Like with the misnamed Children's Wellbeing Bill (now Act), which incidentally gave the government the ability to do this without further parliamentary scrutiny, this is a measure aimed at control and ignores the herd of elephants in the room that are actually the root cause of the problem.
If the government could actually demonstrate that they were listening to those who will be most impacted by this and then make adjustments to suit, then they might stand half a chance of coming up with something that might address the root cause and be something most people would agree with.
But they don't. They plough on like a juggernaut riding rough shod over all the concerns raised and ignoring them pretending they don't matter.
People matter. Parents matter. Children matter. Pretending that putting a giant fence round the cess pool will stop the pollution leaking into the younger parts of society is foolish and ultimately doomed to fail.
Someone sensible in Europe has just sensibly pointed out that if you have an algorithm determining what content is presented to the user then you are a publisher and should be bound by the same content rules as other publishers. That seems like a far better start to addressing the content issues on social media than a rushed an ill thought out ban.
If any of this was about children then a different solution would be adopted. All that would be needed would be to impose a stipulation that every web service that invites user participation should have a minimum subscription of 1p collected by direct debit. That would exclude children automatically without inhibiting the freedom of adults to criticise this terrible government (which is the real aim of the policy).
There are two issues here: the idea, and the man presenting the idea. The problem is that the man presenting the idea has spent any good will that was coming his way (not much to be honest) on things that are objectively stupid such as the Palestine action farce, the on again/off again bedroom tax, cold weather payment, add your own particular peeve. This all goes back to the fact that he was a remarkably dishonest person after winning the election. How many things were promised and then just binned? He apparently thinks people don't notice this: they do. In the same way they see Labour councillors trying to do a stitch up with Reform at Birmingham council, and then turn around and blame the Greens, the Lib Dems and the Tories for what they themselves were trying to do. Every criticism is a confession (see also: Trump). I'm not a hater of Starmer, but I recognise the pattern of failing upwards. I also hold no brief for Andy Burnham (my taste would be for Angela Rayner as leader, partly for the amusement factor, but I also think she'd genuinely make a good leader) but someone has to sort this fuck-witted mess out.
What a load of twaddle. METRO headline stay was leading on the father of the girl who took her life over social media- saying the ban would be “dreadful”. Bollocks! Now you are bleating about it. What’s not to like. If you are a parent this is manna from heaven. Now we don’t have to defend ourselves from our kids saying “…but everyone has it” etc etc. Lewis-your antipathy towards Starmer is clouding your judgement. Either that or you’ve started smoking drugs.
I heard the dreadful Liz Kendall on LBC this morning defending Starmer’s statement. It was appallingly clear that despite being Sec of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, she has absolutely no idea of a. how any of the technology works, and b. how to actually implement the ban.
This Government has a very poor record when it comes to “big” policy announcements, with or without a White Paper. A prime example was the “Get Britain Working” disaster. It failed for the very simple reason that no proper work had been done prior to the announcement. All the consultations, such as they were, and all the evidence gathering was forced upon - oh, who was it, yes, Liz Kendall - after the Green Paper. The Paper itself relied on sparse evidence, some already discredited.
The result was policy based evidence, NOT evidence based policy. Disaster.
And here we are again. The front end of the pantomime horse making noises, unaware that those in the arse end have left.
The algorithmic veto framing is really interesting, and I think it extends further than the social media ban. The same dynamic is going to hit whoever succeeds Starmer, possibly harder. There's currently a gap in Burnham's policy position - he's committed to Reeves' fiscal rules but hasn't said who replaces Reeves, how nationalisation gets financed, or where the big spending commitments land. In the broadcast era you could fill that gap gradually - set-piece speeches, interviews, institutional trust doing some of the work. That's just not feasible now.
The digital ID case study is perfect for this because it had substantial public support until the algorithm got hold of it. Burnham's programme - nationalisation, devolution, public control of energy - has even more vulnerabilities. And unlike Starmer, he won't have the excuse of being a lame duck.
If we have learned nothing from Trump - and many people have not- it is that this is how things need to happen now.
Trump applies developer theory to everything. Outrageous opening stake that will fail but also knowing that by the time the agencies and authorities have got round to addressing the plan significant gains hhave been made. It’s all about tactics.
This action may not work but it will work in shifting a change in the social media giants who are in and out of Whitehall daily. It may be they now go “ oops we need to avoid more legislation- what can we offer.
I have long maintained that the privatisation of water and other utilities was not the core problem it was the abject and disgusting failure to police them.
If you know you can get away with trousering big bonuses for incompetence and know full well it’s a mate running the oversight board then hey ho just go for it. Unleash your inner Boris Johnson. Stick your snout in the trough happily because you know no one will be along with an electric prod.
That’s Starmer’s real failure just not bloody going for the bastards.
Can you also do a piece on how it might succeed please. There seems to be concerted effort by media to will it into not working. How about some optimism about how it could work.
People are too hung up on the enforcement. It does not need to be perfect, keeping 70% safer is better than what we have now.
People are also thinking too narrowly about it. This isn't just about age gating social media for the young, it's also about initiating a conversation and a cultural shift for the next generation. Just as with tobacco, it's part of a generational shift to improve health, in this case both physical and mental health.
Kids still manage to get hold of tobacco and drugs and porn, but the libertarians who cry "kids will workaround it" don't seem to be as vocal about workarounds to tobacco, drugs, and porn.
A great piece. Have to say I have some sympathy with barring under 16s from most social media platforms. Perhaps it will encourage kid friendly ones like Instagram for teens which is already a thing. Already YouTube Kids is exempt with many toddlers enjoying the videos. But what surprises me and makes me wonder who made this policy is the ‘curfew’ for 16-18 year olds. The 16-18 year olds who can procreate, join the armed forces and very soon vote in Westminster and other elections. I’m sorry but it makes no sense whatsoever and may also be over complex to implement. I suggest this will be the first to fall from the proposed ban. It is to be hoped that the rest of it does corece the tech giants into getting their acts together. Like everything, time will tell.
My concern is with the legislative method. By designing the rules around a blacklist/ whitelist model, to be filled in via ministerial whim (excuse me, by secondary legislation), two things happen.
First, the fine detail of which sites/apps are on which list becomes a commercial matter for some of the largest & wealthiest businesses ever conceived. Given they all have a track record with plenty of shadowy areas (eg. Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal, Musk's willingness to spend time and money interfering, Russia's seeming ease of hacking into all kinds of areas, etc) and the inherent lack of transparency of secondary legislation (maybe they'll just buy the Minister of the day some nice new clothes and a weekend break somewhere flashy?), we've no idea how 'safe' the end result will be.
Second, the precedent will be set for any future government to bend to whatever its core audience want. The spectre of a future Reform Minister deciding that crypto sites should be allowed for under 16s "for education purposes" because Harborne has bunged them another couple of million from his pocket change should be enough to persuade anyone this isn't the way to go about it.
Totally agree. This is not the final and only action they are taking. It's a starting point.
People are too hung up on the enforcement. It does not need to be perfect, keeping 70% safer is better than what we have now.
People are also thinking too narrowly about it. This isn't just about age gating social media for the young, it's also about initiating a conversation and a cultural shift for the next generation. Just as with tobacco, it's part of a generational shift to improve health, in this case both physical and mental health.
Kids still manage to get hold of tobacco and drugs and porn, but the libertarians who cry "kids will workaround it" don't seem to be as vocal about workarounds to tobacco, drugs, and porn.
Can I just say that this white print on a black background is extremely difficult to read comfortably. Probably my dyslexia but just letting you know. I enjoy your writing but can’t fight my way through this.
I’m arrogant enough to suggest a change or extension to the policy. It feels to me that the algorithm is the issue, and that’s an easy one to fix technically. Insist that under 16s have a different content selection algorithm that’s not based on attention hijacking. It could for example be based on popularity of content generated only by people under 16 in their network. Similarly I think all large social media companies should be force to implement an “open algorithm” for all users, where users can decide how they want content to be selected. Users should be able to prioritise based on whole network popularity, friend network popularity, and recency. They should also be able to downscore people in their network. “Network’s choice” could be another option - so users could still see the normal ranty muck the network wants to throw at them if they so wished. This is entirely technically feasible, and would go some way to calm the febrile online atmosphere.
I wish the government would set an example, lead from the front, and stop using X
Like with the misnamed Children's Wellbeing Bill (now Act), which incidentally gave the government the ability to do this without further parliamentary scrutiny, this is a measure aimed at control and ignores the herd of elephants in the room that are actually the root cause of the problem.
If the government could actually demonstrate that they were listening to those who will be most impacted by this and then make adjustments to suit, then they might stand half a chance of coming up with something that might address the root cause and be something most people would agree with.
But they don't. They plough on like a juggernaut riding rough shod over all the concerns raised and ignoring them pretending they don't matter.
People matter. Parents matter. Children matter. Pretending that putting a giant fence round the cess pool will stop the pollution leaking into the younger parts of society is foolish and ultimately doomed to fail.
Someone sensible in Europe has just sensibly pointed out that if you have an algorithm determining what content is presented to the user then you are a publisher and should be bound by the same content rules as other publishers. That seems like a far better start to addressing the content issues on social media than a rushed an ill thought out ban.
If any of this was about children then a different solution would be adopted. All that would be needed would be to impose a stipulation that every web service that invites user participation should have a minimum subscription of 1p collected by direct debit. That would exclude children automatically without inhibiting the freedom of adults to criticise this terrible government (which is the real aim of the policy).
You're absolutely right. But that would annoy important people. Much better to annoy every one. Well the peasants anyway...
A point I've been repeating on here for months. Well said
There are two issues here: the idea, and the man presenting the idea. The problem is that the man presenting the idea has spent any good will that was coming his way (not much to be honest) on things that are objectively stupid such as the Palestine action farce, the on again/off again bedroom tax, cold weather payment, add your own particular peeve. This all goes back to the fact that he was a remarkably dishonest person after winning the election. How many things were promised and then just binned? He apparently thinks people don't notice this: they do. In the same way they see Labour councillors trying to do a stitch up with Reform at Birmingham council, and then turn around and blame the Greens, the Lib Dems and the Tories for what they themselves were trying to do. Every criticism is a confession (see also: Trump). I'm not a hater of Starmer, but I recognise the pattern of failing upwards. I also hold no brief for Andy Burnham (my taste would be for Angela Rayner as leader, partly for the amusement factor, but I also think she'd genuinely make a good leader) but someone has to sort this fuck-witted mess out.
What a load of twaddle. METRO headline stay was leading on the father of the girl who took her life over social media- saying the ban would be “dreadful”. Bollocks! Now you are bleating about it. What’s not to like. If you are a parent this is manna from heaven. Now we don’t have to defend ourselves from our kids saying “…but everyone has it” etc etc. Lewis-your antipathy towards Starmer is clouding your judgement. Either that or you’ve started smoking drugs.
I heard the dreadful Liz Kendall on LBC this morning defending Starmer’s statement. It was appallingly clear that despite being Sec of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, she has absolutely no idea of a. how any of the technology works, and b. how to actually implement the ban.
This Government has a very poor record when it comes to “big” policy announcements, with or without a White Paper. A prime example was the “Get Britain Working” disaster. It failed for the very simple reason that no proper work had been done prior to the announcement. All the consultations, such as they were, and all the evidence gathering was forced upon - oh, who was it, yes, Liz Kendall - after the Green Paper. The Paper itself relied on sparse evidence, some already discredited.
The result was policy based evidence, NOT evidence based policy. Disaster.
And here we are again. The front end of the pantomime horse making noises, unaware that those in the arse end have left.
Very true, she really hasn't a clue how tech works.
The algorithmic veto framing is really interesting, and I think it extends further than the social media ban. The same dynamic is going to hit whoever succeeds Starmer, possibly harder. There's currently a gap in Burnham's policy position - he's committed to Reeves' fiscal rules but hasn't said who replaces Reeves, how nationalisation gets financed, or where the big spending commitments land. In the broadcast era you could fill that gap gradually - set-piece speeches, interviews, institutional trust doing some of the work. That's just not feasible now.
The digital ID case study is perfect for this because it had substantial public support until the algorithm got hold of it. Burnham's programme - nationalisation, devolution, public control of energy - has even more vulnerabilities. And unlike Starmer, he won't have the excuse of being a lame duck.
If we have learned nothing from Trump - and many people have not- it is that this is how things need to happen now.
Trump applies developer theory to everything. Outrageous opening stake that will fail but also knowing that by the time the agencies and authorities have got round to addressing the plan significant gains hhave been made. It’s all about tactics.
This action may not work but it will work in shifting a change in the social media giants who are in and out of Whitehall daily. It may be they now go “ oops we need to avoid more legislation- what can we offer.
I have long maintained that the privatisation of water and other utilities was not the core problem it was the abject and disgusting failure to police them.
If you know you can get away with trousering big bonuses for incompetence and know full well it’s a mate running the oversight board then hey ho just go for it. Unleash your inner Boris Johnson. Stick your snout in the trough happily because you know no one will be along with an electric prod.
That’s Starmer’s real failure just not bloody going for the bastards.
Can you also do a piece on how it might succeed please. There seems to be concerted effort by media to will it into not working. How about some optimism about how it could work.
People are too hung up on the enforcement. It does not need to be perfect, keeping 70% safer is better than what we have now.
People are also thinking too narrowly about it. This isn't just about age gating social media for the young, it's also about initiating a conversation and a cultural shift for the next generation. Just as with tobacco, it's part of a generational shift to improve health, in this case both physical and mental health.
Kids still manage to get hold of tobacco and drugs and porn, but the libertarians who cry "kids will workaround it" don't seem to be as vocal about workarounds to tobacco, drugs, and porn.
Simply treat social media companies like any other publisher and let the libel laws take their course.
A great piece. Have to say I have some sympathy with barring under 16s from most social media platforms. Perhaps it will encourage kid friendly ones like Instagram for teens which is already a thing. Already YouTube Kids is exempt with many toddlers enjoying the videos. But what surprises me and makes me wonder who made this policy is the ‘curfew’ for 16-18 year olds. The 16-18 year olds who can procreate, join the armed forces and very soon vote in Westminster and other elections. I’m sorry but it makes no sense whatsoever and may also be over complex to implement. I suggest this will be the first to fall from the proposed ban. It is to be hoped that the rest of it does corece the tech giants into getting their acts together. Like everything, time will tell.
My concern is with the legislative method. By designing the rules around a blacklist/ whitelist model, to be filled in via ministerial whim (excuse me, by secondary legislation), two things happen.
First, the fine detail of which sites/apps are on which list becomes a commercial matter for some of the largest & wealthiest businesses ever conceived. Given they all have a track record with plenty of shadowy areas (eg. Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal, Musk's willingness to spend time and money interfering, Russia's seeming ease of hacking into all kinds of areas, etc) and the inherent lack of transparency of secondary legislation (maybe they'll just buy the Minister of the day some nice new clothes and a weekend break somewhere flashy?), we've no idea how 'safe' the end result will be.
Second, the precedent will be set for any future government to bend to whatever its core audience want. The spectre of a future Reform Minister deciding that crypto sites should be allowed for under 16s "for education purposes" because Harborne has bunged them another couple of million from his pocket change should be enough to persuade anyone this isn't the way to go about it.
you have to start somewhere and if you are in a fight, which we are, getting your blow in first is not a bad idea.
Totally agree. This is not the final and only action they are taking. It's a starting point.
People are too hung up on the enforcement. It does not need to be perfect, keeping 70% safer is better than what we have now.
People are also thinking too narrowly about it. This isn't just about age gating social media for the young, it's also about initiating a conversation and a cultural shift for the next generation. Just as with tobacco, it's part of a generational shift to improve health, in this case both physical and mental health.
Kids still manage to get hold of tobacco and drugs and porn, but the libertarians who cry "kids will workaround it" don't seem to be as vocal about workarounds to tobacco, drugs, and porn.
This line really sticks out in the piece: "If he becomes Prime Minister, Labour's brand will become his brand".
If Burnham leans into it, Labour could be in for a full Trump-style takeover.
But that may not be a bad thing for Labour if it means (a majority) of voters disaccoiate their present dislike for it and give it a fresh chance.
Can I just say that this white print on a black background is extremely difficult to read comfortably. Probably my dyslexia but just letting you know. I enjoy your writing but can’t fight my way through this.
All well said, but you may have missed that 16 year olds are no longer legally allowed to get married. (And rightly so!)
I’m arrogant enough to suggest a change or extension to the policy. It feels to me that the algorithm is the issue, and that’s an easy one to fix technically. Insist that under 16s have a different content selection algorithm that’s not based on attention hijacking. It could for example be based on popularity of content generated only by people under 16 in their network. Similarly I think all large social media companies should be force to implement an “open algorithm” for all users, where users can decide how they want content to be selected. Users should be able to prioritise based on whole network popularity, friend network popularity, and recency. They should also be able to downscore people in their network. “Network’s choice” could be another option - so users could still see the normal ranty muck the network wants to throw at them if they so wished. This is entirely technically feasible, and would go some way to calm the febrile online atmosphere.