this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
1184 points (96.7% liked)

World News

46027 readers
3879 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Social media influencers are fuelling a rise in misogyny and sexism in the UK's classrooms, according to teachers.

More than 5,800 teachers were polled... and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils' behaviour.

One teacher said she'd had 10-year-old boys "refuse to speak to [her]...because [she is] a woman". Another said "the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils] interacted with females and males they did not see as 'masculine'".

"There is an urgent need for concerted action... to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 146 points 3 days ago (5 children)

In my opinion the huge difference between this generation and all previous ones is that content is no longer vetted by anyone. It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult. If a TV station marketed to children something that most parents would not approve they would face protests or maybe even legal action. On social media any asshole can post literally anything and millions of kids will consume it without any supervision.

[–] Blinsane@reddthat.com 64 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's the whole point of screaming about "liberal" or "leftist" media for all this time even when most media outlets are owned by for profit orgs. They usually have to comply with laws. On social media you've been able to lie as much as you want without consequence or being called out. Corporations mostly use this to market to children and get them addicted to gambling.

[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 25 points 3 days ago

You know you're actually right on the money, and it's a little startling that it never occurred to me before. Shit.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Yep, that's why the only way to be a good parent nowadays is to not give your kids smart phones or computers of their own. There was a time when it was kinda ok for them to have those devices, but that time is permanently in the past.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Closeted queer kids with bigoted parents need online safe spaces.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mostly disagree with that. Cocooning up into a terminally online person makes one's life worse, not better.

Straight up abusive parents are another thing of course. But even then those kids need sheltering, not the internet.

[–] scintilla@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think you underestimate the sheer number of homophobic parents that aren't necessarily abusive but would be if their kid ever came out. There are a lot of people I've talked to that their online escape was the one thing that kept from killing themselves.

I'm not saying that it's healthy but there are a lot of kids in a situation that they can not escape from because of the way that society treats children. Children are treated as something that is closer to property than an individual when it comes to things like law enforcement and emotional abuse.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Homophobia is abusive. Regardless of the intentions. Ignorance of that fact doesn't excuse it.

[–] scintilla@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I agree. Try arguing that to a conservative judge in the south and you will simply be sent home with your abusive parent, who is likely enraged about having to defend themselves from the "law".

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, absolutely. Having been in a marriage with an abusive person, there is zero reasoning with them once they're in that state.

[–] pablodaniel@lemmings.world -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure there's a way to reason with them; you just didn't know how to go about it.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

See, you say that. I tried to figure that out for 11 years. I lived it. It doesn't happen.

[–] pablodaniel@lemmings.world -3 points 2 days ago

Not everyone is equipped to help people like that.

[–] pablodaniel@lemmings.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I think muad'dib is just projecting and maybe you are, too.

Using the internet to avoid dealing with problems in real life is an unhealthy crutch.

[–] scintilla@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago

unfortuatly the healthy way to deal with a situation like that is to remove yourself from it which children are not allowed to do.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

Using the internet to avoid dealing with problems in real life is an unhealthy crutch.

So is pretending the internet is not part of "real life" like it's 1998.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz -1 points 2 days ago

This is a very dangerous line of reasoning that will play right into the hands of fascists.,

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it's the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you're fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone's recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.

Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you're running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn't be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don't personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.