Shouldn't our MPs (Farage in this case) know the UK doesn't have "Free Speech"

Oreo
This article from the Guardian claims that more young men subscribe to his site to gain knowledge on how to become successful and not so much on his views on women.
I hope that’s true.

www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/06/im-andrew-tates-audience-and-i-know-why-he-appeals-to-young-men

Galaxy

That isnt my particular concern with children and social media, its pornography and the impact it appears to be having on social functioning.

That’s certainly another area to really worry about.Teenage boys view this stuff ( of course they do!) and it affects the way they view women and girls.Not only do they have unrealistic ideas then about the way a girl should look, both body shape and lack of any body hair, but the way that women and girls should act to please boys and men.The lack of respect is frightening.They look up to such beasts as Andrew Tate.

That isnt my particular concern with children and social media, its pornography and the impact it appears to be having on social functioning.

HousePlantQueen

Galaxy

Well yes it is difficult, we cant not do things because they are difficult. I think we will look back at allowing children access to social media in the way we look back at smoking around children, etc.

Social media is not only a danger to children; as we know many supposed intelligent adults believe everything posted without any critical thought. Mind you, a lot of people believe everything they read in their favourite newspapers, so I suppose it isn't any different.

Many adults have biases that lead them to trust certain sources or narratives without questioning them, just as children may lack the maturity to navigate complex online environments or judge between fact and fiction on paper.

However, newspapers are subject to certain laws and regulations, such as defamation laws and standards of journalistic ethics, which help ensure a level of accountability. Not infallible, but at least controlled by our laws.

David49

With face recognition and official identity cards all if which can be processed automatically can be done now, with AI it will be easier.

Not having age confirmation is just an excuse, it can be done now. Maybe a few would get round the identity check, if 95% are excluded it ceases to work for chat.

I agree.
The tech raced ahead of critical thinking of the consequences of SM, tho still no excuse as experts and leaders sleepwalked into the whole scenario.We have let down our children horribly.

I'm saying that your category of 'extreme' capitalism is de facto capitalism. (MaizieD)

I would argue that what is often labelled as "extreme capitalism" can easily be understood as pure or laissez-faire capitalism, where market forces operate with minimal or no government intervention. This differs from regulated "capitalism", which incorporates checks and balances to protect public interests. It is not rocket science and I imagine most would easily recognise the difference.

Unfortunately it hasn't been controlled sufficiently over the past 40+ years because the most influential regimes in the 'Western World', notably the US, were influenced by Hayek and his disciple, Freidman, into rejecting the Keynesianism of the post WW2 period, and allowing greater market 'freedom' and a shrinking of the state. (MaizieD)

The result is what we have today. Greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy, ever rising inequality and the rise of populism. (MaizieD)

When describing capitalism's evolution over the last 40 years, we should consider other significant historical events and movements. Post-WW2 Keynesian consensus was, indeed, influential, but various factors, including globalization, technological advancements, and geopolitical changes post-Cold War, also played substantial roles in shaping economic landscapes. Acknowledging these complexities can provide a more nuanced understanding of why wealth concentration and inequality have grown.

Your argument attributes the current situation to the influence of Hayek and Friedman. However, other schools of thought have existed and influenced policy decisions throughout this period. For instance, institutional economics, behavioural economics, or even alternative economic models like degrowth or cooperative economies offer differing perspectives on how economies can function without leading to severe inequality.

The critique of insufficient regulation may also overlook the potential evidence suggesting that too much regulation can stifle innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Countries with varying degrees of market freedom have experienced diverse outcomes, indicating that the relationship between regulation and economic health is not linear.

The rise of inequality is indeed a concern, but it's worth questioning whether issues like technological disruption, changing labour markets, and shifts in education and skill requirements also contribute significantly to income disparity.

petra NHS budget is £181.4 billion so at a guess, it’s still a public health service?

HousePlantQueen

Galaxy

Well yes it is difficult, we cant not do things because they are difficult. I think we will look back at allowing children access to social media in the way we look back at smoking around children, etc.

Social media is not only a danger to children; as we know many supposed intelligent adults believe everything posted without any critical thought. Mind you, a lot of people believe everything they read in their favourite newspapers, so I suppose it isn't any different.

As witnessed on this very site 😱

Ronib
If the NHS isn’t being privatised at the moment how do you account for the fact that 18% of the NHS budget is paid to private companies.
These are figures from the Centre for health and the public interest ( 2019)
I would hazard a guess that it’s a few points higher now.

www.economicsobservatory.com/what-are-the-costs-of-privatisation-in-the-uks-healthcare-system#

Yes I think I probably agree. We dont allow children to smoke, this doesnt mean no children smoke.
I try not to be 'oh this new invention is awful', in the way that happened with the invention of the car, TV, etc. But I do think we have no idea how we have transformed society with the invention of internet, social media, it isnt surprising if we have got things wrong in how we approach it.

With face recognition and official identity cards all if which can be processed automatically can be done now, with AI it will be easier.

Not having age confirmation is just an excuse, it can be done now. Maybe a few would get round the identity check, if 95% are excluded it ceases to work for chat.

Galaxy

Well yes it is difficult, we cant not do things because they are difficult. I think we will look back at allowing children access to social media in the way we look back at smoking around children, etc.

Social media is not only a danger to children; as we know many supposed intelligent adults believe everything posted without any critical thought. Mind you, a lot of people believe everything they read in their favourite newspapers, so I suppose it isn't any different.

Well yes it is difficult, we cant not do things because they are difficult. I think we will look back at allowing children access to social media in the way we look back at smoking around children, etc.

At least with Musk and his wealth, what he says and does and wants are quite visible.

There are many others with wealth, who are pulling who knows what strings behind the scenes, and have done so for decades if not longer.

Though "two wrongs" dont make a right.

Galaxy

I hope one of the reasons Meta are doing that is they saw the damage done to children, lesbians, women when speech on the gender issue was suppressed. I think they have learnt from that.
If you want to protect children I would look at a cultural and legal shift where children can not access social media. I think or hope that will be in place in most countries within 5 -10 years.

It will be difficult to restrict children access to social media, however much many would like it. We should also consider the attraction of what is forbidden.

I am not saying I am not concerned about what children are exposed to, but think that we would be better policing what can be on SM, rather than who has access

Maremia

Farage may only be a 'small cog' at the moment, but he gets an awful lot of air time to promote himself. He has a lot of influence, and should not be underestimated.

Absolutely true! If we think Trump can't touch us because he's American and Farage can't because he's an idiot, we're putting our heads in the sand. Not least because a lot of very bad people don't operate by the standards of Jolly Nice People.

Galaxy

I hope one of the reasons Meta are doing that is they saw the damage done to children, lesbians, women when speech on the gender issue was suppressed. I think they have learnt from that.
If you want to protect children I would look at a cultural and legal shift where children can not access social media. I think or hope that will be in place in most countries within 5 -10 years.

That is a tad naive I think.

Meta has stated that it is intent on following the example of X.

Zuckerman has made it clear that the decision was simply prompted by the incoming Trump presidency and nothing else. There is nothing altruistic in this decision.

For the time being Zuckerman has kept the change to the USA, but we know that Trump has already suggested it should be made world wide.

Imo, Meta has made a bad ethical error.

Galaxy

I hope one of the reasons Meta are doing that is they saw the damage done to children, lesbians, women when speech on the gender issue was suppressed. I think they have learnt from that.
If you want to protect children I would look at a cultural and legal shift where children can not access social media. I think or hope that will be in place in most countries within 5 -10 years.

So you think that abandoning moderation and fact checking is going toy make Meta hunkydory for these groups?

Of course, there aren't any misogynists infesting Meta already with anti women hate speech?

I hope one of the reasons Meta are doing that is they saw the damage done to children, lesbians, women when speech on the gender issue was suppressed. I think they have learnt from that.
If you want to protect children I would look at a cultural and legal shift where children can not access social media. I think or hope that will be in place in most countries within 5 -10 years.

Whitewavemark2

David49

Free Speech is a question of degree do we really want anybody can spread whatever lie or abuse the choose. I certainly don’t, on the other hand we don’t want the whole media censored as in China and a few other places.

If we are to have restricted content who is going to decide?.

We already have a law that deals with this, and Meta has, up to now been complying.

We do have that law but how do we enforce it.

David49

Free Speech is a question of degree do we really want anybody can spread whatever lie or abuse the choose. I certainly don’t, on the other hand we don’t want the whole media censored as in China and a few other places.

If we are to have restricted content who is going to decide?.

We already have a law that deals with this, and Meta has, up to now been complying.

The very very last people you want to decide.

Free Speech is a question of degree do we really want anybody can spread whatever lie or abuse the choose. I certainly don’t, on the other hand we don’t want the whole media censored as in China and a few other places.

If we are to have restricted content who is going to decide?.

Getting back to the free speech discussion.

Apparently Meta’sdecision to no longer police and limit on line speech, is likely to come into direct conflict with both EU and U.K. law.

For example posters will no longer be prevented from suggesting that Trans people, or gay folk etc can now be described as suffering from a mental illness. Teenagers and young children will no longer be protected against pornographic or violent content. It has been suggested that Trump intends to challenge the UKs Law Online Safety Act.

These are just a couple of areas that will no longer have any built in integrity or policing.

Meta needs to outline how, children will be protected from harm on a site where it seems no limit to content is the future.

Forgot to mention green energy too.