Well, They Could Start By Listening?

In June, the London Review of Books published a superb article by the academic and writer William Davies, referring to this phenomenon as “Faragist TikTok”. He described opening an account and sampling what then poured into his “for you” feed: “Clips of masked men cutting down ultra-low emission zone cameras with angle-grinders. Clips of supermarket shelves displaying inflated new prices. Clips of fights breaking out in the street.” More than anything else, he said, he was presented with footage that constantly conveyed the same flailing fury: “Clips of men and women addressing their phones while sitting in cars or out walking, lamenting the state of ‘Starmer’s Britain’, their words appearing in TikTok’s distinctive pink-highlighted font.”

Ah, yes. Of course. It's all the fault of social media. Not government or organisations that have failed the people, and not the people's wishes for a change to their lives and the way they are governed themselves. 

That's not a reality people like this ever want to face.

When I read this, I instantly recognised what he was talking about. On the occasions I had tried to digest what Musk had done to X, scenes of that kind were exactly what I had found. Scrolling through Instagram was sometimes similar. I then did the same thing as Davies and got half-immersed in TikTok (at 55, I had previously assumed it was not for me). Soon enough, what I was expecting materialised: a disused warehouse in Manchester that had been set on fire, a group of hooded youths being arrested by a gaggle of cops, and a crowd of neo-Nazis, marching in front of a union jack and joylessly reciting the chant that echoed around the capital at the weekend: “Keir Starmer is a wanker.”

Do you think he isn't, then, John? You didn't seem too keen when he was threatening to get your hand out of the taxpayer's pocket.

What does this do to people? Where you live might seem stable, uneventful and full of people who are law-abiding. Most places, after all, are like that. But if you are one of the social media users in Britain who spends mind-boggling amounts of time on TikTok (on Android devices, the average was recently put at 49.5 hours a month), the spectacle that erupts on your screens might suggest that venturing outside will soon plunge you into disorder, crime and chaos – and that those things really do define life elsewhere. This, I think, at least partly explains the place of the archetypal city in some people’s modern paranoia: the idea that multiculturalism has turned London into a crime-infested no-go area, or that Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles are in such a state of social disrepair that Trump has no option but to send in the national guard.

All social media accounts do is give people a voice, John. Why is the Left always so agin that? Is it because they know what they'd say? 

In 2008, Gordon Brown attempted a rebuttal in the speech he made at the Labour party conference. “The Conservatives say our country is broken – but this country has never been broken by anyone or anything,” he said. “This country wasn’t broken by fascism, by the cold war, by terrorists. Of course there are problems, but this is a country being lifted up every day by the people who love it.” When I read those words and thought about that great ocean of online video, a thought came to mind: these days, could anyone imagine a Labour politician saying anything similar? And, if they did, would they not look like the epitome of complacency and denial? And then I once again realised how absurd all of this is, and how much the supposed reality that politicians have to deal with is now confected, overblown and often completely illusory. Such is life in the modern society of the spectacle, and such is the huge change in how people understand the world and their place in it that it starts to look like a sinister kind of magic.

Yes! It must be the technology that's wobven its sinister spell over the populace! It can't possibly be that eventually, they realise what the Left's gameplan is and reject it, can it?? 

Oh, Do Get Over Yourself!

The etiquette of when to offer your seat on public transport is some of the most complicated we’re forced to navigate – probably worldwide, but definitely in Britain, where most of us are easily mortified, and could then be trapped together, at least until the next stop, to endure the aftermath. When you factor in that it must be done in full view of numerous spectators, no wonder so many commuters pretend not to notice who is standing near them. Make a mistaken offer and you’ve insulted a stranger, to their face, in front of a live audience. You’ll carry the shame with you for ever, on some level, as anybody who has had their Good Samaritan moment ruined by the reply “I’m not actually pregnant, thank you very much” can attest.

As someone who has now reached the age where I am occasionally offered a seat (ewhich I usually decline with thanks because I only go a handful of stops), can I say what a load of utter bollocks this article is? 

Let’s agree from the off that those who choose priority seats (the ones clearly marked for people with a greater need to sit down), and then fall asleep or become engrossed in their phone/book/thoughts, are the absolute worst. If you sit there, you are entering into a moral contract. With great comfort comes great responsibility. You’re duty-bound to monitor your surroundings, and leap up if the need arises.

Have you ever been on a crowded train? Doesn't seem like it... 

The train track to hell is laid with good intentions – you may genuinely mean “Please do sit down, I care about your wellbeing,” but they will hear “You are ancient, or overweight, or perhaps both.” In a nutshell, you have to be pretty confident of the facts before you dare open your mouth.

People like you with attitudes like this are what has ruined commuting. Decrying basic good manners as somehow 'offensive' and shaming those who display them.

But That Means I Have To Actually Parent!

This summer the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, announced he was considering a two-hour “screen time” cap on children’s use of social media apps – a proposal that is not just insufficient, it’s outdated.

It's also doomed to failure, as most parents will simply pay no notice. It is, indeed, like most of Labour's grand ideas, utterly unenforceable. 

We should indeed be thinking about moderating time on screens, but the proposed cap addresses only the quantity of consumption, not the quality. Fortunately, as someone who lectures on digital literacy (and is a mother), I can tell you there are some ways to push back and create healthier habits for children this summer – even if the government doesn’t seem to have caught up with them yet.

And here’s some Karen from HR to give you some tips on how to manage your child’s browsing habits. Aren’t you just so lucky?  

Limiting screen time has been the dominant digital guidance used by parents, educators – and all of us really – over the past decade. This advice emerged after studies indicated that increasing screen time could be a risk factor for being overweight/obesity in children and adolescents. This was, and is, good guidance to promote physical health. However, it didn’t include robust discussion about how the quality or nature of content online might be affecting mental health.

You mean, quality not quantity is most important? Gosh! What a revelation!  

For example, in following this guidance, you could have one child watching CBeebies with their family in a communal space, engaging in discussion; and another child wearing headphones and watching algorithmically driven YouTube shorts. Under “screen time” guidance, these two forms of viewing would be considered equal. But, of course, they are qualitatively very different. In this scenario, one child is engaged in interactive, collective viewing with a parent that might be a jumping-off point for discussion and connection. The other child’s viewing is isolated and fragmented; they are consuming short-form content, probably with little focus on meaningful storylines or characters, on a platform that is still, by comparison, unregulated.

I can’t wait to see what other pearls of wisdom drop in this article… 

If it helps, here are some of the things I’ll be doing with my kids during the summer holidays.

• For younger children, time off screens is generally better than on. However, when we do use screens, I encourage my own children to watch live TV on platforms such as CBeebies and CBBC, as this provides a diversity of content curated by a children’s programmer. Lots of time and advocacy has gone into producing it.(Ed: not to mention licensepayer’s money) 
• Prioritise active and engaged viewing over passive viewing. This means content that encourages creativity and discussion. This supports active brain engagement, learning and communication skills. It’s often better to opt for collective over solitary viewing, which can act as a springboard for discussion and build critical thinking and social engagement skills.(Ed: collectives don’t promote the creativity you seem to desire, quite the opposite in fact!)
• Begin seeding critical thinking about digital content from an early age. You can input questionable images into platforms such as Sightengine, and they will tell you how likely each image is to be fake. This is a great way to start conversations about disinformation online.(Ed: start with BBC verify)
• Speak to older children about what they want their digital diet to look like. Together, dedicate half an hour a week to training the machine learning by actively searching for positive content – content that they are passionate about or that makes them feel good. Don’t watch uninteresting, uninspiring content or content that makes them (or you) feel bad. (Ed: who continues to watch stuff that they don’t enjoy?) Quickly move past it.
• And teach them not to like, share things or comment on things that they don’t like. Even commenting on something you don’t like counts as engagement, meaning you may get more of it.(Ed: who shares things they don’t think are worth sharing?)
• As a family, do an “uninspiring” clean. If it no longer inspires or educates you, unfollow it. This includes exes, TV personalities and brands. Do this regularly to clean up your feed and narrow in on what you do want to see.(Ed:Place your hopes on the algorithm you've decided is the root of all evil?)
• To combat targeted advertising, there are some Google alternatives you might want to look at as a family. DuckDuckGo or Firefox Focus are search engines that do not track you to serve targeted ads. You could also look at Startpage, which allows you to use Google without tracking your digital footprint.(Ed:Deliberately cripple the main functionality of the tool you use, because you can't handle what it does? )

Governments may not be properly regulating this technology, but as parents, there are still things we can do.

Yes, but that takes time and effort and actually interacting with your offspring, and so many modern parents don't want to do that. In fact, so many modern parents seem to be little more than children themselves. 

Why Are We Compensating People For This In The First Place?

An MP has raised alarm at the slow pace of a scheme to compensate LGBT service personnel dismissed or discharged from the forces because of their sexuality, saying that at the current rate it could take more than a decade to complete the process.

It was illegal to be gay and in the military back then - I undertand we are more 'enlightened' now, and it's no longer illegal (some might wonder if it's going to be made complusory!) but why on earth does this attract compensation?

Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chichester, said she began examining the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, formally launched in December, due to the experiences of a constituent, who is one of just 69 people to have been compensated, of more than 1,200 who have applied.

Brown-Fuller used a parliamentary question on Thursday to highlight Stead’s case and to push the government to make sure claims were processed more quickly.

There are other government compensation schemes ewually, if not more, deserving of a hurry up than this one - the Post Office compensation scheme, the infected blood scheme, for instance. Why is Parliamentary time not used on genuine victims of injustice, not people who knew full well that they were breaching regulations going in?

“It will take years to settle all of these applications, and veterans in their 60s, 70s and 80s potentially don’t have years for those payments to be settled,” Brown-Fuller said. “My frustration is shared by the LGBTQ+ veterans, because they’re angry, they’re frustrated and they’re disappointed that they’re still experiencing these delays. “I think the government is totally aware of the issue, because there is cross-party support for this scheme. What it is not fully grasping is that the minister needs to get a handle on how quickly those payments are going out and the process.”

Of course, the modern MoD is happy to roll over and show it's belly to the least threat these days, even the displeasure of a LimpDumb MP: 

An MoD spokesperson said: “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000 which was wholly unacceptable.

 But was the law then, for good reason, and no-one turned a hair. It's only that it's now viewed with modern day sensibilities that this reflexive crinnging takes place.

“While we don’t hold comprehensive records of personnel discharged due to sexuality, we’re working with organisations like Fighting with Pride to ensure that we reach as many LGBT veterans who may have been affected. “We also encourage anyone who may think that they’re affected to contact us so that we can see if we can help, and the Home Office also runs the disregards and pardons scheme for people wishing to have historic ‘offences’ wiped from their records.”

Why is 'offences' in inverted comments? - according to the law and custom back then, that's what they were.