Paid Members LaGoosh Posted June 16 Paid Members Posted June 16 I think social media should also be banned for over 60s as well. Loads of them are getting their brains rotted out by right wing propaganda and AI slop. Quote
Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted June 16 Posted June 16 9 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: I think social media should also be banned for over 60s as well. Loads of them are getting their brains rotted out by right wing propaganda and AI slop. And of course the old dears that share the missing dog from Mongolia from 8yrs ago in a Swindon community page... Speaking of demonetising videos - any video with the insinuation of 'wait for it/watch til the end/you won't believe what happens' needs to be binned off. Quote
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 16 Paid Members Posted June 16 2 hours ago, LaGoosh said: I think social media should also be banned for over 60s as well. Loads of them are getting their brains rotted out by right wing propaganda and AI slop. yeah, I'd ban Facebook groups and Mumsnet before YouTube and TikTok if I wanted to actually reverse the trend of radicalisation. It just seems unenforceable, and not even in the "well, kids will just learn to use VPNs" argument that I'm seeing a lot of. It seems to just be an arbitrary list of social media platforms; so what happens when some tech bro builds a new one after the ban has come in? And if it comes down to actually creating a legal definition of social media, I can't see how they can come up with a definition that's broad enough to include YouTube without also excluding pretty much anywhere with instant messaging or comments sections, which cuts out most news websites, and pretty much any online gaming. Reddit is included, but Discord isn't. There seems an arbitrariness to it all. And what underpins all of this is that, despite having publicly called out Elon Musk for spreading disinformation and racist messaging, Kier Starmer is still posting policy and public pronouncements on Twitter. The entire government apparatus is still actively using and funding Twitter. A platform that he doesn't think you should be able to access if you're under 16, but the moment you turn 16 he wants you to be eligible to vote, presumably informed by the announcements he's making on Twitter. Quote
deathrey Posted June 16 Posted June 16 Twitter needs to be banned in the UK. Enough damage has been done by it. I wholly heartedly support some kind of internet license for over 60's who can only access social media if they can demonstrate critical thinking skills (I know this is in no way enforceable). I'm sure this has been mentioned by others but the big issue with this all out ban is that it's a cop out, it's still not holding social media companies accountable for the addictiveband dangerous features that they have introduced on the platforms. It needs to be tackled and banned. That effects the whole population, not just under 16s. The ban whilst positive in some ways (but very negative in others) is just a sticking plaster over a seismic fault line. It's not going to hold. Quote
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 16 Paid Members Posted June 16 it needs to be regulated. Social media platforms need to be treated as a publisher, and video sites like YouTube treated as a broadcaster, and regulated accordingly - and that regulation needs to be improved and enforced beyond what OFCOM are capable of now. Cut back to how social media used to operate, before it became algorithmically driven to show you the content most likely to make you angry. It's doable, but I don't see this government having any appetite to even try. I don't think it's a bad idea to restrict social media access for under 16s at all, and I'd be curious to know how well it's worked out in countries like Australia where they have already started enforcing that ban. Half of the platforms on the list I really can't imagine 15 year olds are using anyway - they're not rushing to post on Twitter, Facebook, or Bluesky - but the danger is that not having access to the ones they are using will just push them towards shadier apps and websites that allow them to get a semblance of what they get from YouTube or TikTok or SnapChat, but with even less oversight or content restrictions. Because it's definitely not coming with any heightened investment in the BBC to produce more content for their age group, or for councils to open more youth clubs, or to even try and replace the space social media occupies for these kids with something else. Quote
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 16 Paid Members Posted June 16 This is why I say Starmer is a coward in the same way Biden was. Both have been gifted the means to end by legitimate means the biggest threats by the far right to their respective countries, and both refused to do anything about them. Of course, if we end up with Farage as PM, there will be a whole tranch of unreflective centrists blaming the left for it instead of the insipid spinelessness of their government. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted June 16 Paid Members Posted June 16 1 hour ago, deathrey said: Twitter needs to be banned in the UK. Enough damage has been done by it. Especially with Elon Musk on record saying he wants to use his platform to influence UK politics. Quote
westlondonmist Posted June 19 Posted June 19 16,000 people in Maker field voted for that Reform candidate. How anybody could vote for him I have no idea. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 It is shocking. I saw a ridiculous spin on the defeat from Richard Tice who claims Labour won through tactical voting by Reform voters who want Starmer out. Heck of a reach that one. It's going to be an interesting few months. I think the Mayoral election is set for the end of July? Let's see who the candidates are and what the bookies think. As for Burnham in parliament I don't think there will be a leadership challenge anytime soon. He'll probably talk to Starmer and maybe once his feet are properly under the table start working his way up. Starmer needs at least this term to keep doing what he started. I did say that Burnham and Starmer could help each other like Blair and Brown did, where Burnham's more media friendly personality can put a positive spin on what the party is doing, or at least try and deal with whatever nonsense the usual voices on the right will have lined up. Theres been enough talk of Burnham as Labour leader for years anyway, so I have a feeling it'll be a case of when, as opposed to if he'll end up in a leadership contest. Quote
Paid Members hallicks Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Jazzy G said: It is shocking. I saw a ridiculous spin on the defeat from Richard Tice who claims Labour won through tactical voting by Reform voters who want Starmer out. Heck of a reach that one. It's going to be an interesting few months. I think the Mayoral election is set for the end of July? Let's see who the candidates are and what the bookies think. As for Burnham in parliament I don't think there will be a leadership challenge anytime soon. He'll probably talk to Starmer and maybe once his feet are properly under the table start working his way up. Starmer needs at least this term to keep doing what he started. I did say that Burnham and Starmer could help each other like Blair and Brown did, where Burnham's more media friendly personality can put a positive spin on what the party is doing, or at least try and deal with whatever nonsense the usual voices on the right will have lined up. Theres been enough talk of Burnham as Labour leader for years anyway, so I have a feeling it'll be a case of when, as opposed to if he'll end up in a leadership contest. I don’t think they’ve gone to all this trouble to get him into parliament just to have him fuck about and wait for the next GE, and wasn’t the social media ban pushed through super quick because his time is almost up? Starmer is the most hated man in Britain, it’s in nobody’s best interest (apart from Reform) to have him hanging around. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 1 hour ago, hallicks said: I don’t think they’ve gone to all this trouble to get him into parliament just to have him fuck about and wait for the next GE, and wasn’t the social media ban pushed through super quick because his time is almost up? Starmer is the most hated man in Britain, it’s in nobody’s best interest (apart from Reform) to have him hanging around. The thing is he's only "the most hated man in Britain" because the right don't like that he's slowly fixing things and then potentially starting to do some actual social democracy next. I've seen plenty of people on social media etc who acknowledge that he's not good at media etc, but is doing a lot of the right things as regards immigration, trying to keep the economy as stable as possible etc. It just stinks of "we didn't wake up in a socialist utopia on July 5th 2024 so he needs to go." yes there have been missteps like the Mandelson debacle, but it's not like he's managed to almost tank the economy, and he did what he could to deal with things as they arose. It could be all Bash At The Beach 96 and Burnham is the third man. I'll bet ideologically they're not all that different and I reckon they'll achieve more together than at odds with each other, or at the very least keep each other honest. Quote
Paid Members Chilly McFreeze Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 2 hours ago, Jazzy G said: It is shocking. I saw a ridiculous spin on the defeat from Richard Tice who claims Labour won through tactical voting by Reform voters who want Starmer out. Heck of a reach that one. It's going to be an interesting few months. I think the Mayoral election is set for the end of July? Let's see who the candidates are and what the bookies think. As for Burnham in parliament I don't think there will be a leadership challenge anytime soon. He'll probably talk to Starmer and maybe once his feet are properly under the table start working his way up. Starmer needs at least this term to keep doing what he started. I did say that Burnham and Starmer could help each other like Blair and Brown did, where Burnham's more media friendly personality can put a positive spin on what the party is doing, or at least try and deal with whatever nonsense the usual voices on the right will have lined up. Theres been enough talk of Burnham as Labour leader for years anyway, so I have a feeling it'll be a case of when, as opposed to if he'll end up in a leadership contest. Of all the outcomes to him winning Makerfield, this might be the least likely. He's 100% going for it and will get it, it's just a matter of how soon. His team are already briefing they are pushing Starmer to quit so he can be coronated. His winning speech all but confirmed he's going to challenge Starmer very soon. If he's smart he'll realise he needs to win a leadership election to provide himself some form of legitimacy. Either way, he PM in waiting. Quote
deathrey Posted June 19 Posted June 19 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Jazzy G said: It just stinks of "we didn't wake up in a socialist utopia on July 5th 2024 so he needs to go." yes there have been missteps like the Mandelson debacle, but it's not like he's managed to almost tank the economy, and he did what he could to deal with things as they arose. The thing here is, it's not just the Right that hate him. Many intelligent, realistic left wing voters are disappointed in him and his actions. I'm very left wing but not an idiot so didn't expect changes overnight, and whilst yes he has done some decent things, there are far too many areas where they are not listening to voters and way off the mark. The economy is stable but cost of living is though the roof - they took away pensioners heating allowances, a huge mistake, the current SEND white paper that they are blindly pushing through has not addresses the concerns of parents or schools - no one is happy with it and they refuse to hear it. They have been in power nearly 2 years now and changes have been too slow and too little. Record numbers of young people are unemployed, something I know can't be fixed overnight but what are they doing to help? Their changes in immigration are pandering to the right who still aren't happy and have pissed off the left wing voters because they are unfair and unjust. Starmer has been weak and ineffective, he has tried to keep everyone happy and as a result no one is happy. He needs conviction and direction and is sorely lacking in both. The only thing he has conviction about is his seat at No.10. Edited June 19 by deathrey Quote
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jazzy G said: The thing is he's only "the most hated man in Britain" because the right don't like that he's slowly fixing things and then potentially starting to do some actual social democracy next. I've seen plenty of people on social media etc who acknowledge that he's not good at media etc, but is doing a lot of the right things as regards immigration, trying to keep the economy as stable as possible etc. It just stinks of "we didn't wake up in a socialist utopia on July 5th 2024 so he needs to go." yes there have been missteps like the Mandelson debacle, but it's not like he's managed to almost tank the economy, and he did what he could to deal with things as they arose. It could be all Bash At The Beach 96 and Burnham is the third man. I'll bet ideologically they're not all that different and I reckon they'll achieve more together than at odds with each other, or at the very least keep each other honest. I have loads of time for you, but sorry, not having that. I never expected a socialist utopia from Labour, it's nothing to do with ideological purity, and whilst there is an argument that he's been bad at highlighting the good stuff Labour have done, it is not the entirety of why he's detested. The immigration thing is a shit-show. The "Island of Strangers" speech will go down as one of the most infamous acts of betrayal in Labour's history. The language they have used and promulgated regarding immigrants, all to try and steal voters who won't ever vote for them, is disgraceful. Shabana Mahmood's language and actions have been disgraceful. The fact that they have done nothing to counter all the anti-immigrant rhetoric by the right wing is disgraceful. The way they have treated trans people, and doubled down on their position, is atrocious. People will die, have died because of this shit. This is not a minor point of dogma that socialists are nitpicking over. They bow to JK Rowling on a regular basis, they give voices to anti-trans figures frequently, and they continue to push that wretched Cass Report like it's gospel. And now they're trying to blame Brianna Ghey's death on social media, despite it blatantly being the only place she got solace from. They're pandering to a mother who clearly hated her daughter being trans and wants to blame social media for it. Their dishonest, conniving authoritarianism regarding Palestine Action is nothing short of fascistic, especially when they have done nothing about Nigel Farage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Elon Musk, and all the other far-right conspirators who have outright broken the law, breached established rules that normally come with a sanction, or have used their voices to sow division and hatred. Literally two days ago, the PA people who sabotaged Elbit Systems were outright stitched up. The fuckers didn't even try to hide what they'd done - they openly tried them as regular criminals, but sentenced them as terrorists. The judge outright instructed the jury to not accept the defendants' actual fucking defence. Supposedly, that's one of the big things Western countries vaunt themselves so highly for not doing. It's a kangaroo court, just with a bit more manoeuvring. Let us not forget he's brought back that snide little chickenshit cunt McSweeney (the man who actually hired offices for the purposes of coordinating an organised, structured campaign to sabotage and unseat the first remotely left-wing leader Labour had had in decades) on the quiet, to no fanfare. And yes - he hired Mandelson. It doesn't matter whether or not he knew Mandelson had failed the vetting; most of the population knew he wasn't right for the job because he'd been done for corruption before. Twice. So, no. Framing critics of Starmer as unrealistic, constantly-dissatisfied purists who just want to kick off about political minutiae will not wash. Edited June 19 by Carbomb Willie Miller Quote
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 19 Paid Members Posted June 19 (edited) . Edited June 19 by Carbomb Hit the post - twice Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.