EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 646
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2788 Posts
On May 09 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote: Looks like at least two open Holocaust deniers won local elections as Reform. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/reform-uk-candidate-who-said-33914559 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/reform-uk-election-results-essex-37129362 The guy in the second link just resigned lol https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/11/newly-elected-reform-councillor-resigns-stuart-prior-social-media | ||
|
sixfour
England11062 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27051 Posts
We’re fucked if they get in in the general | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9880 Posts
You've taken something almost universally agreed with: Banning social media for under 16s, and managed to completely fuck it up by adding sites like Youtube into the ban, throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Utterly fucking stupid. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27051 Posts
On June 15 2026 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote: Well done Starmer. You've taken something almost universally agreed with: Banning social media for under 16s, and managed to completely fuck it up by adding sites like Youtube into the ban, throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Utterly fucking stupid. Yeah I dunno why his government keep taking things that have a degree of popularity and then extend them so far that it rebounds on them | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44132 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9880 Posts
On June 15 2026 23:54 Silvanel wrote: There is plenty of questionable content on YouTube. Especially since shorts were added. The tricky part is to distinguish harmful content from the rest... It depends what you see as harmful... Pretty sure right wing YouTube is harmful... if you are Labour. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
Patostreaming (or pathostreaming) is a Polish slang term that translates to "trash streaming" or "pathological streaming" in English. It refers to a type of live broadcasting on platforms like YouTube or Twitch where creators display socially deviant behavior, such as substance abuse, domestic violence, bullying, and vulgarity, often for financial gain. YouTube shorts rot the brain just as much as TikTok. There is also plenty of questionable content aimed specifically at children, which every parent I know attempts to block (with various success). Nothing illegal, just brain-rotting/influencing. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28828 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1957 Posts
On June 16 2026 04:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: Just ban short form content. If you want to post content online it has to be longer than 10 minutes long for videos or 1 paragraph for text. Now to write another four sentences to validate this post. I will be surprised if there is any way to legislate a "social media ban" and not the least, enforce it. The latest attempt I have heard of is demanding government approved ID checks to log into everything, feeding even more of your personal info to the tech giants. I have never heard a proper definition of "social media". It is everything and nothing at this point, and new loopholes are found constantly. Spotify has animated videos in its "podcast" section. YouTube is actually SAFER if you log into a proper kids account than browsing anonymously. WhatsApp is right at the crossroads between communication and SoMe. What about Discord? Or groups within games? Whatever will show up in the future? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24055 Posts
Ideally that includes some organized effort at lifting societies emotional intelligence rather than just ending up back in some approximation of the middle ages with random tech litter. I'd rather not live in a world that's basically like a shitty ren faire where the violence is real, but it's increasingly looking like that's on the hopeful side of outcomes. The most practical advice I work with is "build/engage in offline 3rd spaces". Everything that takes are skills and knowledge one needs to counter the negative impacts of social media that we're largely powerless to really effectively legislate. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2824 Posts
On June 16 2026 04:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: Just ban short form content. If you want to post content online it has to be longer than 10 minutes long for videos or 1 paragraph for text. Now to write another four sentences to validate this post. I mean for kids that doesn't matter at all. Every single brainrot video is like 30-40 minutes long. Problem is that small kids crave that shit. My daughter 100% prefers youtube slop like making fake cakes with sound effects and Elsa dolls before anything else. Only way to deal with it is to not allow it. We threw out our ipad when we got a child, best decision we made. We greatly prefer if she watches something on the TV, and not youtube. Sometimes we aren't perfect but only banning short form content solves very little when it comes to kids. | ||
|
Razyda
1036 Posts
" The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." "These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites." - lol steam This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling adults. Also this gem: "By “communicating with strangers” we mean methods for unknown users to contact and talk with children. This includes gaming services but will not affect the ability for children to participate in multiplayer games online." Did this people even seen online game? How are they planning to do that? | ||
|
Billyboy
1921 Posts
On June 16 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back " The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." "These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites." - lol steam This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling adults. Also this gem: "By “communicating with strangers” we mean methods for unknown users to contact and talk with children. This includes gaming services but will not affect the ability for children to participate in multiplayer games online." Did this people even seen online game? How are they planning to do that? When you make a statement like this, you are then supposed to explain why you believe it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11905 Posts
On June 16 2026 10:40 Billyboy wrote: When you make a statement like this, you are then supposed to explain why you believe it. The question is probably about enforcement. Either you force everyone to somehow ID when they use these services (and thus basically kill any anonymity anywhere), or you do something silly and pointless like a box asking for your age. The first i'd see as a big invasion of privacy of everyone. I don't want every internet service to know my name, and i don't want the government to know which internet services i use. Sadly governments use "won't anyone think about the children" as an excuse for more surveillance in the internet all the time, so this isn't some very far-fetched take. And the second option is basically pointless, because as it turns out, children will just lie and say they are over 18 when they want to use something. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
And a social media ban doesn't have to be perfect nor ubiquitous to be potentially effective. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7179 Posts
On June 16 2026 15:49 zatic wrote: Age verification doesn't need to mean loss of anonymity. It doesn't need to, but practically it will be used like that. | ||
| ||
