Erase social media tomorrow? Brits say yes

Just 7 percent of Brits think social media is a force for good and around one in three suspect that life would get better if all these sites were erased from the internet tomorrow. Or so claims Opinium Research, which describes itself as a “strategic insight agency.” It polled 2,000 adults and 1,100 parents in September and The …

[Alberto Malich]

> should the internet should become a read-only medium?

Communication is the main strength of the web as a whole: trying to ruin it for the rest of us because the big sites can't be forced to disable their worst attention-seeking algorithms would be a gigantic mistake.

"Social media" is pretty much anything that lets you communicate digitally, whether that's a Facebook post, a chat message on any of the messaging services, a Stack Overflow forum post, or an in-game chat for a multiplayer game. Gaming is even called out specifically in an Ofcom report on adults' media usage (notice how it doesn't just say SOCIAL media). Demanding that these things be wiped out or locked behind restrictions locks away most of the benefit of the web!

The very best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts on the big services (Facebook, Instagram) if they believe it's harmful for them. The rest of the world continues to exist whether they have a presence there or not.

[Mishak]

best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

The trouble is, a lot of them are addicted to the sites - and addicts very rarely do what's best for themselves.

[Alberto Malich]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

I agree with you on that point. My issue is that current (and past, and very likely any future) government like to lump all of that legitimate communication with the ones causing any problem, so it will be every service or method that suffers from restriction. We've already seen for years that they will deliberately conflate the good with the bad to try to restrict more (see: encryption being only mentioned with regards to child pornography in Parliamentary debates).

Is it so much to ask for something to apply to the worst offenders without applying it to every bystander website?

[Kaleyard]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

>past, and very likely any future government

Well there is I understand a chance that the Reform Party might form the next govt and they've explicitly said they'll repeal the Online Safety Act and that social media companies have no role in controlling free speech. So there is some hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

Huh? They totally control free speech at the moment. Try posting something on X that Musk doesn't like.

And there is zero hope if Reform ever get in. Haven't you learnt from Brexit? They are just incompetent grifters herding the easily controlled sheep.

[Kaleyard]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

I agree that control of free speech at the moment makes it even harder for an insurgent party such as Reform to get elected, but how on earth are you reasoning there is zero hope if Reform ever do get elected? They've said repeatedly they're committed to free speech on-line with absolute minimal regulation of what can be said on social media.

Besides all of which, where else is there hope for free speech in the UK? Is it with Labour? Tories? Greens? Libs?

And just in case someone shouts "SDP", I'll just say, I wish, but they're going nowhere electorally - unfortunately.

[Adair]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

'Reform', like most political entities, will say whatever they think their base, plus fringe, want to hear, and to hell with what they will actually do in practice.

Given their very thin skins when it comes to being criticised or held to account the chances of them upholding anything that remotely looks like 'neutrality' or 'free-speech' would be approaching zero.

Reality bites.

[Kaleyard]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

If that is the case, then answer the question, where else is there hope for free speech in the UK? Is it with Labour? Tories? Greens? Libs?

[Adair]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

The question is: are you an idealist or a pragmatist? Then you have to ask 'What do I mean by 'free speech'? Followed by, 'Is my definition of 'free speech' congruent with the most commonly understood meanings of the phrase, and if not, why not?'

If we imagine 'free speech' = 'saying whatever I want without consequences or responsibility' then we may find ourselves at odds with a large proportion of society—of all political colours.

[Kaleyard]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

All of those things you mention are worthy topics but you're still not answering the question I was asking, which was ..

If you say Reform's commitment to free speech should not be believed, where do we look for hope? Labour? Tories? Greens? Libs?

And if you don't answer this time I'm giving up!

[Adair]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

I'm not saying it shouldn't be believed. Due diligence is required.

[John Robson]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

Sorry - are you suggesting that reforms commitment to anything other than grifting should be listened to at all?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Labour? Tories? Greens? Libs?

I have publicly said nasty things about all of them. Labour and Conservatives have had plenty of opportunities to lock me up but didn't. Greens and Libs are so far untested but I have confidence they are not so terrified of what I say that they would take action against me. I have no confidence in Reform at all.

[Champ]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

You keep asking this, while avoiding what you mean by "free speech". I suspect you are a free speech absolutist ie you think you should be able to say anything without legal restriction (apologies if I'm wrong in this).

But speech *does* have consequences, and they can be very severe to those on the wrong end. Libel laws exist for a reason. Hate speech laws exist for a reason. Or do you think it's ok to whip up a riot to burn down buildings containing vulnerable people?

[Casca]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

As ususal with people from that part of the political spectrum

[John Robson]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

Frankly I'd trust a potato more than I would the serial liar who owns Reform UK Ltd (previously trading as various other companies).

But Labour are currently talking about misinformation as a danger, which is the best start I've heard from any of the parties.

Free speech shouldn't be unlimited... The obvious example is always "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" but it's equally dangerous to stoke hatred of asylum seekers etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

>Labour are currently talking about misinformation as a danger

I'm astonished anyone on these forums would be approving of what Labour are saying about misinformation. I had thought everyone here knew they were weasel words for even more censorship.

Serious question now and an opportunity to change a would be Reform voters mind, what serial lies has Farage told?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Farage lies

Farage has voiced scepticism about climate change. He is against womens' rights to abortion. He regularly parroted Putin's propaganda as a paid guest on Russia Today. As an MEP he was out to cause trouble rather that work for the UK's interests. It took COVID to mask the complete disaster that was Brexit. Any one of these would be enough for me.

The UK has a top heavy age distribution. The fix was to import cheap labour to spread the cost of pensions and the NHS over a larger workforce. Kicking out the immigrants has been tried before (Tulsa, Eureka, ...). It ended badly. When the locals realised their mistake the immigrants would not come back.

The Kree saying "A life spent, a life earned" does not work in practice. Goods and services provided by immigrants become rarer, lower quality and more expensive. This causes missed opportunities for job creation when people do not have the time and resources to expand their businesses. The saying should be "a life spent, one and a bit more people unemployed."

[Anonymous Coward]

Waffle and obfuscation. No attempt to answer the straight-forward question that was asked.

John Robson (above) says Farage is a serial liar. I'm simply asking what serial lies has Farage told?

[Adair]

Nigel Farage has two priorities, which have both been evidenced time and again throughout his political career: Nigel, and Nigel's bank account.

Anyone imagining that Reform is anything other than the latest iteration of his chosen vehicle for looking after those two priorities is being either wilfully blind, or is on board for what they can get out if it.

Trading on other people's distress for the sake of personal gain is dispicable. Mr Farage is simply a particularly visible example of the type, and the type who cluster around him.

Why do we imprison so many people in this country, and why a party like Reform is attractive to so many in our present time are two questions begging highly related answers.

Fear and selfishness often go hand in hand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet more waffle and obfuscation. None of which answers the simple question I've asked.

Like trying to get blood out of a stone. Well I've had enough. Night night.

[Adair]

Nigel professes to have the interests of 'the British people' at heart. It is a lie repeated in a multitude of ways. The only things at the heart of Mr. Farage's interests are himself and his bank account. Is that clear enough for you. If not go and look at the history of his career yourself, although if you are a Farage fan you will probably be unwilling to accept the truth, in the same way as some are unwilling to accept that human activity could possibly effect the world's climate despite all the mounting and eell attested evidence. Human beings have a huge capacity to only believe what suits them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[Casca]

Says the cowardly AC commentard...

[Champ]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

> what serial lies has Farage told?

I'm somewhat amazed to read this from an El Reg commentard, as they're usually well informed.

I'll start with the whole brexit disaster. Farage spent years saying how good it would be, and, of course it's been rubbish, as predicted by everyone worth listening too.

He also denies climate change.

He still bangs on about immigration, conflating legal and illegal immigration, the latter being a small fraction of the total, and the total number having collapsed over the last 5 years.

I could go on

[John Robson]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

Sorry, are you really doubting that Farage is a serial liar?

I don't know what to tell you... but I don't think I've heard him being honest... ever. At least not deliberately.

Let's start a few years ago:

- 52/48 would be unfinished business: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

- Declared that the EU is unelected

- Declared that the majority of our laws are "made by the EU"

- Declared that the EU "costs" the UK £55m/day (even if you ignored any benefits the number would be half that)

- Deliberately conflates immigrants and asylum seekers

Repeatedly claims to have "intelligence" (at most he could have rumours, intelligence isn't shared to any MP) that criminal acts carried out by his supporters were the result of Iranian small boat migrants.

- Claimed police were transporting thugs to riots, when they were taking them away.

Many of his flagship policies are also illegal or otherwise impossible (no we can't "just take asylum seekers back to France")

And then there's a $5m bung... let's see it was undeclared because:

- He lied about receiving it

- It was a personal gift

- It was payment for Brexit

- It was provision for security arrangements

Or maybe it was it for standing as an MP? Since he'd said that he'd lose £1m/year and a parliamentary session is 5 years it's a mighty fine coincidence that he gets exactly that between making the statement and changing his mind about standing.

[Anonymous Coward]

what serial lies has Farage told?

an opportunity to change a would be Reform voters mind, what serial lies has Farage told

If you're minded to vote for cosplay Nigel's ego trio of the week, you're probably beyond saving.

Since you asked about his lies, here are a few:

1) He said he wouldn't stand for parliament and then did. A few times.

2) He said Brexit would be a wonderful success and solve all of our nation's problems.

3) He promised all the money that went to the EU would get spent on the NHS.

4) He said UK would get a deal with the EU like the one Norway has (ie inside Schengen and the single market and accepting all EU law)

5) He claims climate change and global warming is a hoax.

6) He said the UK trade deal with the EU would be the easiest in history.

7) He blames all the UK's problems on immigrants, especially the ones with brown or black skin.

8) He conceded remain won the EU referendum when the first results were announced.

9) He claims he wasn't paying attention during the meetings where his mini-Nigels were touting for illegal donations.

10) He denies sucking up to Trump, Putin and Musk. Or supporting racist thugs like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

11) He claimed he owned his constituency home when he didn't.

12) He promised to live in Clacton if he got elected.

13) He claimed postal ballots cause widespread electoral fraud.

14) He claimed photos of his home were a security risk. But he posed for them.

15) He claimed to be "done with politics" after UKIP died. And again when his Brexit party died.

16) He says there's nothing wrong with taking backhanders from dodgy non-resident zillionares.

A cursory google search for "farage lies" found lots of links. Here are a few you should read:

https://fullfact.org/nigel-farage/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2998klx2y0o

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html

[doublelayer]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

"Besides all of which, where else is there hope for free speech in the UK?"

That logic isn't going to work for anything. If I look at four out of five options and decide they're all bad, that doesn't prove the fifth option is good. I might only have bad options. You have to decide, independently, whether Reform's promises are trustworthy and whether this is actually one the whole party is aligned on.

[Kaleyard]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

But who thinks about such things, political questions especially, in terms of being either simply good or bad. Surely what we all very often do is decide on the basis of something being least bad, or the best of a bad bunch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

So, you support Lucy Connelly then?

You don't care about incitement to riot?

How about if I post your photo, and home address claiming you're a pedo?

I meant their is zero hope for the country. A bunch of grifters propped up and bribed by crypto oligarchs. They are Trump/MAGA lite and will destroy the country much like Trump is destroying America.

[Jimjam3]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

You had to bring Politics into it!

Seriously the majority of those in Politics have no idea on how to run…anything, they just have opinions. Currently the general public only have a choice of idiots to choose from.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

If you want to understand the Reform UK position on free speech, watch how they deal with journalists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

LMAO

[R Soul]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

"Well there is I understand a chance that the Reform Party might form the next govt and they've explicitly said they'll repeal the Online Safety Act and that social media companies have no role in controlling free speech. So there is some hope."

s/some/no/ FTFY

If that horrid spiv ever got into power, he'll say and do whatever his dodgy donors tell him to do.

[Adair]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

The record so far says that whenever taking actual responsibility, let alone doing hard work for the well being of the nation, get anywhere near Nigel he is suddenly nowhere to be found, but usually turns up in the USA, and stays away, until the heat dies down and he can get back to grifting as usual, until the next time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

You talked about "ignorance and gullibility, along with bigotry" in an earlier comment and then you go and post the above.

How can you do that. How can you talk about the bloke as though he were a friend or colleague of yours, when what you know about him is what you've picked up from the papers, tv, social media, etc, and you've then remembered those bits that fit your idea of who he is and disregarded the rest.

And yes I know that's exactly what many/most of the electorate do but they don't try and tell us what toxic bedfellows ignorance and gullibility, along with bigotry, are.

[Adair]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

Are you a personal friend of his.? He may be a perfectly amiable chap in private, but we're not talking about or observing that. 'Nigel Farage'™ the public figure tells a very visible story of someone who loves irresponsible pot stirring, being the centre of public attention, and raking in as much loot as he can i. the process.

[MaChatma CoatGPT 2.0]

Re: best thing these people could do is to disable or delete their accounts

"The trouble is, a lot of them are addicted to the sites"

*Looks around the Register comments section.

[Tron]

My elderly mother enjoys sharing photos and videos on Facebook.

Mostly of plants and animals.

Why do you all want to spoil her harmless fun?

Nobody is forcing you to use it, and nobody is forcing you to buy your kids smartphones.

Politicians aim to silence us on the net, and will use activist BS like these surveys to do it. Get back in your tribes and stay silent, etc. All news and information of what goes on abroad will arrive via a state controlled media.

[schultzter]

Alas Marketplace

The problem with deleting FB is it has grown into much more, where I am Marketplace is the only way to sell stuff! The others have all faded away.

[Goodwin Sands]

Pot calling kettle

It's sad The Register sees fit to write an article attacking social media in the nasty bigoted and factually weak style of so much of social media.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Pot calling kettle

> factually weak style

Sadly, El Reg has slipped here, as it failed to give the URLs for the "thought leadership piece" (bleeugh) that sparked this[1] or for the particular Statista research it quotes. Foolish of the author, as those omissions are the opening for this accusation.[2]

[1] and going to Opinium Research's home page doesn't provide any easy access to the article either; at least, not within my ability to cope with that nausea inducing sliding text website.

[2] not that many would actually follow those URLs, but they would provide the necessary air of verisimilitude.

[Paul Kunert]

Re: Pot calling kettle

Hi Goodwin, thanks for writing in. It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Best wishes,

Paul

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: Pot calling kettle

Paul. I hear and accept what you say. Obviously didn't strike me as tongue in cheek and that is my loss.

Perhaps we'll hear from others as to how the article struck them.

[Paul Kunert]

Re: Pot calling kettle

Just a bit of a fun piece to spark a debate. Of course social media isn't going to be banned tomorrow, even though it can be toxic. Of course the internet isn't going to be become a read only medium.

Anyway, I hope you have a good day, thanks for reading The Reg

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: Pot calling kettle

Paul.

14 hours later and no one has said how the article struck them. However voting on my orig comment shows my opinion is not widely shared.

FWIW I reread the article again just now but because I now know it was tongue in cheek I can't read it same as I did this morning. I do though still think your "tool used by a tool to sow seeds of discontent" is a dreadful thing to say.

Anyways, moving on, I do enjoy El Reg enormously and have done for many years - so many many thanks for that and I hope there are no bad feelings. All the best.

[Champ]

Re: Pot calling kettle

> "tool used by a tool to sow seeds of discontent" is a dreadful thing to say

Is it really? It seemed concise and incredibly accurate to me.

[KayJ]

Re: Pot calling kettle

Yeah, that was the stand-out line of the piece.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Pot calling kettle

It would be a lot easier to read if you returned to the old format.

[vtcodger]

What's "Social Media"?

What's a "Social Media." How would you explain to a newly arrived Martian the difference between Facebook, X, etc. al. and The Register, Stack Overflow, Slashdot, ...? And what about sites like Reddit and You Tube that contain lots of useful information as well as some unmitigated garbage? What about Wikipedia for heavens sake? Enormously useful. For the most part, anyone can edit it. And that seems to have worked out surprisingly well all things considered.

Would I miss Facebook or the entity formerly known as Twitter were they expunged from the internet tomorrow? Absolutely not. Don't go near them myself. But banning them without unacceptable collateral damage seems to me to be quite impractical.

[that one in the corner]

Re: What's "Social Media"?

> that contain lots of useful information as well as some unmitigated garbage

> What about Wikipedia for heavens sake?

Did you forget to put that second line before the first?

Don't forget, kids, when reading Wikipedia, always check the citations for existence and credibility; *and* look for (and check for credibility!) dissent from the Wiki "truth".

[GlenP]

I've been using "Social Media" since before the term was ever coined, as far back as Prestel in the UK so around 40 years, then Usenet and mailing lists before various forms of forum; as a concept it predates computers, in the form of Round Robin letters. These days my platform of choice is Facebook simply because that's where my friends are.

I've met a lot of people and had a lot of fun that simply wouldn't have happened without those links so personally it's been a "good thing" and my life would be much poorer without it.

Does it annoy me? Frequently - but I'm savvy enough to filter out the cr*p and in many cases laugh at it. Would I change it? Yes, personally I just want the platform to present me with the posts from my friends and those who I follow, in date order, without "curation" being involved - my friends list is restricted to people I've met personally or chosen to become friends with after other interactions so I don't need some algorithm telling me what I should read.

[Anonymous Coward]

"but I'm savvy enough to filter out the cr*p and in many cases laugh at it. "

Commentards are a minority and cleverer than most (obviously).

[that one in the corner]

> as far back as Prestel in the UK ... as a concept it predates computers, in the form of Round Robin letters

Which were both things you and the other participants directly paid for, so the infrastructure was paid for.

> Would I change it? Yes, personally I just want the platform to...

Ok, sounds good. And everyone is happy to pay the subscription, are they? Or put in the time and effort (and funds) to keep the system running, the way Usenet and mailing lists need (and you refer to those in the past - so Usenet is no longer fulfilling your needs?).

We all *want* much the same things (well, around here at least, if we take all the snark at sharing food selfies at face value).

Are we bothering to do anything to reach those goals?*

Or just waving in the winds blown out by the big companies, like FB, who, even if they *did* charge for access, are still operating in the depths of Terminal Capitalism that literally demands they enshittify because that increases immediate shareholder value: the moment they come up with merely the vaguest idea of an even more horrible experience, if there is the chance it adds an extra 0.05% "engagement" whilst the rest simply swallow their nausea but stay scrolling, the FB board are neglecting their fiduciary responsibility if it isn't acted on. FB et al won't ever get better. They can't. They really can't.

* Maybe we have some Mastodon authors here, or similar; this is an awfully clever group of readers, of course; ahem.

[Forget It]

Face Book ...

is a Spoonerism

[Throg]

Enshittification

It’s in the book. Cory Doctorow explains the problem in very simple terms.

It’s all about the cost of leaving. Even if you want to leave or move to another social media platform, it’s really hard if not impossible to convince all of your friends (and then their friends etc.) to do the same.

Granted, the argument might well be “don’t do it at all and just live in the real world”. We no longer live in isolated villages however and the initial offering was a good idea - “hey, you can stay in contact with Auntie Flo who moved to Australia”. Almost everyone who has worked for big international organisations now has friends who live a long way away.

Social media doesn’t need to go away, it just needs to revert to its original (stated) purpose. Doctorow argues that federated services are part of that.

[The Sprocket]

Re: Enshittification

Social media is a rot upon society. I'd say 86 it completely. RIGHT NOW!

Wait—what about Auntie Flo? Mac has FaceTime video conferencing which is easy. I'm sure Windows has their own. A lot of those services exist for free or a little bit and aren't OS specific. Who needs the cesspool of social media if a half dozen or so in your family can get together and gas?

Interest-specific forums also still exist. Dig around and find your new home. Nobody is bitching about Trump in a forum dedicated to Baroque Woodwinds. Guaranteed.

[KayJ]

Re: Enshittification

I've done it. I left FB for Bluesky and then left Bluesky when they showed their true colours; in the process I've lost touch with just about everyone on there that I've not seen in person in twenty years.

Your old social life doesn't _die_ on social media, it just _stretches_ until every moment is weariness...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't really bother me. I don't use Farcebook or X. Insta I don't use but I have it as a means of contact should anyone wish to contact me. I don't use Reddit any more because it was getting filled with bots and propaganda even in the most unlikely of subs plus the constant AI engagement scraping posts. I still have a look every now and again to be fair. If people want to use them then that's up to them. Who am I to say whether they should or shouldn't?

Though I have noticed older people becoming quite polarised and a little racist. I had someone tell me the other week that the UK government is now recognising marriages with multiple wives for benefit claims. It took me about 10 minutes to get it through that actually paying out claims for people in relationships is less that paying claims for individuals so there really would be no point in doing that which means it's not true. The problem is once you start pointing out how stupid these claims are they stop telling you them so you can't explain why they are stupid. The other problem with misinformation is the half truth so what they do is tell you something that is true but leave out important details which change the story, maybe something that came out later, what do you do with that? It needs sorting because the misinformation etc.. is off the charts and I doubt some newfangled government agency is going to fix it.

[DrewPH]

> The problem is once you start pointing out how stupid these claims are they stop telling you them so you can't explain why they are stupid.

I'd argue the problem is actually deciding to engage with such claims in any way at all. These are strangers (I assume) - why interact with them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not strangers. I have in the past responded to posts of that nature pointing out why they are wrong with evidence then refused to engage though. Engaging with those sorts of people is like smashing your head against a wall and a waste of time.

[doublelayer]

It's not always strangers. I've dealt with similar things from friends or acquaintances, and in those cases, I have pursued it for two reasons. One is that they know me and have at least some respect for me, so I think I'm in a better position to disabuse them of the lie they were told. The other is that, if they keep believing and acting on enough of these things, we're going to stop being friends and I don't want to lose another friendship that way. I've had some successes and some failures.

But even if it is online with strangers, I respond in the same circumstances and for the same reasons that I would in a group meeting in person. If I go to a meal with you and a few others and someone starts making up crap in the discussion, then I have two choices: counter it, after all we're together and chose to open this discussion, or decide not to bother meeting this group anymore since I'm not welcome to participate. I wouldn't engage in many of these conversations, but if I'm part of a conversation online, I'll participate even though the others in it are strangers. That's much like we're doing now. I'm a stranger to you and you're a stranger to the person to whom you replied, but we all decided that posting here to talk with each other was something we wanted to do.

[Adair]

Ignorance and gullibility, along with bigotry, have always been toxic bedfellows. The more things change the more they stay the same, especially when it comes to human nature.

[tin 2]

Fuck bluesky

Fuck it all. If it's commercial, it's at the mercy of the same problems as everything else that's gone before.

Get on mastodon if you must do socials!

[Naich]

There are social media sites that are less toxic. When you take profit out of the equation, it's all a lot nicer - no toxic feed algorithms, better tools for blocking cretins, and more. Mastodon takes more initial effort to set up, but it's worth it in the long run. Lemmy is like Reddit with only 25% of the arseholes.

[DrewPH]

Mastodon can be just as toxic - but because you don't expect it, it feels even worse.

[Darkedge]

If yo uare on a good instance (or your own)

with active mods then any sh*ttyness is usually resolved very quickly - report it, if your mods don't help, move to another board. You get out what you put in.

The world is toxic and human being are, expecting any communication to be all rainbows and light is just not practical.

Certainly Mastodon has a lot of the tools to help with this and block the nazis/tefs/etc and it's federated nature means they can go off and have their little circle jerk of hate without affecting 99% of the other people - I do know idiots who do walk into nazi bars and then cry "it's a nazi bar!" which of course means all bars are bad...BUT they are in the minority & the overwhelming majority of Masto users I've met are really great people who know how to behave in a decent society (not to say there aren't disagreements, that's also healthy and can happen without abuse.)

Unfortunately with the stupid rules in the UK basically written by the big companies to support their status quo of social communication it is quite hard to run these federated, decent spaces, or the small hobby boards etc that farcebook has decimated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If yo uare on a good instance (or your own)

WTF are TEFS? I know you don't mean tracheoesophageal fistulas.

[Doctor Syntax]

Loyal Listeners will have noted...

"It polled 2,000 adults and 1,100 parents"

1,100 non-adult parents, presumably.

"More or Less" should be part of the standard curriculum in British schools.

[DrewPH]

Give it the push

I can now say with some satisfaction that the nearest I get to social media are these forums and a placeholder LinkedIn account. And I'm genuinely happier for it.

However, it was perhaps easier for me to ditch on account of my being extremely antisocial, and having no family that I wish to keep in touch with.

[Tron]

Re: Give it the push

Geeks are not the most sociable of people, which may explain the desire of many on here to erase social media, work at home and avoid interaction with other carbon based lifeforms unless absolutely necessary.

That's not an insult, it's just a comment on the aspie leanings of many of us who 'do computers' rather than dinner parties, small talk and socialising. Not sure if it changes with age, or if many of us are destined to become hermits.

Perhaps there is an IoT device that will note our solitary passing and contact a solicitor (obviously not by social media - telegraphy perhaps). If it was hacked and the authorities turned up whilst we were still alive, we might have to pay a penalty for being a false positive. 'I'm sorry sir, but if you are not deceased within the next twenty minutes it will be a £500 fine'.

Oh, and in a country of 69m people, a survey of a few thousand people is bollocks.

[werdsmith]

Re: Give it the push

I believe it’s the opposite. Such people are more likely to engage with others over social media than in real life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Give it the push

> Oh, and in a country of 69m people, a survey of a few thousand people is bollocks.

Well, that's an entire industry comprehensively dealt with.

For his next trick...

[DrewPH]

Re: Give it the push

Good call - I am indeed neurodivergent, and am in no way insulted. However I'm also married to someone a few years younger than myself, so hopefully won't need an IoT clog-popping detector. (Though you should totally patent the idea)

[snowpages]

Re: Give it the push

If you do proper random sampling, you can get surprisingly accurate results from a small sample

[tiggity]

Given that peoples definition of "social media" can vary massively, then that is one problem (FB, X/Twitter would be a given but is something like El Reg "social media"? Some may say it is, others massively disagree).

There is a lot of dire content out there, however a few potentially good points about "social media"

1. They allow access to different viewpoints / news

I am in UK, and the "mainstream" news sources are controlled by a small number of organisations*, and not representative of UK demographics

heavily white middle class

You can be exposed to some unpleasant news and views and lies on "social media" (so not that different from "mainstream" media!) but they may differ from what you see on mainstream" media, & once you have filtered out the lies (getting harder with use of AI images) does give you a wider perspective.

2. They allow disenfranchised (in some way) people a chance to meet others in the same situation.

e.g. if you are homosexual (especially male) then life can be unpleasant in some countries (including risk of execution)

- not just some "Islamic countries", plenty of "Christian nations" take a dim view (e.g. you would not want to be gay in Uganda).

If we carry on the gay male example.

If (sadly getting a bigger if every day) disenfranchised people can access "social media" in an anonymous & untracked manner then their sense of exclusion may be diminished, their feeling of self worth may increase (getting acceptance / approval for being gay can likely benefit their mental health) which would make it easier for them to deal with their unfortunate situation.

Lets not forget, despite the big companies best algorithmic efforts, it depends on the individual to some extent what they see - I'm not a big "social media" fan / user, however partner does a few, her feeds are full of cute animal videos and art works (a reflection of the type of accounts she follows) - I know this as she often shows some of them to me if she thinks I would enjoy them. It may be she gets the odd "ad" / "recommended" account suggested (that is outside her core interests) - if she does she has not followed any such suggestions.

* Yes, I'm aware there are plenty of small UK independents doing their bit be it politically focused groups such as Declassified all the way to local individuals / groups providing detailed local news as Reach etc. have pretty much washed their hands on detailed local news reporting .. but much of UK public blissfully aware of such things.

[werdsmith]

You haven’t addressed the problem of a few powerful tech leaders being in control, and requiring so much personal information.

[that one in the corner]

> You haven’t addressed the problem of ... requiring so much personal information.

Especially important given

>> If (sadly getting a bigger if every day) disenfranchised people can access "social media" in an anonymous & untracked manner then their sense of exclusion may be diminished

[Anonymous Coward]

Using social media is still voluntary

So is sniffing dog turds.

I choose to do neither. For many of the same reasons.

[Dinanziame]

Re: Using social media is still voluntary

I don't use social media — comment on a website

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Using social media is still voluntary

Ummm (checks), not social media.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Using social media is still voluntary

> Ummm (checks), not social media

By whose definition?

El Reg is freer to access than the big name sites (no registration needed at all to read everything in the comments and see if you'd like to join in, no demands to see a copy of my driving licence to check its corners).

Free-ranging conversations: the articles and tech are the focus but it easily drifts, particularly regarding the childhood reminiscences of Yorkshiremen. You're not going to be permabanned if you air your views on the presence of Nigella on Bake Off.

There is even a crude comment voting scheme.

What do you believe is missing? Is the defining feature of "social media" one of:

- You need to be able to vote with a full range of emojis?

- It has to thrust a random selection of stranger's comments at you in your "feed"?

- It has to be infinitely scrolling so there is never any need to actively choose where to go to next?

- It gets quoted by sofa dollies on morning TV?

- You have to be able to post a picture of your kitten falling into a cardboard box?

Or perhaps one of the big differences from the major players:

- No anonymous posting

[Kaleyard]

Re: Using social media is still voluntary

AC is wrong. Social media is an umbrella term covering a wide spectrum of platforms and El Reg sits somewhere close to one end of that spectrum with platforms like facebook at the other.

Fortunately though, at least for now, the govt's own idea/definition of what social media is doesn't include platforms like El Reg - but that can easily change with a statutory instrument that tightens existing legislation. And we've likely got nearly 3 more years of the current govt so there's plenty of time for them to clamp down even further. A China style ban on anonymous use of the Internet will come down the line at some point.

[Dinanziame]

I assume people also believe they should go on a diet and stop smoking

[stiine]

Why? I think everyone should smoke.

[that one in the corner]

If it's good enough for Fenella Fielding...

[TimMaher]

Opinium Research

I first read that as “Opium Research”. Then I saw the cat again so it’s OK.

[werdsmith]

These big tech are trying to land grab the internet and become our de facto utility. WhatsApp is almost successful at it, but as more of us use it we are just handing control over to Suckerberg and losing what the Internet was about.

With the old open standards I could choose a browser from a selection and use a web server which might be Apache, IIS, NGINX or whatever and they will 99% happily talk using html.

Any email client to any smtp/imap/pop etc.

SMS was the same across all phone networks.

But if I want to message a WhatsApp user I have to give my phone number to wankerberg and use their client with their services. If I want to use AN Other messing service then I am siloed.

Meta will do whatever it takes to suppress Fediverse and ActivityPub.

I have less complaints about the content of social media, that I could control. My problem is with people trying to become the de facto web and control us and this is the reason I don't use any of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the ultimate solution to avoiding social media

No friends.

Hazzah!

[Regomised]

Re: I have the ultimate solution to avoiding social media

Actual friends and social media 'freinds' are really not the same thing though!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I have the ultimate solution to avoiding social media

Then I have neither!

Hazzah!

[b1k3rdude]

How does the saying go, I couldn't care less about facebollox, twatter and all the other platforms, but what I object to is having every other part of my online/offline/human rights being trampled over and abused for blatantly obvious control and surveillance.

[b1k3rdude]

"It polled 2,000 adults and 1,100 parents" So a an irrelevant sample size then, that means fck all to anyone.

[Davidmb]

It’s about algorithms and manipulation

If you’re here to defend big social media (by that I mean Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc.) then you work for them.

The big apps are experimenting with mass manipulation and have been openly for decades. In some cases it may be purely for commercial gain: how do we tweak our algorithms and notifications so that people stay on our platform and view our ads? In other cases the algorithm may be doing something darker, filtering feeds towards certain ideas etc.

Because anger is such a motivator, all of these algorithms inevitably encourage it. It’s corrosive, making people deeply unhappy. This creates a new class of danger to society that is only now really being addressed.

Before anyone downvotes me for suggesting their favourite billionaire is being a bad person, note that I think this can be abused by politicians of all stripes, which is why I haven’t named names. Look deep inside yourself and question whether your oligarch pinup is really looking out for your best interests.

[Catkin]

Re: It’s about algorithms and manipulation

Could I venture that, while I have no love for the social media moguls, I have even less love for turning the internet into yet another/even more of an oligopoly?

It's already happened with radio, television and newspapers. I can't imagine restricting online operations in the name of harm reduction would do anything more than empower them further to have the final say over what information we all are able to consume.

It's a bit like human rights and free speech: it gives some truly horrible individuals the ability to live without fear of being punched for their opinions but also allows those with progressive ideas to be protected from said horrible individuals shutting them up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed

The Internet has been crap for a very long time. Once upon a time you found a site, downloaded the files you needed to fix something and got out. Then the marketing BS arrived and everything went to hell in a handcart. These days, on balance the Internet is doing more harm than good. Turn it off and see if I care (I won't).

[Anonymous Coward]

"half think they are worse for society now than they were in 2010 as they contain false or misleading information and the algorithms dictate what they see, making public debate more divisive. "

It's not only that - it's also that it's caused people to become increasingly polarised in their views, and many will be far more aggressive in expressing those views online than they would be in person. A lot of the arguments are between people who hold perfectly reasonable views but have very different viewpoints. The internet has led to more and more people believing that their view is the only correct one and anyone who disagrees is a bad person and is acting in bad faith. The concept that they might be a perfectly decent person who just has a different viewpoint seems to be getting lost.

And as regard Bluesky, that is mostly used by people with a particular viewpoint. Those who don't share that viewpoint tend to just avoid it, hence the lack of widely competing viewpoints and the consequent aggressive arguments which are seen on various other platforms.

[Cliffwilliams44]

If you repeat the lie often anout, even you will believe it

So, we are doing this again?

"Trump lost the 2020 election and there is no evidence he lost it due to fraud. "

There was no evidence because no evidence was allowed to be presented, no discovery or investigation was ever conducted because the suits were dismissed for "lack of standing" THAT does not mean there was no evidence, it means it was determined the plaintiff was not harmed therefor had no standing to sue!

You can repeat this talking point all you want; it only makes it true in your own deluded mind!

[Winkypop]

Re: If you repeat the lie often anout, even you will believe it

Dude, he and his minions have had years.

The evidence was not heard for only one reason.

It doesn’t exist.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: If you repeat the lie often anout, even you will believe it

That comment is so unhinged, it's hard to know where to start.

Trump lost at least 60 court cases. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+of+trumps+claims+the+election+was+stolen+were+lost+in+court&ia=web

Recently a MAGA woman was convicted of election fraud: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/maga-candidate-small-calif-town-120000282.html

Another one earlier this year: https://newrepublic.com/post/208176/maga-election-fraud-activist-found-guilty-election-fraud

And of course, Trumps fake elector plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

Every accusation is a confession with you guys, isn't it?:Your last sentence reinforces this.