this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
146 points (100.0% liked)

World News

53749 readers
2244 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
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
146
‘It felt hypocritical’: child internet safety campaign accused of censoring teenagers’ speeches (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

An internet safety campaign backed by US tech companies has been accused of censoring two teenagers they invited to speak out about the biggest issues facing children online.

Childnet, a UK charity part-funded by companies including Snap, Roblox and Meta, edited out warnings from Lewis Swire and Saamya Ghai that social media addiction was an “imminent threat to our future” and obsessive scrolling was making people “sick”, according to a record of edits seen by the Guardian.

Swire, then 17, from Edinburgh, and Ghai, then 14, from Buckinghamshire, had been asked to speak at an event to mark Safer Internet Day in 2024 in London in front of representatives from government, charities and tech companies.

The tech-backed charity also edited out references to children feeling unable to stop using TikTok and Snap, social media exacerbating a “devastating epidemic” of isolation, and a passage questioning why people would want to spend years of their lives “scrolling TikTok and binge-watching Netflix”, the edits show.

Childnet denied making edits to keep tech funders happy and insisted it would not stop young people making their points. Aspects of the approved speech did acknowledge that excessive screen time had led to depression and anxiety, and that social media companies should reduce the use of devices such as notifications, autoplay and streaks to prolong user engagement.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 22 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

My opinion

excessive screen time had led to depression

Yeah, that may be true for many but not for everyone, tbh, without internet i would've fallen in depression because i couldn't have talked to some people that helped me not fall

and obsessive scrolling was making people "sick"

Then, ear me out, what if doom scrolling platforms get banned? That seem the most logical thing to do, lol

Honestly i can't understand how do teenager think a "under-16 ban" is useful, they just injure their own freedom.

Anyway, i am not surprised that a "charity" backed by 3 big techs would censor them, how can they not expect that? Never trust a company.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If this stuff [ID check bills] isn't a wake up call that the general population knows nothing about how the Internet works, I don't know what is.

Just ban personally targeted algorithms. Literally like, 5 page law.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Right.. 5 page law. With literally no way to check if it's being followed for any closed-source software (ie: all of the problem social networks & apps).

[–] stray@pawb.social 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Is there a reason to not ban closed-source software?

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My point was that legislation is as effective as pushing water uphill with a rake, if there is no way to validate its being followed.

Instead of responding to that concern - you propose an even less practicable solution?

🤯

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you explain why it's not a good idea?

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Fine. Legislation has to be practical and actionable or it will simply never happen, and is therefore a poor suggestion.

It doesn't matter how you are ideologically aligned, if you have an idea like 'ban all closed source software', it's a bad idea just on its face because there is next to zero support for that idea in the public (most would have no fucking clue what that even is), or is an extremely low importance goal on most voters priorities: therefore, no support amongst currently elected politicians, ergo: bad idea.

[–] FarceOfWill 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

show all ads that are currently running in one place on the site. Anyone sees an ad not in that place its a crime.

I remember kuro5hin used to do this, ads were normal story posts with comments and voting, just added to the bottom of the main posts. Great system.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It won't fix everything, but I think it would be very helpful if platforms would add

  • a toggle for pagination instead of infinite scroll
  • disabling autoplay
[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 3 points 5 days ago

Yeah, it would be a step

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago

Heard you out.. Now hear me out. Your suggestion, while it may seem logical on its face (ban all the doom-scrolling networks), is near politically impossible.

Meta, Alphabet, Tiktok etc.. Banning their platforms is a utopian pipe dream presently.

Politicians act on reality - things they have the political capital (backing, party votes, public support) to achieve - and nobody has sufficient political capital to ban those giant companies. Can you imagine the years of court fights, the tarrifs threatened or imposed by the US to any country that wants to ban the big social media giants?

What they do have is a majority of experts in psychology, psychiatry, public policy and technology telling them "well a close second would be to minimise the damage to kids by banning under 16s", so they do that instead.

By the principle of least harm, banning under 16s is a much more useful action than banning the platforms - as it's actually practicable in short term timeframe.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

without internet i would've fallen in depression because i couldn't have talked to some people that helped me not fall

That is speculation, not concrete fact.

Without the internet all of our lives would be radically different, so it is not possible to say what would have happened in any specific instance.

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think i know my situation better than you

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

Absolutely, but we both know nothing about how the situation would be if the internet didn't exist.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 10 points 5 days ago

There’s a lot of people supporting the idea of the internet great. What’s in question here is the platforms they are visiting and the addictive tactics they are engaging.

There can be healthier options online and offline. There could be as Simone suggested pagination, installed breaks, warnings, controlled subject delivery. We employ these tactics for other addictions

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

And then they called *them liars? Interesting decision.

Childnet denied making edits to keep tech funders happy and insisted it would not stop young people making their points.

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 4 points 5 days ago

Well, that is something i'd expect from a company backed "charity"

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

Internet helps young people find community and perspectives outside IRL bubbles they're trapped in.

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 6 points 5 days ago

Archived link for whoever don't want cookies: https://archive.is/Be1VW
Fuck cookies, i prefer tiramisù.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

If you're using corporate media sites (social or no), then yes, your speech is being suppressed.

That's how the algorithm works, and in most cases, people paying the owners of that site have their speech and ads artificially elevated.