Gavin Deichen

Wow, that guy seems to be close buddies with all the worst religious people 😬

I think I'd prefer it if they were just honest about it and openly platformed a government spokesperson to explain their party's point of view - then maybe picked it apart afterwards 🤷🏻‍♂️

A state broadcaster that pretends not to be seems like the worst possible approach.

21st century Capitalism can be more or less summed up as "make literally everything a subscription service"

"We think"

No evidence, no studies, just an idea.

Except even that is likely a lie - a justification for mistreatment. Do they really even think this, or is it an excuse?

I think they're still out there, having their sad little conversations about imaginary threats, but they're much less prominent.

Plus they're having to cope with getting everything they campaigned for, and it not being followed by the Day of Enlightenment when their family came back.

Yeah… not ideal. And there's the psychological damage of getting into those fights without even gaining anything.

That doesn't mean that being faultlessly polite and respectful is necessarily the best tactic, either, though.

Meta don't do things because people want them, though, they do them because they think that there'll be profit in people feeling obliged to use them.

These guys have probably seen Black Mirror - they know people find this stuff creepy. They probably see a market among the grieving.

Eh, it's probably more important to be charismatic than nice. That "audience" may be baying for blood.

It sounds ideal, but what's to stop them picking up slightly different subsets of the disaffected voter populous, then merging back together just before the election?

And possibly including the Tories, too.

Heck, and maybe the Lib Dems, if they're offered some pathetic incentive.

That looks super handy for shaking the rust out each morning 👍🏻

If stating that this is "the most urgent public health issue" isn't enough of a red flag for you, I don't know what to say.

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆

It's telling how quiet big tech are being about this stuff.

They'd be absolutely delighted to have a new generation of Facebook boomers.

And once all this crap legislation kills all the smaller players, the big names will be the only game in town.

You've become a fanatic.

Do yourself a favour and distance yourself from the hate movement that's ruined your worldview.

You're wasting your life hating on minorities on the Internet.

I'm expecting some clause that my organs now legally belong to Peter Thiel or something.

The lack of resistance from the big names in this arena right now is quite telling, I think! They know they can just suck up all the users on the basis of trust / brand as soon as they reach whatever she is deemed acceptable.

We could end up making it harder for younger people to access mainstream adult content, but the "nasty algorithms" the anti-smartphone crowd are complaining about could end up fully intact.

Of course, smaller forums for younger people will likely be ruined, forcing everything onto Facebook.

Anyone following the way this debate has developed at Westminster over the past year may think that a social media ban for under 16s is inevitable. Within months, the government has gone from saying a ban would be unworkable to sounding on the verge of implementing one. But, in interviews this morning, Liz Kendall, the technology secretary, stressed that this was nota done deal. She told the Today Programme: "We do think it's right to have a consultation on whether or not to ban social media for the under-16s Lots of people have made up their minds, Lord Nash (the Tory peer who tabled the amendment that led to the government defeat in January) included. But let me just say this. There are organisations, including the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, who are worried that a ban wouldn't solve the problem because it would just force some of this stuff deeper [into the dark web], that the children would try and get around it, that it would create a cliff edge at 16. So I think it is the right and responsible thing to do to have a consultation."

Mmm. Liz Kendall says a social media ban for under 16s isn't inevitable.

In practice it seems unworkable - how do you prove that someone is over 16?

My guess is that we'll end up with major players being able to claim sufficient oversight and good enough quality age verification.

Everything they announce now has you waiting for the catch 😬

Lotta parents organising on WhatsApp to ban things for all kids because they don't have it in them to work with their own kids to moderate Internet usage.

It's kind of nuts because they're not even pretending that they're not doing this - this is actually the big sell.

Yeah, I'd be really surprised if they didn't do this.

The "protecting kids" line is an easy sell, and "protecting kids from technology" is even easier.

And it plays into the hands of the tech giants, so what's not to like (if you're a cynical neoliberal government with no principles.)

Trying to out-right the right is a losing formula and probably makes for even worse policy than the right themselves would have put in place.

Possibly even worse, though - the "Blue Labour" crowd actually want this stuff.

The cultural influence of that website has also given cover for a lot of people who should be (and often claim to be) appalled by the antics of its owner to carry on using it, as though his influence doesn't hugely distort what users see.

Versatile skills learned for an extremely specific reason must be the origin story of a lot of competent people.

Unless they're trans, in which case you'll do your best to ruin their lives.

People say all sorts of things, though, don't they?

What was that thing about looking out of the fucking window..?

Someone with values 👍🏻

I kind of blame the system more than individuals, tbh… but landlord culture, oh god..!

This is it, working to achieve something and/or being reasonably compensated for one's time is fine - the idea that if you're not working in a conventional 9-5 paid job that's somehow bad for the universe is ridiculous.

Imagine if we had UBI now, we'd fixed rent somehow, disabled people got a top up, and everyone could live without fear of being unable to afford food…

Starmer's Labour would definitely be sad-facing cuts to UBI, citing people who should be working, as though it's a moral imperative.

Nobody actually believes in the whole Work Ethic thing like centrists. The right pretend to, the left openly critique the concept - but centrists are obsessed with means testing, etc. They hate the idea of people being able to exist without proving their worth through suffering.