Molly Russell's dad says under-16 social media ban would be wrong

[Jim Burton]

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.or ... jy0y5o.amp

The father of a teenager who took her own life after viewing suicide and self-harm content online has said banning under-16s from social media would be wrong.

Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, told BBC's Newscast that the government should enforce existing laws rather than "implementing sledgehammer techniques like bans".

The foundation he set up in Molly's honour is among a number of children's charities and online safety organisations to sign a joint statement opposing such a move.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled out an under-16 social media ban, after Australia imposed one in December.

The House of Lords is set to vote on proposals for a more nuanced ban next week, which could be added to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill as an amendment.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I do think social media needs to change, a lot, for everyone.

When i grew up I used to hang out on bulletin boards and made friends there, then we had the early Internet and we just hung out and built stuff and had fun. Then social media came along with algorithms designed to create echo chambers of hate. It's just a modern version of the newspaper. Newspapers are just articles of hate against different groups, but they were always static, but social media takes that idea and just drenches you in hate.

My eldest doesn't like it, she says she would rather there wasn't social media. She's envious of the 70s and 80s, partly because of shows like Stranger Things, but she loves the idea of people just hanging out without social media. But then my other kids are hooked on social media and tech and form opinions from the groups of people and what algorithms fire at her.

It's startling really, I can open Tik Tok on my phone and on hers and see two totally different worlds, each being quite negative about the other. X.com takes it to the extreme. I left all social media a while back, I just decided I didn't need hate streams in my life.

Should it be banned? Well, I would say either it gets banned or it gets very strictly moderated. No algorithms that choose what you see based on religion, political views or news preferences. Very strict moderation so young people see everything in a balanced way, not just echo chambers of hate.

[Not Forever]

Should it be banned? Well, I would say either it gets banned or it gets very strictly moderated. No algorithms that choose what you see based on religion, political views or news preferences. Very strict moderation so young people see everything in a balanced way, not just echo chambers of hate.

Personally, I am against moderation; to me, things are already excessively moderated, and I don’t like filters. But perhaps the meeting point could be exactly this: there shouldn’t be a filter. Automatic personalization, which could also be considered a privacy issue if you want, shouldn’t be active by default.

It shouldn’t be an algorithm that… how should I put it… pushes me to extremes? I might enjoy a content creator who deals with video games in a critical and polemical way, but following them ends up subscribing me, without my consent, to an entire group that talks about video games like them, from the least extreme to the most extreme. It creates something like a funnel, where I’m increasingly nudged toward extremes, even if my real interest is on the edge of that spectrum.

A right to this kind of neutrality/privacy wouldn’t be a bad thing. It wouldn’t solve the problem, but for me it would discourage any potential worsening. Those who want to keep listening to flat-earth content could do so freely, but it would come from sources they actively seek, discussing it in the way they want, without necessarily getting involved in topics like fake moon landings or vaccine-autism correlations.

PS: It seems that this whole thing about echo chambers has actually been somewhat disproven over time, but people still view other bubbles with hostility anyway, so their lesser presence doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

Personally, I am against moderation; to me, things are already excessively moderated, and I don’t like filters. But perhaps the meeting point could be exactly this: there shouldn’t be a filter. Automatic personalization, which could also be considered a privacy issue if you want, shouldn’t be active by default.

It shouldn’t be an algorithm that… how should I put it… pushes me to extremes? I might enjoy a content creator who deals with video games in a critical and polemical way, but following them ends up subscribing me, without my consent, to an entire group that talks about video games like them, from the least extreme to the most extreme. It creates something like a funnel, where I’m increasingly nudged toward extremes, even if my real interest is on the edge of that spectrum.

A right to this kind of neutrality/privacy wouldn’t be a bad thing. It wouldn’t solve the problem, but for me it would discourage any potential worsening. Those who want to keep listening to flat-earth content could do so freely, but it would come from sources they actively seek, discussing it in the way they want, without necessarily getting involved in topics like fake moon landings or vaccine-autism correlations.

PS: It seems that this whole thing about echo chambers has actually been somewhat disproven over time, but people still view other bubbles with hostility anyway, so their lesser presence doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.

I'd be happy with a social media without algorithms which is how it used to be. I remember being on MySpace and being exposed to the most random music and artists, I loved it. The early version of Facebook was like that, the content was all from family and friends and interest groups, now I open FaceBook and it's 95% posts designed to enrage, trained on what it know annoys me. People buy newspapers to get angry, this is just a modern version of that.

I'd be interested to see the research disproving echo chambers, I haven't seen that. What I do know is I can look at my social media, my wifes, my kids, my brothers and I will get entirely different perspectives of the world. There's no balance, no counter point, just reaffirming content of what gets the strongest reaction. I had to leave social media because it was too pointless, too hateful and visibly biased. My brother left social media a few months after saying he found it too depressing. My wifes approach is to endless click the filter options in posts to try to filter out the hate noise. My eldest daughter has mostly dropped all social media for the same reason, she just talks to friends through chat apps such as WhatsApp. I'd be surprised if echo chambers had been disproven since I've seen it first hand, as have others I know, but I'd be interested in credible research that shows this.

[Not Forever]

I'd be interested to see the research disproving echo chambers, I haven't seen that. What I do know is I can look at my social media, my wifes, my kids, my brothers and I will get entirely different perspectives of the world. There's no balance, no counter point, just reaffirming content of what gets the strongest reaction. I had to leave social media because it was too pointless, too hateful and visibly biased. My brother left social media a few months after saying he found it too depressing. My wifes approach is to endless click the filter options in posts to try to filter out the hate noise. My eldest daughter has mostly dropped all social media for the same reason, she just talks to friends through chat apps such as WhatsApp. I'd be surprised if echo chambers had been disproven since I've seen it first hand, as have others I know, but I'd be interested in credible research that shows this.

It’s not something I have on hand, but I remember some of the conversations that were happening when it was being discussed, and the “evidence” should be right inside those same echo chambers that speak in terms of hatred toward outsiders.

I have often been in an “echo chamber” related to debunking. I hung out with people who do debunking on religious, pseudoscientific, and similar topics (and it was actually in this echo chamber that this article circulated, since the topic of echo chambers was something often discussed). But then I understood the obviousness of it. I mean, the comment section was full of people shouting that these others were sellouts, shortsighted, etc… the mere fact that they were there was, in a way, proof that they had stepped out of their echo chamber, even if they did it antagonistically.

And the same applied to “us” (those who were part of our community), because we often spent time watching some videos—even while criticizing them—of people talking about spiritual energies coming from stones. We weren’t trapped in our own echo chambers; the others existed, we saw them, we knew what they were talking about, and we simply judged them critically.

Honestly, I think this happens in other areas too. Anti-woke people and… I’m not sure how to label the other group (calling them “woke” seems unfair; let’s just say more skeptical of the anti-woke) aren’t really that divided. Everyone knows the other’s arguments, they’re simply critical of them, and often reduce them to strawman arguments. But they know them; these ideas clash constantly. The rejection doesn’t come from ignorance.

For various reasons, I’m also close to groups like the redpilled; they too know the external narratives, and outsiders more or less have an idea of the redpilled narratives. When they misunderstand or get it wrong, the redpilled person jumps in forcefully to break the echo chamber. Then they might be mocked, insulted, etc. (depending on their approach, the reaction is predictable). But there’s a constant flow of information.

[Bookshelf]

Multiple charities in the UK including the NSPCC have came out and said they don't think it would be a good idea. It's just that people in the UK don't really care about children as much as they pretend to.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I'd be interested to see the research disproving echo chambers, I haven't seen that. What I do know is I can look at my social media, my wifes, my kids, my brothers and I will get entirely different perspectives of the world. There's no balance, no counter point, just reaffirming content of what gets the strongest reaction. I had to leave social media because it was too pointless, too hateful and visibly biased. My brother left social media a few months after saying he found it too depressing. My wifes approach is to endless click the filter options in posts to try to filter out the hate noise. My eldest daughter has mostly dropped all social media for the same reason, she just talks to friends through chat apps such as WhatsApp. I'd be surprised if echo chambers had been disproven since I've seen it first hand, as have others I know, but I'd be interested in credible research that shows this.

It’s not something I have on hand, but I remember some of the conversations that were happening when it was being discussed, and the “evidence” should be right inside those same echo chambers that speak in terms of hatred toward outsiders.

I have often been in an “echo chamber” related to debunking. I hung out with people who do debunking on religious, pseudoscientific, and similar topics (and it was actually in this echo chamber that this article circulated, since the topic of echo chambers was something often discussed). But then I understood the obviousness of it. I mean, the comment section was full of people shouting that these others were sellouts, shortsighted, etc… the mere fact that they were there was, in a way, proof that they had stepped out of their echo chamber, even if they did it antagonistically.

And the same applied to “us” (those who were part of our community), because we often spent time watching some videos—even while criticizing them—of people talking about spiritual energies coming from stones. We weren’t trapped in our own echo chambers; the others existed, we saw them, we knew what they were talking about, and we simply judged them critically.

Honestly, I think this happens in other areas too. Anti-woke people and… I’m not sure how to label the other group (calling them “woke” seems unfair; let’s just say more skeptical of the anti-woke) aren’t really that divided. Everyone knows the other’s arguments, they’re simply critical of them, and often reduce them to strawman arguments. But they know them; these ideas clash constantly. The rejection doesn’t come from ignorance.

For various reasons, I’m also close to groups like the redpilled; they too know the external narratives, and outsiders more or less have an idea of the redpilled narratives. When they misunderstand or get it wrong, the redpilled person jumps in forcefully to break the echo chamber. Then they might be mocked, insulted, etc. (depending on their approach, the reaction is predictable). But there’s a constant flow of information.

It is true that people inside echo chambers are aware of other people and their views, but the purpose of an echo-chamber isn't to block that but to present content that supports a view. Of course people will post counter arguments in comments, algorithms are not designed to block access, but they are designed to present content that supports a view.

It isn't nefarious but it does have an effect. If someone seeks out posts on cars and comments on posts about cars then the algorithm knows that this person interacts on car related content and so is more likely to return to the site if they are presented with content about cars. If another user views content about Chelsea football club and responds to posts about Chelsea football club then guess what, they will receive content about Chelsea football club. Algorithms are smart and go beyond baseline content but looks at sentiment related to a content. If someone is pro Russia then they'll receive pro Russia content because that's what keeps them there. The purpose of the algorithm is to keep people returning, keep them engaged and that means knowing what content they like and what they dislike.

Now if that's cars and sports teams then it's fine because it's content about what they love rather than content about hating another group, that's where the problems come. Being told Chelsea is having a good season isn't bad, being told that Tottenham fans want to threaten their families and need to be forced from the city isn't so good. I have found that the political content I see is more about the bad things the other political party is doing and saying, it rarely talks about my political party, and when I log in with someone elses social media account I see the same although from the other side. The left is being shown content about the terrible right, the right sees content about the terrible left. Why? Because the algorithm is working, politics has become full of extreme views and content that feeds extreme views gets the clicks and gets people returning.

This isn't good for society in my opinion because it furthers the divide. Showing someone who hates Trump a post on the positives of Trumps policies isn't going to cut it any more than showing an Obama hater a post on the achievements of Obama will cut it. But you know what, they both have some positives, some achievements, they are not Sith lords and Jedi, it isn't a battle of good over evil, it's two people with different political views putting out different policies and sometimes getting caught up in the same political hate and reinforcing messaging as the rest of us. Is Trump hearing the left? Is the left hearing the right?

I'm acutely aware of the danger. I'm a map with pro map views but I always love to real other views and I never take an entirely pro-map view because I know I could be wrong, I will be wrong about many of my views and beliefs. I seek out both sides and I never pass judgement unless I know with certainty. I assume most immigrants are good hard working people because I haven't seen convincing evidence of the contrary. But my feeds are never so neutral.

What I see is people forming ever stronger views left and right, ever rising anger and social media in the middle feeding it because they have great algorithms doing that they do. It's just like newspapers, they are left or right, they never tell the neutral story. The difference is that algorithms are personal to each of us, it's like getting a newspaper that knows what I love and knows that hate sells. The sports pages are neutral and present the results in a positive way for all the teams, but when it comes to politics the news stories are designed to enrage because that's what sells. The US was a great country, it had the world coming to them like King Solomon but today it's a divided, hateful shadow of its former self and it seems intent on sinking ever further.