I have an Australian bloke who works in my office who thinks Australia's ban is wonderful. I told him that the online problems his 5 month old daughter will face having even been invented yet.
Parents are tired. And in a lot of ways, it's kinda like TV these days. Everyone wants passive entertainment to pass the time and stave off ennui.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
I would tend to agree, though the way my kids use some video outlets I'm sometimes skeptical. It's less organized and a lot more hyper-sensory. A lot of youtubers aren't much different than TV shows. They just put out content and people watch it.
I think this is right. A lot of social media use isn't even remotely social. Doom-scrolling on tiktok and so on is worse than TV channel-hopping from the point of view of attention spans. "Social media" can be used as a forum for social engagement, but it usually isn't. and I'd argue that much of the engagement is actively socially harmful. Being pushed to maintain your snap streak isn't a positive social engagement - it's like all the worst bits of middle schools amplified by a large factor.
You're right, a lot of youtube channels are similar to TV shows, except with worse production values and worse quality control. There are exceptions - there are interesting, thoughtful people on youtube, but there's an awful lot of lowest common denominator bollocks.
Specifically, I was curious what would happen if some 13-year old who is now barred from her own Facebook community started an internet 1.0 style board(eg. like SoF), and invited all her old friends from Facebook over. I assume the law wouldn't be able to touch them, because it's not social media.
It would depend on the scope of the law; the Australian act seems to explicitly call out certain social media sites (including YouTube and Reddit), whereas the Online Safety Act in the UK uses the language of 'service providers' that provide a 'user to user service' - the latter would apply to any forum of that kind.
I don't have TikTok but I follow a YouTuber called Shawna Ripari who reports on TikTok and wider social media trends, mostly ones to do with hyperconsumption but other trends too such as the dark tan aesthetic.
I don't know what the answer is. I think people in general need more offline time
Yeah, I don't generally use tiktok because it forces hyper-consumption by default, I'm not sure what the answer is either, except to say that it's a problem that dates back at least as far back as channel-surfing, except it's now universalised.
You're right, a lot of youtube channels are similar to TV shows, except with worse production values and worse quality control.
'Worse production values' isn't necessarily a knock down argument, I can excuse that from a channel covering a topic in depth (especially as TV has gone in the opposite direction if anything), admittedly 13yos are probably not watching video essays.
Independent wants me to subscribe before I can read anything beyond the headline.
Weird, I can see it for free. It's a bit of a joke, but here's a snippet:
Then there’s my friend’s dad, who only discovered Facebook after marrying his third wife, but swiftly used it to reconnect with his second. He sent her a private message saying how he lived such a regretful life these days, how he’d made a terrible mistake and she’d always been the real love of his life. Well, the sentiment might have been real, but his belief that this was a private message was not. He had written it on her public Facebook page, for all their relatives, their various children, and his current wife to read.
The punch is that as much as we angst about children, often it's older people who seem to be endangering themselves via not knowing how to use the internet appropriately, and might be better served just staying off of it.
Yes, this whole conversation is steeped in prejudice against people of various age groups, with the author quipping that clearly only middle aged folks (like me) should be allowed to use it, with tongue very firmly in cheek.
Specifically, I was curious what would happen if some 13-year old who is now barred from her own Facebook community started an internet 1.0 style board(eg. like SoF), and invited all her old friends from Facebook over. I assume the law wouldn't be able to touch them, because it's not social media.
It would depend on the scope of the law; the Australian act seems to explicitly call out certain social media sites (including YouTube and Reddit), whereas the Online Safety Act in the UK uses the language of 'service providers' that provide a 'user to user service' - the latter would apply to any forum of that kind.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
Another thing I've been thinking about. Many browsers and apps now have AI embedded within them. And even Microsoft Windows has AI you can't switch off.
These are not entirely connected thoughts, however young people often seem to be getting laptops or tablets to use at school and presumably this means that they will be exposed to AI in ways they're not aware of. For example maybe they will be searching for an image and the AI shows them a lot of manipulated images. In time they start believing even more strongly in a damaging perfected body image because that's all the AI shows them. Or they don't realise that the AI is magnifying and reflecting their own thoughts, which could be giving validation to all kinds of bad things.
Ironically banning or restricting social media could mean that they're exposed to more damaging AI.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
I think social media has changed, and maybe intensified in some ways, how young people are brought into those dreams, as it were. But that kind of concern, peer pressure and societal pressure about appearance has been around as long as there have been magazines, movies and TV, and probably longer. I saw it in action and experienced it myself 50 years go.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
I think social media has changed, and maybe intensified in some ways, how young people are brought into those dreams, as it were. But that kind of concern, peer pressure and societal pressure about appearance has been around as long as there have been magazines, movies and TV, and probably longer. I saw it in action and experienced it myself 50 years go.
And youth subculture is - if anything - much more fragmentary these days, so rather than a single 'standard version of beauty' there are multiple's - with some common features.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
I think social media has changed, and maybe intensified in some ways, how young people are brought into those dreams, as it were. But that kind of concern, peer pressure and societal pressure about appearance has been around as long as there have been magazines, movies and TV, and probably longer. I saw it in action and experienced it myself 50 years go.
And youth subculture is - if anything - much more fragmentary these days, so rather than a single 'standard version of beauty' there are multiple's - with some common features.
Agreed. If anything, I think the traditionalists in America are flipping out because the younger generation isn't sliding into a standard model for beauty.
'Worse production values' isn't necessarily a knock down argument, I can excuse that from a channel covering a topic in depth (especially as TV has gone in the opposite direction if anything), admittedly 13yos are probably not watching video essays.
You can find some great gems on youtube, buried under all the dross. I have long thought that social media needs much finer-grained control. I want to be able to say "I know who Dave is, but Dave has shitty taste, so I don't want to see any recommendation due to Dave being my friend, and I might actually want to use "Dave likes it" as an anti-recommendation.
The punch is that as much as we angst about children, often it's older people who seem to be endangering themselves via not knowing how to use the internet appropriately, and might be better served just staying off of it.
Oh, being this kind of dumbarse doesn't need social media. I have a colleague (one that I've known for quite some time) who I asked to send me a contact person for some particular work that the colleague was tangentially involved in. He sent me a name and an email address, and also sent me a page or so of editorial commentary, talking about how he thought this work was basically worthless, and had been done much better by other people.
Unfortunately for him, he cc'd the guy in question. He'd typed the guy's name in to his email program to look up his email, and just left it there...
(I don't think I can count the number of times I've seen people type their passwords in to slack because they didn't notice that the wrong window had the focus.)
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
I think social media has changed, and maybe intensified in some ways, how young people are brought into those dreams, as it were. But that kind of concern, peer pressure and societal pressure about appearance has been around as long as there have been magazines, movies and TV, and probably longer. I saw it in action and experienced it myself 50 years go.
I think things like filters have changed things a lot. Now everyone has surgery/procedures in order to look like a filter.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
I think social media has changed, and maybe intensified in some ways, how young people are brought into those dreams, as it were. But that kind of concern, peer pressure and societal pressure about appearance has been around as long as there have been magazines, movies and TV, and probably longer. I saw it in action and experienced it myself 50 years go.
And youth subculture is - if anything - much more fragmentary these days, so rather than a single 'standard version of beauty' there are multiple's - with some common features.
Agreed. If anything, I think the traditionalists in America are flipping out because the younger generation isn't sliding into a standard model for beauty.
Let them toss.
Can you point to any examples? I don't see any evidence that this is true, and I am well-educated on online trends and online youth culture. The model for beauty is in fact a lot more homogenous than it was 10 years ago, body positivity is being rejected en masse in favour of heroin chic's comeback.
Parents are tired. And in a lot of ways, it's kinda like TV these days. Everyone wants passive entertainment to pass the time and stave off ennui.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
I would tend to agree, though the way my kids use some video outlets I'm sometimes skeptical. It's less organized and a lot more hyper-sensory. A lot of youtubers aren't much different than TV shows. They just put out content and people watch it.
I think this is right. A lot of social media use isn't even remotely social. Doom-scrolling on tiktok and so on is worse than TV channel-hopping from the point of view of attention spans. "Social media" can be used as a forum for social engagement, but it usually isn't. and I'd argue that much of the engagement is actively socially harmful. Being pushed to maintain your snap streak isn't a positive social engagement - it's like all the worst bits of middle schools amplified by a large factor.
You're right, a lot of youtube channels are similar to TV shows, except with worse production values and worse quality control. There are exceptions - there are interesting, thoughtful people on youtube, but there's an awful lot of lowest common denominator bollocks.
I agree with this and especially the shift to short-form media.
The punch is that as much as we angst about children, often it's older people who seem to be endangering themselves via not knowing how to use the internet appropriately, and might be better served just staying off of it.
Not to mention endangering children. Because by definition, child-luring is an activity engaged in exclusively by adults(or, depending on the given criminal-code, minors with a wide cognitive-gap to their younger victims).
Which brings to mind the likely apocraphyal story of a certain female prime minister(herein unnamed, in deference to BDS) being advised to institute a curfew to protect women from violent men. She replied that if it's men who were causing the problem, the men are the ones who should get the curfew.
Mutatis mutandis, one could observe that the Australian law restricts the rights of those it proclaims to protect, while leaving free the entire class of people supposedly inclined toward hurting the vulnerable group(*).
(*) I acknowledge that, going by the statements of its supporters, the new law seems aimed more at combating general sociopsychological damage to youth, rather than detering criminal threats from adults. I think it's safe to say, though, that in any debate about children's well-being and the internet, the spectre of malevolent adults is never far from anyone's mind.
I'll also admit that, whatever good it might do in terms of protecting kids, removing every adult from social media would bring about a catastrophic economic collapse overnight.
I'll also admit that, whatever good it might do in terms of protecting kids, removing every adult from social media would bring about a catastrophic economic collapse overnight.
Which takes me in the direction of...
The only social media I really do are YouTube and reddit, but I know enough to know that YouTube, at least, is a place where you can, via interaction with their advertising system, legally look at copyrighted music free of charge.
Now, believe it or not, I know almost nothing else about any other form of on-line musical acquisition. But am I correct in assuming that if under-16s all lose access to YouTube along with every other social media company, they're more likely to pursue purchases from for-profit intermediaries?
(And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory about some streaming tycoons ordering the government to give them more customers by banning kids from YouTube. Probably more of an unintended consequences thing, if indeed there's anything to the theory. Again, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to the topic of on-line purchasing. who does them, etc.)
...pursue purchases from for-profit intermediaries...
I realize YouTube's alliance with the music labels is a for-profit endeavour. I mean: "Are kids more likely to have to pay outta pocket to listen to music?"
Now, believe it or not, I know almost nothing else about any other form of on-line musical acquisition. But am I correct in assuming that if under-16s all lose access to YouTube along with every other social media company, they're more likely to pursue purchases from for-profit intermediaries?
(And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory about some streaming tycoons ordering the government to give them more customers by banning kids from YouTube. Probably more of an unintended consequences thing, if indeed there's anything to the theory. Again, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to the topic of on-line purchasing. who does them, etc.)
One does not need a youtube account to watch videos / listen to music. Without an account, you won't have history and recommendations that follow you around, but you can still use it like a TV.
Now, believe it or not, I know almost nothing else about any other form of on-line musical acquisition. But am I correct in assuming that if under-16s all lose access to YouTube along with every other social media company, they're more likely to pursue purchases from for-profit intermediaries?
(And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory about some streaming tycoons ordering the government to give them more customers by banning kids from YouTube. Probably more of an unintended consequences thing, if indeed there's anything to the theory. Again, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to the topic of on-line purchasing. who does them, etc.)
One does not need a youtube account to watch videos / listen to music. Without an account, you won't have history and recommendations that follow you around, but you can still use it like a TV.
Yeah, I know. At the time I made that post, I assumed that kids were banned from YouTube under the law, but was later informed otherwise(see my previous post).
I think things like filters have changed things a lot. Now everyone has surgery/procedures in order to look like a filter.
Everyone? Really? I call bullshit.
And besides, before there were filters there was photoshop. And before that there was airbrushing. Hell, you think all those centuries-old paintings in the National Portrait Gallery are exactly precise representations of their subjects?
Unrealistic beauty standards and peer pressure to conform to them are not an invention of social media.
Comments
I think this is right. A lot of social media use isn't even remotely social. Doom-scrolling on tiktok and so on is worse than TV channel-hopping from the point of view of attention spans. "Social media" can be used as a forum for social engagement, but it usually isn't. and I'd argue that much of the engagement is actively socially harmful. Being pushed to maintain your snap streak isn't a positive social engagement - it's like all the worst bits of middle schools amplified by a large factor.
You're right, a lot of youtube channels are similar to TV shows, except with worse production values and worse quality control. There are exceptions - there are interesting, thoughtful people on youtube, but there's an awful lot of lowest common denominator bollocks.
It would depend on the scope of the law; the Australian act seems to explicitly call out certain social media sites (including YouTube and Reddit), whereas the Online Safety Act in the UK uses the language of 'service providers' that provide a 'user to user service' - the latter would apply to any forum of that kind.
Yeah, I don't generally use tiktok because it forces hyper-consumption by default, I'm not sure what the answer is either, except to say that it's a problem that dates back at least as far back as channel-surfing, except it's now universalised.
'Worse production values' isn't necessarily a knock down argument, I can excuse that from a channel covering a topic in depth (especially as TV has gone in the opposite direction if anything), admittedly 13yos are probably not watching video essays.
Independent wants me to subscribe before I can read anything beyond the headline.
Weird, I can see it for free. It's a bit of a joke, but here's a snippet: The punch is that as much as we angst about children, often it's older people who seem to be endangering themselves via not knowing how to use the internet appropriately, and might be better served just staying off of it.
Yes, this whole conversation is steeped in prejudice against people of various age groups, with the author quipping that clearly only middle aged folks (like me) should be allowed to use it, with tongue very firmly in cheek.
Thanks.
Yes I think there is something different. The "standard version" of what beauty should look like is spread widely on social media.
It's about how tanned you are, but also your weight, your haircut, your cheekbones and so on.
Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate how far the young people I saw had bought into that dream.
These are not entirely connected thoughts, however young people often seem to be getting laptops or tablets to use at school and presumably this means that they will be exposed to AI in ways they're not aware of. For example maybe they will be searching for an image and the AI shows them a lot of manipulated images. In time they start believing even more strongly in a damaging perfected body image because that's all the AI shows them. Or they don't realise that the AI is magnifying and reflecting their own thoughts, which could be giving validation to all kinds of bad things.
Ironically banning or restricting social media could mean that they're exposed to more damaging AI.
And youth subculture is - if anything - much more fragmentary these days, so rather than a single 'standard version of beauty' there are multiple's - with some common features.
Agreed. If anything, I think the traditionalists in America are flipping out because the younger generation isn't sliding into a standard model for beauty.
Let them toss.
You can find some great gems on youtube, buried under all the dross. I have long thought that social media needs much finer-grained control. I want to be able to say "I know who Dave is, but Dave has shitty taste, so I don't want to see any recommendation due to Dave being my friend, and I might actually want to use "Dave likes it" as an anti-recommendation.
Oh, being this kind of dumbarse doesn't need social media. I have a colleague (one that I've known for quite some time) who I asked to send me a contact person for some particular work that the colleague was tangentially involved in. He sent me a name and an email address, and also sent me a page or so of editorial commentary, talking about how he thought this work was basically worthless, and had been done much better by other people.
Unfortunately for him, he cc'd the guy in question. He'd typed the guy's name in to his email program to look up his email, and just left it there...
(I don't think I can count the number of times I've seen people type their passwords in to slack because they didn't notice that the wrong window had the focus.)
I think things like filters have changed things a lot. Now everyone has surgery/procedures in order to look like a filter.
Can you point to any examples? I don't see any evidence that this is true, and I am well-educated on online trends and online youth culture. The model for beauty is in fact a lot more homogenous than it was 10 years ago, body positivity is being rejected en masse in favour of heroin chic's comeback.
I agree with this and especially the shift to short-form media.
Not to mention endangering children. Because by definition, child-luring is an activity engaged in exclusively by adults(or, depending on the given criminal-code, minors with a wide cognitive-gap to their younger victims).
Which brings to mind the likely apocraphyal story of a certain female prime minister(herein unnamed, in deference to BDS) being advised to institute a curfew to protect women from violent men. She replied that if it's men who were causing the problem, the men are the ones who should get the curfew.
Mutatis mutandis, one could observe that the Australian law restricts the rights of those it proclaims to protect, while leaving free the entire class of people supposedly inclined toward hurting the vulnerable group(*).
(*) I acknowledge that, going by the statements of its supporters, the new law seems aimed more at combating general sociopsychological damage to youth, rather than detering criminal threats from adults. I think it's safe to say, though, that in any debate about children's well-being and the internet, the spectre of malevolent adults is never far from anyone's mind.
I'll also admit that, whatever good it might do in terms of protecting kids, removing every adult from social media would bring about a catastrophic economic collapse overnight.
Which takes me in the direction of...
The only social media I really do are YouTube and reddit, but I know enough to know that YouTube, at least, is a place where you can, via interaction with their advertising system, legally look at copyrighted music free of charge.
Now, believe it or not, I know almost nothing else about any other form of on-line musical acquisition. But am I correct in assuming that if under-16s all lose access to YouTube along with every other social media company, they're more likely to pursue purchases from for-profit intermediaries?
(And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory about some streaming tycoons ordering the government to give them more customers by banning kids from YouTube. Probably more of an unintended consequences thing, if indeed there's anything to the theory. Again, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to the topic of on-line purchasing. who does them, etc.)
I realize YouTube's alliance with the music labels is a for-profit endeavour. I mean: "Are kids more likely to have to pay outta pocket to listen to music?"
Good point.
One does not need a youtube account to watch videos / listen to music. Without an account, you won't have history and recommendations that follow you around, but you can still use it like a TV.
Yeah, I know. At the time I made that post, I assumed that kids were banned from YouTube under the law, but was later informed otherwise(see my previous post).
Everyone? Really? I call bullshit.
And besides, before there were filters there was photoshop. And before that there was airbrushing. Hell, you think all those centuries-old paintings in the National Portrait Gallery are exactly precise representations of their subjects?
Unrealistic beauty standards and peer pressure to conform to them are not an invention of social media.