Brits are falling out of love with posting every thought online British adults are now less active on social media, according to Ofcom, with just half of users actively posting, and fewer now believe the benefits outweigh the risks of being online. The UK's telecoms regulator examined the media use and attitudes of a sample of adults, and found that the proportion who actively post, share …
I fell out of love with Social Media when their prioritised "you may like" content over posts from my friends and family - the only reason why I joined them in the first place. The end result of this is that I deleted the apps and stopped going.
The only exception is LinkedIn which I loath because I more or less am compelled to use it as I'm looking for a new job as my current contract probably won't be extended.
"The only exception is LinkedIn which I loath..."
I tend not to update LinkedIn with my current job until it's exit time, and I'm job hunting again.
Presently contemplating turning off the visibility. If I get the boot from the current job, that's it, I'm done, retirement. Therefore no further need..
I think this is spot on.
Most social media apps have a feature that allows you to see posts from “friends” rather than a curated feed, but you usually have to go hunting for it and it’s usually impossible to set it as the default. Hence most people just default to a curated feed of garbage.
I believe that the curated feeds are definitely the toxic aspect, and I tend to believe that regulating those rather than using age verification would be far more beneficial to all.
Sadly, that won’t happen because of course money talks.
I've honestly never seen the point of "Social Media."
My own life is only at best of marginal interest even to me and I know the rest of my species well enough to realize that theirs are in large part equally mundane, so why would I want to post about it or read about other's on Facebook?1 Xitter? I remember before it evolved into the current cesspit of meanness and hatred when it was a steady stream of postings by hipsters reporting what they had for lunch and, well, I like to have the same lunch every day.2
As far as LinkedIn goes, I signed up for it at least a decade and a half ago at the behest of, nay, badgering by a former colleague and then promptly forgot the login and password, so I haven't been bothered with it since, other than the occasional "friend" request (or whatever they're called in LinkedIn jargon) from vaguely remembered former coworkers, which I studiously ignore.
Keeping up with distant friends? Email works just dandy and is a heck of a lot more private (at least conceptually).
I realize that makes me pretty much a misanthrope3 but it's served me well for many decades and probably kept me out of a lot of trouble and heartache.
Well, that took a couple of strange turns, didn't it?
_____________
1 I'd much rather post curmudgeonly and longwinded comments to The Register consisting of vaguely related reminiscences and shakily founded opinions. But, hey, everybody has their own kinks.
2 Revenge, served cold.
3 H. L Mencken was my hero until I discovered that he seemed to be privately a racist and antisemite (though that's somewhat debatable and may have evolved to more enlightened views over time). In the words of the late Jill Sobule, "Why are all our heroes so imperfect? / Why do they always bring me down?".
I know others have different experience, but I've never found LinkedIn to be of any use even for jobs, and as a result of my experience, I've not updated my profile for a good few years. I only keep it live for occasional "what are they doing now" snooping, but other than that the whole of Linkedin has zero entertainment, educational, contact making or job-finding benefit.
In every possible reading, Linkedin is just Facebook for Suits: Dull, full of advertising drivel, spewing boring user posts at users relating to subjects nobody really cares about, a means for talent free recruiters to boost their book numbers, and a waste of time for all people who truly haven't earned their oxygen that day.
Used to work at a place where we had to have a "social media" presence on a few platforms (including Twitter & LinkedIn) as part of "advertising" the company / interacting with customers.
Since leaving that role I have happily forgotten all the login creds - so either some very stale accounts still exist or they have been auto purged for inactivity
Whilst this video is mainly centred around how the US media has helped perpetuate these myths, the explanations it contains are something you should watch.
As an aside, it's still unbelievable that anyone believes this dumb statement of yours, but I suppose if someone is really stupid or full of hate, they'll believe anything that fits their agenda.
Not just the police...
HMRC using AI to scour suspected tax cheats' social media
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjyedz202ko
There are tax payers, and there are extremely rich tax payers, who are so poor that they pay less of their income than the former
Why did I know you were going to link to the British Saul Goodman before I clicked?
Out of all of his areas of specialisation of this jack of all trades lawtuber, the Public Order Act, the Human Rights Act, and the OSA, from which modern UK free speech law is derived, are not listed.
He knows people have been put in prison for saying things online that other people don't like? Perhaps because they were threatening other people? Thankfully in the UK, treatening someone online has consequences as it does in real life. Unless he specifically goes through cases which he believes are miscarriages of justice, explains why and then explains what part of which law ought to be changed to avoid that in the future, he's just fishing for views.
Clearly you haven't watched any of his videos. Find one video of his where he suggests someone making threats was wrongfully treated and report back. Just for information, you do not need to be a barrister to understand the law. One thing he does is go through line by line cases and an explanation of why things are like they are. The issue we have is subjective (and apparently political) prosecutions under the malicious communications act (someone didn't like your hurty words) whilst ignoring the freedom of expression and right to offend in Article 10 of the ECHR.
It is obvious that some groups are using legislation to shut down voices which disagree with their point of view, which is not an offence. Frequently this results in arrest / compulsory interview. Whilst there may not be a charge in the end, as many have pointed out, the process is the punishment.
Dan55 has nailed it exactly. Rather than the silly retort that he hasn't seen his videos, I'd suggest the more likely view that you're watching them and picking up on the right wing dogwhistling.
I've been watching Dan the blackbelt barrister for years. He has some good videos on the BBC licensing company.
I don't think he's personally a right wing racist bigot, but let's just say.... he knows his audience.
Just read some of the comments from the knuckle draggers who comment on his posts regarding immigrants.
Aaah ye ol 'right wing dog-whistling'. The left-wingers excuse for anything they refuse to see. And you think dressing up your comment subtly is a clever way of indulging in an ad hominem attack? Its an easy way of ignoring facts.
In regards to the 'silly retort' of Dan55 not seeing his videos, he plainly hasn't. If you think BBB (your mate Dan) is giving subjective comment feel free to explain which videos you think do that and why. Don't just wheel out the 'right wing racist bigot' chant, engage yourself from the neck up and explain why. With examples. In detail.
I suspect like a huge amount of people who vilify rumoured 'right wing racist bigots' Dan55 hasn't seen BBBs videos.
Huh? You are the one who ignored facts and made a snide dig at dan55.
Dan55 explained it far better than I could - it's funny how both him and I had the exact same opinion - I wrote my first reply before seeing Dans reply.
I've watched many of his videos. I've been following him for years. If you don't believe that, fine, I don't care. The fact you can't see anything unusual about his audience shows how deep in your bubble you are.
Frankly, I'm not going to search through loads of videos to find specific points, just to try and convince someone closed-minded who denies reality.
P.S. Someone against far right bigotry doesn't make them left wing, it makes them normal. Bubble bubble bubble.
Ok, I googled, here are some reddit posts: (from https://old.reddit.com/r/uklaw/comments/1habmfb/what_is_this_guys_personal_vendetta_against_keir/
______________________________________________________________________________
I’ve watched his legal videos for ages, and found them pretty good despite his blatant shilling for IT stuff he doesn’t understand.
Ever since the VAT on private school fees was confirmed, he seems to have just concentrated on attacking the government…
I kind of prefer the Art of Law channel now, even if he’s somewhat eccentric.
permalinkembedsavereportreply
load more comments (18 replies)
[–]zaddawadda 28 points 1 year ago
I'm not crazy about him, as much of the content on his main channel is tailored to appeal to a conservative audience whilst simultaneously claiming to be impartial, representing the facts and not his opinion. But his titles, thumbnails and framing clearly suggest otherwise.
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]TangoMikeOne 16 points 1 year ago
I found him after finding Art of Law, about 9 months ago rapidly got bored of the heavy shilling of crap (I live in a one bed council flat on minimum wage - I don't have the room or budget to get an off brand lay-z-boy leather chair or whatever shite it was.
Art of Law on the other hand continues to do what he says on the tin (I'm watching the Connor McGregor video now), but BBB has long since been fucked off out of my subs list.
[–]manic47 20 points 1 year ago
His main channel was always just legal matters - but is now full of his anti-government views about Starmer/Reeves/Rayner. I could understand if he did a video about a legal matter and linked it to government policy or legislation but he doesn’t.
I guess purely as it’s got more viewers than his personal option or wealth creation channels.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply
[–]RealisticAd1860[S] 7 points 1 year ago
Yeah I wonder if it started because he made a few vids explaining the various Harry and Megan stories - noticed a load of Daily Express readers in the comments, and the rest is history.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply
[–][deleted] 2 points 1 year ago
Presumably because he is a conservative, so he wouldn’t have made videos like that when they were in power
permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply
[–]Pr1Uch 13 points 1 year ago
Agreed I've had to unsubscribe over the last few months.... Initially as a non legal viewer found the insight interesting however it seems like he's fishing for the legal specialist role on GB News.... If it's not takes on Starmer it's ULEZ nanny state rubbish. Seemed to start to pander to RedPill content with Depp Vs Rudd Celebrity trial....
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]Far_Travel7337 9 points 1 year ago
He recently got annoyed because a company withdrew there sponsorship because he was being political. But there completely right he has become biased and I’m just not interested in his content anymore. Barley any proper legal advice
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]WheresWalldough 8 points 1 year ago
he's shit.
Points:
his call date was 2018 - not an experienced lawyer
the black belt thing might imply he's experienced, but it only refers to his kung fu skills, which I don't care about
he has his own law firm but it's not apparent that anyone ever hires it for anything, and if they did it's likely to be something very menial
lawyers specialise - nobody can be expert in everything. It's not clear that he's expert at anything at all.
further to this, he spouts off on every topic without knowing anything about the area of law
he gets things wrong quite a lot, which isn't surprising given that he pontificates on everything.
his first degree appears to be from OU, which is fine, but it doesn't suggest he has an outstanding educational background
there are a few other similar rentagobs:
Steven Barrett (who is right wing)
Sam Fowles (who is left wing)
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]RealisticAd1860[S] 3 points 1 year ago
Yes I know what you mean, in contrast to Al Robertshaw who as a rule is far more open about the areas he has previously specialised in, and the training he currently helps lead.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply
[–]Available_Weight_161 2 points 9 months ago
You talk bollocks
permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply
[–][deleted] 16 points 1 year ago
I think the answer is one part genuine dislike and three parts engagement driving.
You don't get clout online by supporting a government. Especially a centrist one. He's also doubled down a bit on immigration stuff which shows he's worked out where his bread is buttered.
As always, most online stuff starts with good intentions and quickly degenerates into click driving. Legal Eagle was the same, just leant the other way
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]CrimsonCrinkle 6 points 1 year ago
I have been following him for some time. Recently he seems to have gone all-out on populist opinionated stuff, looks to me like he is chasing views.
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]Nerv0us_Br3akd0wn 6 points 1 year ago
It’s curious - wonder if anyone has started bankrolling him. Elon was very interested in UK politics
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]New_Vegetable_3173 2 points 11 months ago
I think this might be it. He's gone increasingly right wing so I wondered why and who was funding him behind the scenes. Well the that or he is a pdf and setting up his defence for that now
[tries to disguise an involuntary laugh as a coughing fit]
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]Clean-Ad-422 6 points 1 year ago
Rule of thumb: actual good/respected barristers don’t have heavily produced YouTube channels
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]secretlondon 18 points 1 year ago
He’s pitched at GB News types. I think some of it is click bait tbh
permalinkembedsavereportreply
[–]IdiotByTheBeach 5 points 1 year ago
I’ve watched him for a while. In non political topics he is fair and can offer a balanced opinion. However, I noticed during Covid his legal takes were more like the opinions of a lay person.
The secret barrister is a good example of someone that can remove bias from their posts, this is not the case for the bbb.
As we’re all aware we’re allowed opinions, but it’s important that when we use personal credentials to back them up that they are accurate and fair. Unfortunately he seems to be going down the way of Steven Barrett who kindly blocked me for calling him out many times.
____________________________________________________
Oh look, here is a google summary. Funnily enough, the legal posters in reddit have come to a similar conclusion to me and Dan.
________
Based on user discussions, comments, and his own stated positions, Daniel ShenSmith, known as the "Blackbelt Barrister," is considered to have a right-wing or anti-establishment bias, which has become more pronounced in his content over time.
Political Leaning: ShenSmith has stated he is "probably right of centre".
Content Shift: Formerly known for general legal advice (parking, small claims), his channel has increasingly focused on political issues, critical commentary on the UK government, and topics favored by right-leaning viewers.
Viewership and Commentary: Reddit users in legal forums have described his channel as becoming "hard right populist" or featuring "anti-establishment stuff".
Specific Stances: He has publicly opposed the Sentencing Council's guidance on using pre-sentence reports for certain minority groups, calling it a "two-tier system". He has also interviewed representatives from Reform UK.
Controversy: Some followers have noted his pivot has led to higher viewership, with some critics on Reddit alleging a focus on sensationalism and "grifting".
While some viewers appreciate his "straight talk" and critique of current government actions, others argue his content has become an "embarrassment to the legal profession" due to the perceived political bias, according to comments on Reddit and Facebook.
Again, find one video of his where he suggests someone making threats was wrongfully treated and report back. That's all you've got to do - back up your assertions with facts.
"Frankly, I'm not going to search through loads of videos to find specific points". No, of course not. That would require effort and facts. But in regards to your random Reddit comments...
WheresWalldough "he's shit."
New_Vegetable_3173 "Well the that or he is a pdf and setting up his defence for that now"
Available_Weight_161 "You talk bollocks"
Oh yeah, its Wednesday afternoon. Time for students to get all Socialist Weakly.
I did listen to the video you highlighted and not just the part at 25:00. He walked us through how police received a complaint about an ex-politician so they interviewed him and decided not to charge him so I'm not sure what the point you're making is. In fact at 20:00 he argues that the UK does have freedom of speech, however he does like to muddy the point by mentioning that he knows people have ended up in prison for posting something but not elaborating any more, giving the idea that perhaps they ended up in prison for posting something similar to this case when this would not be true.
If you think there's a better video of his where he goes through cases which he believes someone ended up in prison for posting on social media and is a miscarriage of justice then let me know - it's up to you to highlight a video if you think it makes a point in your favour. I'm not going to watch all his videos from when he opened his channel in 2020 as you're asking me to because I'm not paid to do that, or even paid to reply to you now... I've seen less than a handful of his videos and my opinion of him is he's an ambulance chaser who's cultivating a certain audience. You're more familiar with his output so I'm sure you can find one.
The point is, as was well made in the video which apparently you watched, is the potential for self-implication without good legal representation. If you listened to the video you'd be aware of how thin the ice is, despite this being protected speech under Article 10 - it's still possible to incriminate yourself whilst acting with good intentions. Its also possible for you to be held on remand without parole (as has happened) despite this being highly unusual, until a trial, in order to get you to plead guilty thinking it will go well with you.
The point is that the police should never have considered the case as the post is protected speech under article 10. The point is, as so many people have pointed out, that the process is the punishment. The ultimate point is that if the police request your attendance at a police station for a crime, you produce a statement disputing the LEGAL BASIS (not the facts) and the police then don't charge you, then they've got the law wrong and you have to ask why a legal social media post ends up with a legal defence in a police station.
or mature.
This news - obvious as it was 10 years ago - is going to cause some loose bowels in the people who have created their entire raison d'etre around social media.
And that includes the politicians.
I can now see why the "new media" approach of Mayor Mamdani is so understated.
This recent AU news item on the UK: broken-britain-poverty-crisis-pushing-voters-to-reform-uk paints a pretty grim picture.
At some point the usual shite on "the socials" fails to engage and cute kitten nonsense definitely doesn't cut it. The unholy legions of "influencers" trying to flog their ludicrously expensive codswallop to viewers that cannot meet basic living expenses only underlines the disconnection.
Social media rewards the "dark tetrad" (narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism) while being deliberately designed for addiction through variable rewards, constant notifications and infinite scroll. It amplifies relational aggression (scaling "mean girl" dynamics to millions), fragments attention, erodes real-world social skills, and replaces ancient wisdom with instant context-free reactions. Wrecks attention spans and fuels isolation and societal division.
> In other news, our phone polling of people with a landline who pickup calls
Well that at least means our views will never be taken as we ignore unknown numbers and let them go to the answer phone.
Mostly we get silence, one however after the AP greeting message was rabbiting on about something like "you will continue to get calls until you answer !" Fat chance of that!
"Perhaps the least surprising finding is that more than half of social media users say they have seen false or misleading news during the past year. "
Don't know what "news" crops up on social media particularly as not something I engage with very much.
I do know from watching UK TV news (BBC & ITV) & "reading"* some UK newspapers, that misleading news is not exactly uncommon without having to visit social media.
* In my case, browsing their websites.
>>"Ofcom finds social media participation dropping as skepticism about digital life grows"
Or more likely British citizens are abandoning social media due to the risk that saying the wrong thing will bring the Thought Police, sorry, local law enforcement to their door because what they posted offended someone on the internet.
I post bollocks on social media all the time and never had the police arrest me eve
Seriously, people are stopping because the bullshit the social media companies are pushing on their readers.
Eg you got on social media to see what great aunt Edna has knitted, or to see what exactly cousin Jenny has spawned, or find out your old bud Richie from university is starting a 7 year stretch for dealing class A drugs(he always was a dumb shit), with social media listing the activities of your friends.
Now its pushing political BS, or some other AI crap hoping you click on the advert, and they get paid for inserting an ad for baby food in a video of <country A> being bombed by <country B>
Yes, I have seen false news, mostly from the main stream media, mostly falsly describing ordinary citizens of being "far right" when they are not.
Citizens having a view opposed to the official "truth speak" government agenda is extremely inconvenient. Ofcom is their means of controlling free speech.
