The Future: State Control of Social Media Access, Some Hope
December 25, 2024
It’s great that parents are concerned for their children’s welfare, especially when there are clear and documented dangers. The Internet has been in concerned parents’ crosshairs since its proliferation. Back in the AOL days it was easier to monitor kids access, you simply didn’t allow them to log on and you reviewed their browser history. However, with the advent of mobile devices and the necessity of the Internet for everyday living, parents are baffled on how to control their children and so is the Australian government. In an extreme case, the Australian parents proposed a bill to ban kids under the age of sixteen from using social media. The Senior relates how they are winning the battle: “Parents To Lose Final Say In Social Media Ban For Kids.”
The proposed bill is from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s administration and it plans to ban all kids under the age of sixteen from any and other social media platforms. Parents are taken out of the equation entirely. Parents will not be allowed to consent and many see it as a violation of their civil and parental rights.
The bill hasn’t been drafted yet and probably won’t be in 2024. It is believed that the first legislation on the bill will be in 2025 and will slowly work its way through the Australian parliament. The blanket ban would also not require age verification:
“Asked if parents would be allowed to consent to their children being on social media at a younger age, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told Labor’s party room meeting “no”. She said people using social media would not have to upload proof of identity directly to those platforms, when minimum age requirements kick in. ‘The opposition is the only party arguing that people should upload 100 points of ID and give it to TikTok,’ she told the meeting. The government wants 12 months of consultation to figure out exactly how the ban will be enforced.”
Australia doesn’t have faith in parents’ efforts to regulate their kids on social media, so the government is acting in the kids’ best interests. It does sound like the government is overstepping, but social media experts and mental health professionals have documented the potential and real harm of social media on kids. Many parents also don’t monitor and discipline their children’s Internet usage habits. Is this an overstep by the government? No, just a first step.
Whitney Grace, December 25, 2024
More Data about What Is Obvious to People Interacting with Teens
December 19, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Here’s another one of those surveys which provide some data about a very obvious trend. “Nearly Half of US Teens Are Online Constantly, Pew Report Finds” states:
Nearly half of American teenagers say they are online “constantly” despite concerns about the effects of social media and smartphones on their mental health…
No kidding. Who knew?
There were some points in the cited article which seemed interesting if the data are reliable, the sample is reliable, and the analysis is reliable. But, just for yucks, let’s assume the findings are reasonably representative of what the future leaders of America are up to when their noses are pressed against an iPhone or (gasp!) and Android device.
First, YouTube is the “single most popular platform teenagers use. However, in a previous Pew study YouTube captured 90 percent of the sample, not the quite stunning 95 percent previously documented by the estimable survey outfit.
Second, the write up says:
There was a slight downward trend in several popular apps teens used. For instance, 63% of teens said they used TikTok, down from 67% and Snapchat slipped to 55% from 59%.
Improvement? Sure.
And, finally, I noted what might be semi-bad news for parents and semi-good news for Meta / Zuck:
X saw the biggest decline among teenage users. Only 17% of teenagers said they use X, down from 23% in 2022, the year Elon Musk bought the platform. Reddit held steady at 14%. About 6% of teenagers said they use Threads, Meta’s answer to X that launched in 2023. Meta’s messaging service WhatsApp was a rare exception in that it saw the number of teenage users increase, to 23% from 17% in 2022.
I do have a comment. Lots of numbers which suggest reading, writing, and arithmetic are not likely to be priorities for tomorrow’s leaders of the free world. But whatever they decide and do, those actions will be on video and shared on social media. Outstanding!
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2024
BlueSky: Tweeting Birds Are Flocking Around
December 3, 2024
As X, formerly Twitter, becomes more toxic, alternative BlueSky has welcomed many refugees fleeing Musk’s regime. In fact, the decentralized social media platform recently hit 15 million users. Blood in the Machine takes this opportunity to declare, “Bluesky’s Success Is a Rejection of Big Tech’s Operating System.” The post is largely about enumerating X’s flaws. Will such a marketing angle make the Twitter clone a winner?
After a brief lesson in recent social-media history, blogger Brian Merchant observes:
“The online world has become so hostile to users that Bluesky’s pitch of ‘here is a straightforward feed of text-based user-generated posts that we promise not to mess with’ is revelatory. Its scaling model and raison d’être are a very rejection of the platforms that have colonized the rest of our digital lives, and relentlessly commodified them. No wonder everyone seems to be rooting for its success, even if there are, pointedly, no guarantees those ideals will remain in place.”
Why no guarantees? The taint of venture capital, for one. The platform’s recent $15 million series A funding round was led by Blockchain Capital. Despite that firm’s focus on cryptocurrency, BlueSky promises it will continue to prioritize the user over the likes of crypto and NFTs. Will it deliver? At least wary users can turn to Mastodon. For now.
The write-up continues:
“BlueSky is giving hope to people who spend long hours online precisely because it is purporting to be, and so far succeeding, at least in its very short lifespan, in being everything that big tech is not. No AI spam, no glitchy ad tech, no link throttling, no malignant billionaire owner. BlueSky is not just tapping into this wellspring of goodwill because it promises a return to the halcyon days of *Twitter*—but a return to the days before ossified, rent-seeking tech monopolies drove our collective online experience to hell.”
But how long will this retro trip last?
Cynthia Murrell, December 3, 2024
Pass a Law to Prevent Youngsters from Accessing Social Media. Yep, That Will Work Well
December 2, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I spotted a very British “real” news story called “It’s So Easy to Lie: : A Fifth of Children Use Fake Age on Social Media.” I like the idea that one can pick 100 children at random from a school with 13 year olds, only 80 percent will allegedly follow the rules.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough. I might point out you did not present a young George Washington despite my efforts to feed you words to which you would respond.
Does the 20 percent figure seem low to you? I would suggest that if a TikTok-type video was popular at that school, more than 20 percent would find a way to get access to that video. If the video was about being thin or a fashion tip, the females would be more interested and they would lie to get that information. The boys might be more interested in other topics, which I shall leave to your imagination.
The write up says:
A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17 year olds lie that they are 18 or over on social media apps.
I doubt that my hypothetical group of 13 years olds are different from those who are four years older. The write up pointed out:
A number of tech firms have recently announced measures to make social media safer for young people, such as Instagram launching “teen accounts.” However, when BBC news spoke to a group of teenagers at Rosshall Academy, in Glasgow, all of them said they used adult ages for their social media accounts. “It’s just so easy to lie about your age”, said Myley, 15.
Australia believes it has a fix: Ban access. I quite like the $AUS 33 million fine too.
I would suggest that in a group of 100 teens, one will know how to create a fake persona, buy a fake ID from a Telegram vendor, and get an account. Will a Telegram user set up a small online business to sell fake identities or social media accounts to young people? Yep.
Cyber security firms cannot block bad actors. What makes regulators think that social media companies can prevent young people from getting access to their service. Enjoy those meetings. I hope the lunches are good.
My hunch is that the UK is probably going to ban social media access for those under a certain age. Good luck.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2024
Grooming Booms in the UK
November 12, 2024
The ability of the Internet to connect us to one another can be a beautiful thing. On the flip side, however, are growing problems like this one: The UK’s Independent tells us, “Online Grooming Crimes Reach Record Levels, NSPCC Says.” UK police recorded over 7,000 offenses in that country over the past year, a troubling new high. We learn:
“The children’s charity said the figures, provided by 45 UK police forces, showed that 7,062 sexual communication with a child offences were recorded in 2023-24, a rise of 89% since 2017-18, when the offence first came into force. Where the means of communication was disclosed – which was 1,824 cases – social media platforms were often used, with Snapchat named in 48% of those cases. Meta-owned platforms were also found to be popular with offenders, with WhatsApp named in 12% of those cases, Facebook and Messenger in 12% and Instagram in 6%. In response to the figures, the NSPCC has urged online regulator Ofcom to strengthen the Online Safety Act. It said there is currently too much focus on acting after harm has taken place, rather than being proactive to ensure the design of social media platforms does not contribute to abuse.”
Well, yes, that would be ideal. Specifically, the NSPCC states, regulations around private messaging must be strengthened. UK Minister Jess Phillips emphasizes:
“Social media companies have a responsibility to stop this vile abuse from happening on their platforms. Under the Online Safety Act they will have to stop this kind of illegal content being shared on their sites, including on private and encrypted messaging services, or face significant fines.”
Those fines would have to be significant indeed. Much larger than any levied so far, which are but a routine cost of doing business for these huge firms. But we have noted a few reasons to hope for change. Are governments ready to hold big tech responsible for the harms they facilitate?
Cynthia Murrell, November 12, 2024
Instragram Does the YouTube Creator Fear Thing
November 11, 2024
Instagram influencers are enraged by CEO Adam Mosseri’s bias towards popular content. According to the BBC in, “Instagram Lowering Quality Of Less Viewed Videos ‘Alarming’ Creators”, video quality is lowered for older, less popular videos. More popular content gets the HD white glove treatment. Influencers are upset over this “discrimination,” especially when they concentrate on making income through Instagram over other platforms.
The influences view the lower quality output as harmful and affects the quality of original art. Mosseri argues that most influencers have their videos watched soon after publication. The only videos being affected by lower quality are older and no longer receive many views. While that sounds logical, it could also create a cycle that benefits only a few influencers:
Social media consultant Matt Navarra told the BBC the move ‘seems to somewhat contradict Instagram’s earlier messages or efforts to encourage new creators’.
"How can creators gain traction if their content is penalized for not being popular," he said. And he said it could risk creating a cycle of more established creators reaping the rewards of higher engagement from viewers over those trying to build their following.”
Instagram is lowering the quality to save on costs. It always comes down money, doesn’t it? When asked to respond about that, Mosseri said viewers are more interested in a video’s content over its image quality. Navarra agreed to that statement:
“He [Navarra] said creators should focus on how they can make engaging content that caters to their audience, rather than be overly concerned by the possibility of its quality being degraded by Instagram.”
Navarra’s right. Video quality will be decent and not poor like a cathode-ray tube TV. The creators should focus on building themselves and not investing all of their creative energy into one platform. Diversify!
Whitney Grace, November 11, 2024
The Sweet Odor of Musk
October 31, 2024
The old Twitter was a boon for academics. It was a virtual gathering place where they could converse with each other, the general public, and even lawmakers. Information was spread and discussed far and wide. The platform was also a venue for conducting online research. Now, though, scholars seem to be withering under the “Musk effect.” Cambridge University Press shares its researchers’ paper, “The Vibes Are Off: Did Elon Musk Push Academics Off Twitter?”
The abstract begins by noting several broad impacts of Twitter’s transition to “X,” as Elon Musk has renamed it: Most existing employees were laid-off. Access to its data was monetized. Its handling of censorship and misinformation has were upended and its affordances shifted. But the scope of this paper is more narrow. Researchers James Bisbee and Kevin Munger set out to answer:
“What did Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform mean for this academic ecosystem? Using a snowball sample of more than 15,700 academic accounts from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, and psychology, we show that academics in these fields reduced their ‘engagement’ with the platform, measured by either the number of active accounts (i.e., those registering any behavior on a given day) or the number of tweets written (including original tweets, replies, retweets, and quote tweets).”
Why did scholars disengage? The “Musk Effect,” as the paper calls it, was a mix of factors. Changes to the verification process and account-name rules were part of it. Many were upset when Musk nixed the free API they’d relied on for research in a range of fields. But much of it was simply a collective disgust at the new owner’s unscientific nature, childishness, and affinity for conspiracy theories. The researchers write:
“We argue that a combination of these features of the threat and then the reality of Musk’s ownership of the Twitter corporation influenced academics either to quit Twitter altogether or at least reduce their engagement with the platform (i.e., ‘disengage’). The policy changes and personality of Twitter’s new owner were difficult to avoid and may have made the experience of using the platform less palatable. Conversely, these same attributes may have stimulated a type of ideological boycott, in which academics disengaged with Twitter as a political strategy to indicate their intellectual and moral opposition.”
See the paper for a description of its methodology, the detailed results (complete with charts), and a discussion of the factors behind the Musk Effect. It also describes the role pre-X Twitter played in academic research. Check out section 1 to learn what the scientific community lost when one bratty billionaire decided to make a spite purchase the size of small country’s gross domestic product.
Cynthia Murrell, October 31, 2024
That AI Technology Is Great for Some Teens
October 29, 2024
The New York Times ran and seemed to sensationalized a story about a young person who formed an emotional relationship with AI from Character.ai. I personally like the Independent’s story “The Disturbing Messages Shared between AI Chatbot and Teen Who Took His Own Life,” which was redisplayed on the estimable MSN.com. If the link is dead, please, don’t write Beyond Search. Contact those ever responsible folks at Microsoft. The British “real” news outfit said:
Sewell [the teen] had started using Character.AI in April 2023, shortly after he turned 14. In the months that followed, the teen became “noticeably withdrawn,” withdrew from school and extracurriculars, and started spending more and more time online. His time on Character.AI grew to a “harmful dependency,” the suit states.
Let’s shift gears. The larger issues is that social media has changed the way humans interact with each other and smart software. The British are concerned. For instance, the BBC delves into how social media has changed human interaction: “How Have Social Media Algorithms Changed The Way We Interact?”
Social media algorithms are fifteen years old. Facebook unleashed the first in 2009 and the world changed. The biggest problem associated with social media algorithms are the addiction and excess. Teenagers and kids are the populations most affected by social media and adults want to curb their screen time. Global governments are steeping up to enforce rules on social media.
The US could ban TikTok if the Chinese parent company doesn’t sell it. The UK implemented a new online safety act for content moderation, while the EU outlined new rules for tech companies. The rules will fine them 6% of turnover and suspend them if they don’t prevent election interference. Meanwhile Brazil banned X for a moment until the company agreed to have a legal representative in the country and blocked accounts that questioned the legitimacy of the country’s last election.
While the regulation laws pose logical arguments, they also limit free speech. Regulating the Internet could tip the scale from anarchy to authoritarianism:
“Adam Candeub is a law professor and a former advisor to President Trump, who describes himself as a free speech absolutist. Social media is ‘polarizing, it’s fractious, it’s rude, it’s not elevating – I think it’s a terrible way to have public discourse”, he tells the BBC. “But the alternative, which I think a lot of governments are pushing for, is to make it an instrument of social and political control and I find that horrible.’ Professor Candeub believes that, unless ‘there is a clear and present danger’ posed by the content, ‘the best approach is for a marketplace of ideas and openness towards different points of view.’”
When Musk purchased X, he compared it to a “digital town square.” Social media, however, isn’t like a town square because the algorithms rank and deliver content based what eyeballs want to see. There isn’t fair and free competition of ideas. The smart algorithms shape free speech based on what users want to see and what will make money.
So where are we? Headed to the grave yard?
Whitney Grace, October 29, 2024
Four Years of Research Proves What a Teacher Knows in Five Minutes
October 22, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
The write up “The Phone Ban Has Had a Big Impact on School Work.” No kidding. The article reports a study in Iceland after schools told students, “No mobiles.” The write up says:
A phone ban has been in place at Öldutún School since the beginning of 2019, and according to the principal, it has worked well. The school’s atmosphere and culture have changed for the better, and there is more peace in the classroom.
I assume “peace” means students sort of paying attention, not scrolling TikTok and firing off Snapchats of total coolness. (I imagine a nice looking codfish on the school cafeteria food line. But young people may have different ideas about what’s cool. But I’ve been to Iceland, and to some, fish are quite fetching.)
A typical classroom somewhere in Kentucky. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. The “new and improved version” is a struggle. But so are MSFT security and Windows updates. How is Sam AI-Man these days?
Unfortunately the school without mobiles has not been able to point to newly sprouted genius level performance since the 2019 ban. I am okay with the idea of peace in the classroom.
The write up points out:
It has been reported in Morgunblaðið that students who spend more time on smartphones are less interested in reading than those who use their phones little or not at all. The interest in reading is waning faster and faster as students spend more time on their smart devices. These are the results of research by Kristján Ketill Stefánsson, assistant professor of pedagogy at the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Education. The research is based on data from more than fifteen thousand students in grades 6 to 10 in 120 elementary schools across the country.
I noted this surprising statement:
Both students and parents have welcomed the phone ban, as it was prepared for a whole year in collaboration with the board of the student association, school council and parents, according to Víðisson.
Would this type of ban on mobiles in the classroom work in the expensive private schools in some cities? What about schools in what might be called less salubrious geographic areas? Iceland is one culture; rural Kentucky is another.
My reaction to the write up is positive. The conclusions seem obvious to me and no study was needed. My instincts are that mobile devices are not appropriate for any learning environment. That includes college classrooms and lecture rooms for continuing education credits. But I am a dinobaby. (I look like the little orange dinosaur. What do I know?)
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2024
Hey, France, Read Your Pavel-Grams: I Cooperate
October 18, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Did you know that Telegram has shared IPs since 2018. Do your homework!
Telegram is a favored message application, because it is supposed to protect user privacy, especially for crypto users. Not say, says Coin Telegraph in the article, “Telegram Has Been Disclosing User IPs Since 2018, Durov Says.” Before you start posting nasty comments about Telegram’s lies, the IPs the message is sharing belong to bad actors. CEO Pavel Durov shared on his Telegram channel that his company reports phone numbers and IP addresses to law enforcement.
The company has been disclosing criminal information to authorities since 2018, but only when proper legal procedure is followed. Telegram abides by formal legal requests when they are from relevant communication lines. Durov stressed that Telegram remains an anonymous centered app:
Durov said the news from last week showed that Telegram has been “streamlining and unifying its privacy policy across different countries.” He stressed that Telegram’s core principles haven’t changed, as the company has always sought to comply with relevant local laws ‘as long as they didn’t go against our values of freedom and privacy.’ He added: ‘Telegram was built to protect activists and ordinary people from corrupt governments and corporations — we do not allow criminals to abuse our platform or evade justice.”’
French authorities indicted Durov in August 2024 on six charges related to illicit activity via Telegram. He posted the $5.5 million bail in September, then revealed to the public how his company complies with legal requests after calling the charges misguided.
Kudos for Telegram disclosing the information to be transparent.
Whitney Grace, October 18, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
