4 ms·

Note how lots of slicing is provided on a bunch of dimensions except the one that really matters: age groups. Fully willing to bet 60+ is both more likely to an

by vegabook 10mo ago

Note how lots of slicing is provided on a bunch of dimensions except the one that really matters: age groups. Fully willing to bet 60+ is both more likely to answer these surveys and very pro-censorship. If we weighted this survey by remaining life expectancy I bet the results would be inverted.

schmookeeg 10mo ago
I assume people in government, at some level, are weighting constituent inputs by taxes paid. Which keeps it upright. :)
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  There's absolutely weighing on money, but it's not from taxes. They'll be weighing constituents by their ability and willingness to give campaign donations and other favors.
  - frm88 10mo ago
    The article is about Europe. In Europe, parties are publicly funded and donations are strictly limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_European_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_European_political_...
snowpid 10mo ago
Interesting, that you equal social media regulation = pro censorship. Btw every age group over 30 has a majority to imitate Australian model in Germany. Even lower 30 there is only a small relative majority against it. So no, your hypothesis for Germany is wrong. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deutsche-fordern-australien-modell-693c664172c5279acd482266 https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deuts...
- carlosjobim 10mo ago
  It's in the name. Any media regulation is some kind of censorship.
  - snowpid 10mo ago
    No it is not necessarily. For example forcing to have a chronical timeline on followers would be strong social media regulation but no censorship even in the broadest terms.
    - llmslave2 10mo ago
      If I'm unable to publish something that I otherwise would, that is de facto censorship.
      - snowpid 10mo ago
        Your example is not a dismiss of my argumentation.
        llmslave2 10mo ago
        It's not a dismissal, it's a refutation.
        lucyjojo 10mo ago
        how?
  - exceptione 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - carlosjobim 10mo ago
      The question isn't if some censorship is good or bad. The question is if media regulation is censorship, and the answer is yes.
asgraham 10mo ago
The irony is that youth are simulatenously the biggest consumers of (new) social media, and the staunchest haters [EDIT: this is directly contradicted by the research article I found below…]. I can’t find the source so take it with a grain of salt, but I’ve read that something like 80% of TikTok users under some age think they’d be happier if it didn’t exist and/or wish it didn’t exist. I don’t think this is really an issue of censorship to a lot of people (though that may be how it shakes out in the government) but rather of control over their digital environment and sanity. EDIT: I don’t think this is what I’m remembering, but it has concrete numbers somewhat lower than I thought (48% of teens think social media harms people their age, but only 14% think it harms them personally) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social...
- throw-the-towel 10mo ago
  It's not even irony? They want to quit, but it's too hard.
password54321 10mo ago
Maybe we should listen to those that have more experience and perspective of living without social media as they can see the difference of having/not having it more clearly?
- adventured 10mo ago
  Or they fail to properly grasp its value accordingly.
mrtksn 10mo ago
The youth tend to be much less absolutists for free speech and don't value anonymity as much as the elders of the internet(!), at least that's my observation. They are much more familiar with people who are into all these things for the profits and don't idealise the WWW as the old folks used to. My guess is that they were born in already corrupt world where online professionals were doing everything for money and dirty tricks like rage baiting and astroturfing were already the norm and as a result they don't have a grand mission fantasy about the internet. Also, because they were born in an already online world they don't see the disturbances of trolls as disturbances in their online persona that is a toy for their real persona, they see trolls as trouble makers to their real persona which is fused with their online persona. Back in the day of forums personal banning wasn't a thing, we had to see everything until someone did something bad enough to be deplatformed from the forum. In the current social media, you can just block people you don't like, you don't have to endure their "content". The censorship is built-in in modern platforms. I prefer the old ways personally but in the old days the profile of the people was different.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  > but in the old days the profile of the people was different. in the old days there were actual people, today most “social” media is not people
  - sfdlkj3jk342a 10mo ago
    > today most “social” media is not people Do you have any evidence to support that? People frequently claim the majority of social media is "bots", but I highly doubt that.
    - mrtksn 10mo ago
      Not people doesn't mean that they must be bots, IMHO it means not people who are having opinions but social media workers or entrepreneurs who are having opinions based on metrics that fulfill their KPI which are often stuff like increase engagement, increase followers, increase revenue, get a talking point into the trends, make people talk about a brand or a politician etc. Many large accounts on Twitter are openly corporate accounts of some social media companies and many others are freelancers. People are not having concerned citizen ideas 24 hours a day everyday, those are obviously professionals who are having concerns about the society, race, jews etc in order to fulfill some goals. Those are not real people, you won't be able to change their minds with argumentation because they don't speak their mind in first place. That's for Twitter of course, in other places they have other productions like "tradwifes" on Instagram or reviewers on Youtube. They are all businesses or indies trying to become businesses. They all use analytics and do A/B testing to acquire and steer their content ideas to the platforms liking. Platforms decide what will be shown to the users, they of course need to run their own business and they also pursue their own KPIs but as cost of doing business they allow other businesses to insert their KPI into the algorithm in exchange of money or favors. For example when there's a new movie release upcoming they can pay the platform to boost engagement on content about their movie, platforms also incentivize the creation of such content by paying certain influencers if they create a content that feeds into the campaign(i.e. if they do a dance from a movie that is being promoted they get paid if their dance video meets the quota). They can do all this for consumer products but they can do it for political stuff too. Almost no genuine content, its all one big reality show all orchestrated by the big tech. I mean sure, there is genuine content but they are all fillers or trying to win against the flow.

schmookeeg 10mo ago

I assume people in government, at some level, are weighting constituent inputs by taxes paid. Which keeps it upright. :)

Terr_ 10mo ago
There's absolutely weighing on money, but it's not from taxes. They'll be weighing constituents by their ability and willingness to give campaign donations and other favors.
- frm88 10mo ago
  The article is about Europe. In Europe, parties are publicly funded and donations are strictly limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_European_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_European_political_...

snowpid 10mo ago

Interesting, that you equal social media regulation = pro censorship. Btw every age group over 30 has a majority to imitate Australian model in Germany. Even lower 30 there is only a small relative majority against it. So no, your hypothesis for Germany is wrong. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deutsche-fordern-australien-modell-693c664172c5279acd482266 https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deuts...

carlosjobim 10mo ago
It's in the name. Any media regulation is some kind of censorship.
- snowpid 10mo ago
  No it is not necessarily. For example forcing to have a chronical timeline on followers would be strong social media regulation but no censorship even in the broadest terms.
  - llmslave2 10mo ago
    If I'm unable to publish something that I otherwise would, that is de facto censorship.
    - snowpid 10mo ago
      Your example is not a dismiss of my argumentation.
      - llmslave2 10mo ago
        It's not a dismissal, it's a refutation.
        lucyjojo 10mo ago
        how?
- exceptione 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - carlosjobim 10mo ago
    The question isn't if some censorship is good or bad. The question is if media regulation is censorship, and the answer is yes.

asgraham 10mo ago

The irony is that youth are simulatenously the biggest consumers of (new) social media, and the staunchest haters [EDIT: this is directly contradicted by the research article I found below…]. I can’t find the source so take it with a grain of salt, but I’ve read that something like 80% of TikTok users under some age think they’d be happier if it didn’t exist and/or wish it didn’t exist. I don’t think this is really an issue of censorship to a lot of people (though that may be how it shakes out in the government) but rather of control over their digital environment and sanity. EDIT: I don’t think this is what I’m remembering, but it has concrete numbers somewhat lower than I thought (48% of teens think social media harms people their age, but only 14% think it harms them personally) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social...

throw-the-towel 10mo ago
It's not even irony? They want to quit, but it's too hard.

password54321 10mo ago

Maybe we should listen to those that have more experience and perspective of living without social media as they can see the difference of having/not having it more clearly?

adventured 10mo ago
Or they fail to properly grasp its value accordingly.

mrtksn 10mo ago

The youth tend to be much less absolutists for free speech and don't value anonymity as much as the elders of the internet(!), at least that's my observation. They are much more familiar with people who are into all these things for the profits and don't idealise the WWW as the old folks used to. My guess is that they were born in already corrupt world where online professionals were doing everything for money and dirty tricks like rage baiting and astroturfing were already the norm and as a result they don't have a grand mission fantasy about the internet. Also, because they were born in an already online world they don't see the disturbances of trolls as disturbances in their online persona that is a toy for their real persona, they see trolls as trouble makers to their real persona which is fused with their online persona. Back in the day of forums personal banning wasn't a thing, we had to see everything until someone did something bad enough to be deplatformed from the forum. In the current social media, you can just block people you don't like, you don't have to endure their "content". The censorship is built-in in modern platforms. I prefer the old ways personally but in the old days the profile of the people was different.

bdangubic 10mo ago
> but in the old days the profile of the people was different. in the old days there were actual people, today most “social” media is not people
- sfdlkj3jk342a 10mo ago
  > today most “social” media is not people Do you have any evidence to support that? People frequently claim the majority of social media is "bots", but I highly doubt that.
  - mrtksn 10mo ago
    Not people doesn't mean that they must be bots, IMHO it means not people who are having opinions but social media workers or entrepreneurs who are having opinions based on metrics that fulfill their KPI which are often stuff like increase engagement, increase followers, increase revenue, get a talking point into the trends, make people talk about a brand or a politician etc. Many large accounts on Twitter are openly corporate accounts of some social media companies and many others are freelancers. People are not having concerned citizen ideas 24 hours a day everyday, those are obviously professionals who are having concerns about the society, race, jews etc in order to fulfill some goals. Those are not real people, you won't be able to change their minds with argumentation because they don't speak their mind in first place. That's for Twitter of course, in other places they have other productions like "tradwifes" on Instagram or reviewers on Youtube. They are all businesses or indies trying to become businesses. They all use analytics and do A/B testing to acquire and steer their content ideas to the platforms liking. Platforms decide what will be shown to the users, they of course need to run their own business and they also pursue their own KPIs but as cost of doing business they allow other businesses to insert their KPI into the algorithm in exchange of money or favors. For example when there's a new movie release upcoming they can pay the platform to boost engagement on content about their movie, platforms also incentivize the creation of such content by paying certain influencers if they create a content that feeds into the campaign(i.e. if they do a dance from a movie that is being promoted they get paid if their dance video meets the quota). They can do all this for consumer products but they can do it for political stuff too. Almost no genuine content, its all one big reality show all orchestrated by the big tech. I mean sure, there is genuine content but they are all fillers or trying to win against the flow.