I think most people are doing it just to get attention. That’s usually what happen on things like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter…when something become trending, by redoing the thing in the trend the algorithm push your content so you get more attention.
I recognise that Pinterest is a pretty big player in social media and seems to have relatively broad reach (first heard about it in my country maybe in 2011?). It just seems Pinterest (as a product) is really subpar compared to say Insta, TikTok or even Twitter. I am not talking about their commitment against the interests of the user/public (they all suck on that front), it’s the UI/UX and subpar features. One big one is slow loading and display of images. It’s always slow and they didn’t even try to design it in a way that would perhaps move attention away from this. Their image categorization algorithm and source/context provision is a joke. While I hate Google Lens with a passion, it does seem to have the most powerful source identification feature and it can come up rare variants/sources that are not available though other such systems. My focus is on research though, not commercial activity so my use case is probably not important to Pinterest.
Myself and everyone I know considers Reddit to be a social media. Along with TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Lemmy. Some grey area ones are Discord and Snapchat. So if you work backwards from there, the Aus Gov definition you listed above is actually pretty reasonable. I agree that the forums I used to ask for help in Diablo 2 don’t count as social media, and they are rightly excluded in the definition you listed. So you’re really just trying to argue that Reddit and Lemmy is a forum instead of a social media, which you’re entitled to your opinion of course, but most people will disagree with you.
This article is a confusing mess. A few paragraphs in order, In 2024, Florida passed a law to ban social media for minors under 14, require children 14 and 15 years of age to get parental consent for accounts, and force websites with adult content to require third-party age verification, among other restrictions Ok, so presumably they’re being sued for have under-14s and whatever the Florida AG thinks is “adult content” on their site? Last year, the state filed lawsuits against sites like Snapchat and Roblox for allegedly allowing children to be endangered by sexual predators. In recent months, Uthmeier’s office has also sued OpenAI for alleged violence and harm he says the company’s ChatGPT app caused Floridians. “We’ve seen so many cases where predators are using these platforms to target kids,” Uthmeier said. “It’s happening in the privacy, in the dark corner of your child’s bedroom.” Wait, so is he accusing TikTok of allowing children to be endangered by sexual predators, or is this just thrown in to the story as background context? TikTok also violates multiple restrictions in Florida’s social media law, Uthmeier said, including restrictions against unlimited scrolling and the use of algorithms. Oh, so it’s the “among other restrictions” from the first paragraph they’re being sued for? Or it’s all of these things? In a statement to the USA TODAY Network, the company said, “TikTok is built with safety at its core, with more than 50 preset safety and privacy settings for teens and easy-to-use tools for parents. “We’ve been engaging constructively and in good faith with the AG and have notified users under 14 in Florida that their accounts will be suspended. We’re continuing to update our platform in Florida in response to state law. We are evaluating the state’s complaint and are prepared to defend our strong record on minor safety.” OK, so I think they’re being sued because they haven’t banned users under 14 yet, but fucks sake this article doesn’t explain crap, it just copy-pastes a bunch of press releases that are talking past each other
Mastodon and Lemmy do talk! I follow my piefed account from my mastodon account, and some of the communities I moderate as well, and I could follow your Lemmy account just the same. I’d bet you’ve even seen a comment from a mastodon user in one of the threads you’ve been in without realizing. You can boost posts from Pixelfed (which is like instagram) and like posts from Loops (which is like TikTok) and chat with people from Misskey and Sharkey and follow Ghost blogs and all sorts. Not every fediverse service displays posts from every other service well (for instance, you can’t follow a Loops account from Lemmy), or see everything from every instance (some instances have defederated from each other for moderation reasons and you’ll never see any of their content), but we’re all looking at the same social media network, just through different lenses.
The best response that I’ve seen to this so far is this video of a former student speaking to the school board: Bridget, our first ever interaction was when you retweeted a hate article about me from The Nationalist while I was a Sarasota County school student. You are a reminder that some people view politics as a service to others while some view it as an opportunity for themselves. On this board you have spent public funds that could have been used to increase teacher pay to change our district lines for political gain, remove books from schools, target trans and queer children, erase black history, and elevate your political career, all while sending your children to private schools because you do not believe in the public school system that you’ve been leading. My question is why doesn’t an elected official using our money to harm our students and our teachers for her gain seem to matter as much for us as her having a threesome does? Bridget Ziegler, you do not deserve to be on the Sarasota County School Board but you do not deserve to be removed from it for having a threesome. That defeats the lesson we’ve been trying to teach you which is that a politician’s job is to serve their community, not to police personal lives. So, to be extra clear: Bridget, you deserve to be fired from your job because you are terrible at your job, not because you had sex with a woman. Closest to the original source I can find (referenced in numerous news articles): https://www.tiktok.com/@queenofhives/video/7313654227564383530
It doesn’t matter how many people or what kind of people moved from Reddit. I was there 14 years (Digg 4.0 exile here). They have a new group of people now. My wife and kids now use Reddit, but it’s not the same type of user interaction I experienced there in the past. It’s very much a mix of scrolling through TikTok videos and sparse reading of comments on an /r/askreddit thread. It’s casual browsing and video content. There are still some holdouts, which I think mostly contribute to what’s left of the comment section, but that’s it. It sucks, because I miss the discussions there. Lemmy kind of scratches that itch, but the content is slow to come in, and the comments so few. I’m doing my part, and I am much more active here than I ever was on Reddit.
I posted this on reddit but those fuckers removed it immediately Never have I ever used a platform whose algorithm is so “sticky” that I’ve exhausted my entire roundup of channels and shows, and it keeps getting harder and harder to find new stuff. Big part of this is how YouTube doesn’t have categories, especially on mobile. And before anyone says it, yes they do have a category sidebar. Shopping, Music, Movies & TV, Hype, Live, Gaming, News, Sports, Courses, Fashion & Beauty, Podcasts, Playables. That’s it. That’s the whole list. You want to find new cooking channels? Good luck, there’s no cooking category. History? Nope. Science? Nothing. Your only option is to go into “Gaming” and get served the same giants with 10 million subscribers you’ve already seen a hundred times. Like, I just want to find a channel that makes videos about woodworking or obscure history or literally anything I haven’t seen before, but YouTube keeps shoving the same 8 creators in my face because I watched one of their videos two years ago. The recommended page is just stuff I’ve already seen and stuff I actively don’t want to see. And the search is somehow even worse. You search for a topic trying to find something new and instead of relevant results it just shows you the same channels you always watch. Search “game reviews” and the top results aren’t new review channels you’ve never heard of, it’s the exact same guys already clogging your recommendations, plus videos you’ve already saved to watch later. You’re not finding anything new, you’re just being shown your own watch history back at you. Other platforms figured this out. Spotify has genre pages, radio stations, discovery playlists. Even TikTok, for all its problems, will occasionally show you something you’ve never seen before. YouTube just assumes that if you liked something once you want to see it forever, and if you’ve never seen something before that’s because you don’t want to. There’s no way out of it unless you already know exactly what you’re looking for, which kind of defeats the whole point. And yes I know you can delete your watch history. That’s not a solution. That’s a band-aid. **I just want to find new topics** who else has this problem?
It’s amazing how people convinced themselves they need all these platforms in their lives. Meta, X, TikTok, YouTube - they can do whatever they want to their users, and the users just take it. I’ve learned to drop social media platforms as soon as they pull shit I’m uncomfortable with and live a happy life, somehow.
PM Keir Starmer has announced a social media ban for under-16s which will prevent access to apps like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. Taking inspiration from Australia, the UK will introduce a similar ban to take effect from Spring 2027. However, the government will go further by restricting livestream and ‘stranger communication’ for children including on gaming sites. In his address, Starmer stated: All I’ve ever wanted for my own children, hand on heart, is for them to be happy and for them to be safe, I think that’s what any parent wants. BREAKING: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced a social media ban for under-16s. Live updates: https://t.co/Jxi67uC5Qk pic.twitter.com/VnIFMyjAhs — Sky News (@SkyNews) June 15, 2026 However, this follows a pretty clear refusal from tech giants to make platforms safe and age appropriate. Instead, Starmer is simply kicking a dangerous can up the hill that will then hit young people further down the line. After all, the problem is unregulated, unyielding tech companies and unfettered capitalism – and the government appears to have chosen to go after an easier target in young people instead of holding billionaires accountable. Starmer: ‘social media is making children unhappy’ Starmer has insisted the ban is essential as the use of social media is making children miserable. As the PM says, it has increased access for bullies and intimidating behaviour, whilst also making it easier for strangers to contact young people through gaming platforms and other social media. Therefore, some parents have welcomed the ban, with the bereaved mother of Esther Ghey stating: I’m so glad now that this announcement has been made. Adding: Another thing that I’m really happy about it the government is investing in after-school clubs, because we can’t just take things away from children. At a time when many children have too few opportunities to build friendships and develop social skills, increased funding for after-school clubs is a welcome development. Giving young people more places to connect, learn and belong can only be a good thing. Nonetheless, this policy wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have capitalistic, self-interested tech bros profiting from the misery which social media fosters and breeds. Isaac, a young boy from Wythenshaw who will be affected by the ban, seems to get it far more than the corrupted politicians in Westminster, telling the BBC: Annoyed and disappointed in this decision, because they’re not trying to make it better or safer – instead they are gonna wipe it out completely. I think there should be more restriction and parental guidance on the accounts, but not a ban. Risky strategy Meanwhile, Jim Gamble, founding chief exec of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center, believes the policy won’t even work and will just push children to “darker corners” of the internet: Many (Australians) bypassed restrictions using virtual private networks. They circumvented them by submitting fake IDs or altering their appearance to trick AI (artificial intelligence) age estimation. … If you actually look at the statistics, it’s a double-edged sword because the internet does as much good. For isolated, alienated children, for children with neurodiversity, with children exploring different aspects of their young lives, it’s a space and place where they can build positive networks. But this ban is merely addressing a symptom of a far greater threat facing our society and going further, it may even provide a backdoor for pushing through digital IDs on the general public. So, what appears to be a protection measure for young people could in practice increase the access to private data for tech companies through age verification checks which are reported to include bank checks and email surveillance. Fourth, other age checks cited like bank checks and email surveillance are literally insane Far from “reining in Big Tech”, this is a gift to them – a huge transfer of power and data from the public to the tech companies, wrapped in child safety branding. — Silkie Carlo (@silkiecarlo) June 14, 2026 Labour chooses to ban the children, not the business model Don’t get me wrong: stronger restrictions on social media use by young people have become increasingly necessary given how toxic, abusive, and harmful many platforms have proven to be. But the repeated failure of tech companies to address these problems meaningfully means the dangers will not simply disappear because a ban is introduced. Harmful content, disinformation, and online radicalisation will continue to exist, and young people will often find ways around restrictions. It is important to note, this policy has not been successful in Australia – a whopping 70% of parents in Australia have reported that their children are still on banned platforms – which hardly suggests this will have any impact on children’s safety. More importantly, we have already seen how algorithms amplify division, anger, and extremism across the UK, influencing adults as well as children. The challenge is therefore not just who uses social media, but how these platforms are designed, regulated, and incentivised. If we fail to address the business models that reward outrage and hate, we risk treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched. After all, we’ve seen these platforms profit from some of the most harmful and abusive content imaginable, and when every click is a source of revenue, even material that exploits children can become part of the business model. That isn’t just a moderation failure. It’s the predictable and futile result of putting obscene profit ahead of public safety. Even more concerning is the fact that this ban will drive users ‘underground’ which will work to reduce transparency for adults. If children respond to social media bans with VPN workarounds, the result may be the worst of both worlds: the risks remain, while parental oversight and awareness vanish. Rather than treating children as the problem, we should be forcing tech giants to make their platforms safer. If we change the business model, introduce real safeguards, the internet becomes safer for everyone – not just young people. What are they really after? There is every chance this amounts to little more than virtue-signalling: a tokenistic gesture to “protect children” while changing sweet naff all about the very systems causing great harm in the first place. After all, this crisis should really be a watershed moment to finally confront the cynical, corrosive influence that social media platforms and their billionaire owners exert over society. Tackling the business models, algorithms, and incentives that drive abuse would create a safer environment not just for children, but for adults too. Nevertheless, that is not what the government is pursuing. Instead, critics have argued that this is a manipulative way of pushing through digital ID across the country, ramping up digital surveillance of British citizens and reducing our right to privacy. In practice, horrifyingly, this could actually wind up handing the already immensely powerful tech giants more access and control over our data, creating an even more oppressive environment for adults – whilst leaving young people unprepared for the fallout when they ‘regain access’. Featured image via Getty/Carlos Jasso By Maddison Wheeldon From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Loops (the Fediverse alternative to Tiktok) is now available for both iOS, and Android. It was previously only available for iOS, or Android (via APK).
London (AFP) – Children under 16 will be banned from using social media in the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Monday, saying such platforms were making youngsters “unhappy”. Some children’s charities welcomed the sweeping change, which is likely to trigger a major fight with US tech giants, but others warned it could make teenagers less safe online. Starmer, likely to face a leadership challenge in the coming weeks, said social media sites were exposing children to content that is “dangerous” and “designed to be addictive”. The ban will “include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X” but not messaging services such as WhatsApp, the government said. Starmer said the upcoming ban was influenced by the experience of Australia, which in December became the first nation to ban people under 16 from social media. He added during a press conference in Downing Street that he hoped to pass the regulation by late December and for the ban to come into force in spring next year. He suggested that YouTube Kids, Lego Play and Google Classroom would not be prohibited. The government said in a statement it would also be considering overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for minors, and would announce more detail in July.
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1196216/uk-introduces-full-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-including-snapchat-tiktok-youtube-inst
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1196216/uk-introduces-full-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-including-snapchat-tiktok-youtube-inst
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
Keir Starmer is to ban under-16s from major social media apps such as TikTok, Instagram and X in sweeping restrictions described as “Australia plus”, the Guardian understands. In a major policy shift far tougher than previously briefed, the prime minister will announce that teenagers will be banned from all the main social platforms. Online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
Lihat kiriman asli pada platform media sosial terkait.
The footage, posted by TikTok user legallyswiftie13, captures a tense exchange between airline staff and passengers on the plane as the woman explains she is deaf and had already noted the accommodation on her ticket. Frontier Airlines says passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing can request assistance either during booking or through the airline’s “Manage Trips” tool. According to the airline’s assistance page, crew members can work with travelers to, “establish a way to share important flight information,” once they are on board. The passenger, who is visibly emotional in the video, repeatedly says she is willing to comply, but feels humiliated by the situation. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” she says in the clip while gathering her belongings. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Air Traveler Disability Bill of Rights states that airline staff who interact with passengers must be trained to recognize and accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. Lawsuit incoming. Or expect MAGA to overturn the ADA.
Maandag opent TikTok zijn eigen TikTok Shop. Het is een wake-upcall voor ingedutte platforms als Amazon, Coolblue en Bol.com, zegt retailexpert en Chinakenner John Lin: „Er wordt een heel nieuw spel gespeeld.”
TikTok US to be rebranded as LikKok