti-gun media used to demand a total and complete ban on private ownership of guns in the US claiming that "if it saves one child, then it's worth it". I think the same can be said about a ban of pre-adolescent children on Social Media.
I'm actually afraid the opposite could happen.
We've all heard about Epstein's island and other cases where powerful people managed to hide terrible crimes for years. One reason such things eventually come to light is that someone is willing to speak out.
If social media starts requiring government ID, platforms will know exactly who everyone is. That makes it much easier to identify and pressure people who expose information that powerful interests would rather keep hidden.
You know how it works... When anyone exposing wrongdoing can be directly identified, it becomes much easier to apply pressure or retaliation. This creates a chilling effect, where people may choose silence over speaking out. And that’s exactly why mandatory ID requirements in social media and online spaces are so controversial, they discourage people from coming forward at all. And you can see that this shit happens in many countries these days.
So, when you say "If it saves even one child, it's worth it"... I'd apply exactly the same principle here. If banning mandatory ID requirements for social media and the Internet could help save even one child by protecting anonymous reporting, then such a ban is worth having.
Even if some of them turn out to be false, that is still a better trade-off than discouraging people from speaking out about real wrongdoing. False claims can be investigated and filtered out, but what is far more dangerous is a situation where people are afraid to speak openly at all.
We already have well-established systems for witness protection in serious criminal cases, where people can change their identity, location, and personal records to reduce the risk of retaliation from organized crime.
That is precisely because exposing powerful criminals can be dangerous.
So the question is: why would we design online systems in a way that makes it easier, not harder, to identify and pressure people who speak out about wrongdoing?
-
Honestly, I don’t even care much about social media in itself. In practice, users there are already relatively easy to identify, and that is exactly what makes such platforms easy to influence: it allows selective silencing of inconvenient voices while amplifying low-effort narratives that are easy to push at scale. Over time, this tends to shape large, highly predictable and easily manipulated audiences.
However, mandatory ID verification is a fundamentally different step. It moves from de facto traceability to enforced identity, and that is where the real concern begins — because it significantly raises the cost and risk of speaking against those who control the system, effectively shifting platforms toward a model where dissent becomes structurally constrained.
-
The anti-gun media used to demand a total and complete ban on private ownership of guns in the US claiming that "if it saves one child, then it's worth it". I think the same can be said about a ban of pre-adolescent children on Social Media.
We've all heard about Epstein's island and other cases where powerful people managed to hide terrible crimes for years. One reason such things eventually come to light is that someone is willing to speak out.
Is it "conspirator thinking" to suggest the "terrible crimes" were just where they (law) could attack the regime? The only purchase "law" could have on that group of powerful people? Themselves probably trapped deliberately by those same crimes, tempted and then blackmailed.
The question I ask is... what else where they conspiring together on that island in that power steeped social group. I can bet you it will now have been good.
But it's way off topic, so probably best either ignored or left as rhetorical.