Is social media good for D&I?

We're truly opening a can of worms in today's discussion on social media, and how that fits (or doesn't) into the world of D&I.

The articles we discuss are:
'Everything Meta has changed in the last week in its shift to the right'
'Australia passes social media ban for children under 16'

 If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals 

Transcript

H: Welcome back to another episode of D &I Digest. I'm Henry, I use he/they pronouns.

T: And I'm Teagan, and I use she/her pronouns.

H: We make up the Diversity and Inclusion team at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s. So this month we're going to dedicate some time to talking about a topic that's  come up in possibly every episode so far, and that is social media.

T: Oh my gosh. Here we go.

H: Let's open this can of worms.

T: Yep, yep, yep.

H: So yeah, obviously there is loads to cover and so many different points of view when we're going to talk about this, so I figured that we'd probably be best putting some parameters in place to start with. 

T: Sure.

H: We'll kind of mainly be talking about social media that's quite synchronous and instant in its kind of networking and discussion, things that are more like algorithm-led in their feeds. So more things like Facebook, Twitter- X- dead-naming Twitter, Instagram,  rather than like forums like Reddit and YouTube because they're a bit more  archives I guess?

T: Sure and I take your point as well about the algorithm. You're not getting a constant updated feed I guess are you? From things like YouTube or Reddit you kind of have to go and seek out the information that you're after.

H: Yeah exactly that so figured having that definition, if you like, it's probably nothing scientific but it might help us control this conversation a little bit.

T: Sure.

H:So, start ourselves off really broadly then: where do you stand on social media? Do you use it? Do you like it?

T: I mean I use it. I don't like it. I think both me and you come from an age where we, as kids, we didn't have social media and then we probably  got into high school and then it just kind of really took off from there. So  it's been a  huge and very steep learning curve of being somebody who  has gone from, you know, playing minesweeper on a computer-

H: I loved minesweeper!

T: To, you know, constantly being bombarded with information via a phone screen.

H: Yeah, we were very much the generation that went from nothing to everything. Like, we are that learning gap.

T: Yes. And I think I would love to be in an idealistic world where you could still connect with people outside of social media, but I don't think you can anymore.

H: Yeah, it's very much gone all to nothing, hasn't it?

T: Yeah, absolutely. I use it now, more than anything, for two purposes. The first one is work so I'll spend time on LinkedIn, and I must say I spend an embarrassingly large amount of time on TikTok for a fully grown woman, so.

H: You're a scroller. 

T: Yeah, big time. And mostly I find TikTok both hilarious and educational in equal amounts. I don't have Instagram. I haven't had Instagram for years. I actually came off Instagram pre-COVID years and it's because I felt like I spent too much of my time comparing my life to things that weren't real.

H: Yeah.

T: And feeling like I was putting my life in boxes quite literally, you know, putting it on a three by three grid, trying to be completely idealistic with the way that I was living my life and it just became really false almost. So stop using that. I don't have Facebook but I still have Facebook Messenger from days gone by. And  as far as anything else is concerned, no. Twitter, for example, no absolutely cesspit, sorry, you will not find me on there.

H: Yeah that's fair. Yeah I'm kind of similar in that I'm quite picky about the ones that I use. I used to spend a fair amount of time on social media but I've never been big on it. Yeah. Like I feel like for someone who is quite online I am a chronically offline sort of person.

T: The tech gap.

H: Yeah I feel like while I use social media a fair bit, I curate my space very particularly. So I only really follow the kind of people that I want to see on my scrolling. So I tend not to fall into gaps of like, well, I don't have Twitter because I got into too many arguments when I did have it and was like, I need to remove myself from the situation. But with things like Instagram, I tend not to get in the feedback loop I guess of comparing myself to others because the people I see are all quite realistic?

T: And do you-

H: And they're all my friends as well which helps.

T: Are you quite liberal with the block button?

H: Oh 100 %

T: Yeah me too. I even do that with things like news articles now though, that you know it's like oh are you interested in this and that? No. No I am not. Am I interested in anything that Piers Morgan has got to say? No, no I'm not. So  I'll see much less of that, thank you. So yeah, I'm very liberal with the block button as well on the social media I do use.

H: Yeah definitely and I think as well like you're saying it's a lot more of a tool, for me anyway, to talk to people. Because they've all got messaging capacity and so yeah my social media primarily is for the instant messaging. And it's very rarely for the mindless scrolling I'm quite good at not doing that. I think because I scroll through like three things then get bored and wander off. So I don't tend to get caught in that loop. But yeah, I think it's now become a space where you can just talk as opposed to being used for its original purpose, whatever that might be. It has kind of shifted somewhat, I think.

T: That was premise of Facebook. It was to find alumni, wasn't it? You've left university, you've gotten with your lives, how can you reconnect with people? And I think whilst it was that, it was good and it worked and it served a purpose.

H: Did it start with an algorithm?

T: I don't know in all honesty, I'm not sure. I doubt it.

H: Because I remember when Facebook first - I probably don't remember when Facebook first started but like I remember using it ages ago and it was very much like you had to seek out the people you knew. Yes.  It was very deliberate in the way that you used it as opposed to it wasn't really a scrolling website?

T: No not at all.

H: Unless you were  just looking at stuff your friends said.  Not in the same way that like, I don't know, TikTok, you can just scroll and see random stuff that rocks up but  yeah I don't remember Facebook being like that in the way that it is now.  I mean I don't have Facebook anymore but...

T:  I mean I don't know if it's just me longing for the nostalgia of it all or possessing some juvenoia in it. But I used to like things like Bebo. 

H: Bebo! MySpace! Loved it.

T: Yeah and I think what I liked about Bebo and probably still would is that it's an idea of curating a page that people can then visit and be like, oh!

H: It's a bit more bloggy, isn't it?

T: Yeah it is. That's essentially what it is isn't it? It's like Tumblr as well, that was great back in the day. Whereas now it's nothing like that, know, it's short, sharp, quick, you forgot it by the time you read

H: Post length has really changed as well hasn't it?

T: Massively, yeah. 

MUSIC

H: So our first article today is from NBC News. And it's titled, "Everything Meta Has Changed In The Last Week In Its Shift To The Right." It's quite a long article. I've summarised and paraphrased so yeah, again, check out the original if you want the full shenanigans. But this was written in January this year just before the inauguration of Trump when Zuckerberg enacted a series of policy and practice changes to things including fact checking and moderation systems. Zuckerberg said that these changes were meant to curb censorship  and protect free speech on Meta platforms including Instagram, Threads, and Facebook, but they reportedly touch on Meta's internal policies as well.

T: Mm, okay.

H: And I mean, I did know,  but it was surprising seeing it written down how much Meta has control over.

T: Sure.

H: I mean, I don't have Threads but 

T: No, me neither.

H: I always forget that Instagram is them, I always forget that WhatsApp is Meta as well.

T: Yes.

H: That's the one that always catches me off guard.

T: Yep. Absolutely.

H:  So yeah, it always just surprises me how wide reaching their array is. One of the changes was to their fact-checking system. So since 2016, it's worked by having certified third-party fact-checkers who would identify posts that appeared to be misinformation. Zuckerberg said that these fact-checkers were "too politically biased" and have "destroyed more trust than they created", and he introduced a new community notes system to help combat potential bias.  So I found this bit very interesting to hear, because basically Republicans, very generally - obviously this is quite focused in America being NBC News- Republicans are generally supportive of the community notes system because many believe that the fact-checking system disproportionately targets right-wing content. And this was the bit I had a similar reaction to because, as you would expect, research suggests that actually that's completely nonsense.  But conservative leaning people are more prone to sharing misinformation, which obviously in turn, attracts moderation. So it was like prime causation-correlation situation going on there.

T: I mean, it is hilarious isn't it?

H: There was a study showing this from the Brookings Institution and it basically found that  false and misleading content, and it was looking particularly at a right-wing podcast that was shared on Facebook and Twitter, it could reach more than 28 million followers. So yeah, it really just kind of proved the lengths that it can reach,  which, yeah, surprised me.

T: 28 million people potentially misinformed.

H: Yeah.

T: Great.

H: And that's directly as well, so obviously those people are then gonna be like, "This podcast I heard!"

T: Absolutely.

H: So yeah. A lot of misinformation and the community notes system kind of... I don't want to say perpetuates it, but I will say it perpetuates it. Meta employees and Brazil's president, which was a wild name drop to have in the middle of this article, but among other people have obviously expressed real concern about this move away from fact checking,  saying that it suggests that free speech means that facts no longer matter. 

T: I, yeah, I mean, can we just stop the world and get off for a little bit? Like, how dystopian is it that we've now got to a place where we prefer to be sharing incorrect information just because? Like don't understand it, I'm confused.

H: I think it's wild as well that the reason that we want to steer away from facts being checked and verified is because they are biased.

T: Yeah.

H: I'm like, how can a fact be biased?  Like you can  present one side, yes, but that doesn't mean the fact is wrong. You just need to provide the other perspectives as well or like, I don't know, see it from a different study?

T: Yeah. It's not an opinion.

H: No, exactly. Like being worried that fact checking is somehow silencing you...

T: Very odd. It's a very odd hill to die on.

H: Strange. Yeah.

T: Really, really quite concerning, yeah.

H: And wild as well that the response is, well we just won't use facts. Like, how is that more true? Strange. Strange to me.

T: Enough with the facts, we've had enough of the truth!

H: Yeah.

T: Let's just, let's just not talk in facts anymore!

H: Don't get it.

T: Let's just, let's just all just make things up as we go along. I just-

H: Is that not what we do?

T: I just think that's really odd.

H: It is.

T: It's really strange behavior.

H: Very odd. And childish as well to kind of say like that fact doesn't align with what I think therefore I will not listen to it.

T: Yes. 

H: Just yeah. A wild take.

T: Yeah really is yeah.

H: The segue here is impeccable: some of the big names that have lauded this change are Trump and Musk. I will- we'll leave that on there.

T: Yeah.

H: So another change that these policies and practices have instigated is welcoming political discourse and civic content. So basically Zuckerberg has said for a while that they stopped recommending political posts. But now that there's a move towards prioritising speech, so he's kind of said that these kind of posts are what people want to see again. He also said that there are plans to work closely with Trump's administration to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more. So again, I think this is a bit of a strange thing to read in order in this article. It was like we need to move away from fact checking. American US government are now going to be very in control of what's going on social media.

T: Yeah it's um...

H: Dystopian is the word for it.

T: Yeah exactly that. 100%. It is, massively. I'm struggling to find the words with this one because the only words I can muster is "This has to be a joke." What world do we live in where we're gonna stop listening to facts- No more facts, Henry!

H: Yeah, bored of them. I don't like what they're saying. 

T: Nobody wants to hear any of your facts, right? So we'll ditch that, and we'll also talk more about politics, okay,-

H: But only the bits we want to hear. 

T: Yeah, but only the bits that aren't facts.

H: Yeah.

T: Apparently. 

Both: What?!
H: Yeah, and I think this one as well for me really proves the point when people say things like, "Oh well it's happening in America."

T: Oh yeah.

H: Like this, this has been a big thing recently of, "Well you know, we're in England, this doesn't hit us as much." And this for me just kind of proves that it does. 

T: Oh absolutely, yeah.

H: Because you're seeing like all of these really wild changes happening to like social media, whose purpose it is to connect the world. And it's all not fact-checked. And it's all American politics.And it's all what American politics wants to say.

T: Yes. Correct.

H: So to then kind of come out of that conclusion with, this impacts no one other than America, really... It scares me, in all honestly, like it concerns me that people kind of look at it and go, well that's nice and isolated, and it's really not.

T: It's like you say though, with the fact that it's your major social media sites as well, it's Facebook, it's Instagram, it's Twitter,  X, whatever you want to call it.  And  those are the social medias that reach so many people, whereas you can, you can go beyond that, things like TikTok. And I mean, there was a hilarious-

H: Yeah, I'm grinning at this.

T: Hilarious incident maybe a couple of months ago where America turned around, or the US, I should say, specifying the States.  The US turned around and said that they were gonna ban it. They were gonna ban TikTok because they've got no control over it, like we're seeing here, you know, they can't turn around and put in community guidelines that says, let's stop checking facts, which is, again, I'll just never go over that, but...  And  then, you know, the government had turned around and said, yeah, we'll get rid of it.  And the discourse online around it was just so beautiful and really funny. You had basically anyone who wasn't a US citizen being like, "We're gonna miss you guys." You know, sharing YouTube and all the rest of it so they can keep in contact. But the best thing that happened was- So, Red Note is a very similar setup to TikTok where you get kind of instant videos, short burst videos. You've got your algorithm where you'll start to see more of what you like, etc. However, it's very popular in China and it is owned by a Chinese organization and the reaction-

H: There was a migration, wasn't there?

T: Yes! The reaction from people who were using TikTok, who are US citizens, was like, all right then, we're all going over to Red Note. It was beautiful. I've never seen anything so perfect in terms of sticking it to the man in my life, in like that sort of digital type fashion. So we know that it exists to push back at that point as well, it made it really apparent that actually when people club together they can really push back against these types of things that are happening to very much control the narrative. But it's scary in the same breath that when we're talking about major social media outlets the control very much sits with three people especially.

H: And three people who are in control of a very big government.  And I think with the TikTok thing like the way that everyone was like, oh Trump let it back in and therefore that's, you know, that's a win for him. It's like he was also the one saying that they should ban it, but everyone's conveniently forgotten about that because that's how propaganda works.

T: Correct.

H: I loved seeing like the cultural exchange going on though.

T: It was brilliant. 

H: Of essentially like Americans being like, wait, you guys are just people! And all the Chinese citizens being like, wow, you guys are just people! And it was just a mutual kind of experience of, well, we've been lied to.

T: There was a temporary spike in people from the US learning Cantonese and Mandarin on Duolingo.  Honest to God.

H: I love that!

T: It was so good. I mean in the end people just flocked back to TikTok and whatever but  just in that moment I was just like cheering for humanity. 

H: There are moments like that.

T: There really, really are.
H: So the last change that I've picked out from this article, there have been other changes that the article mentions, but they weren't particularly relevant to this conversation, so I've stuck with these three. The last one is that there have also been cuts to D&I initiatives from Meta.

T: Obviously.

H: Of course. Including Meta's Diversity and Inclusion teams themself. They no longer exist. Hiring practices have changed. Various LGBTQ plus particularly trans-friendly initiatives have been cut.  And additionally, and this is the one that I've definitely seen a lot on through social media stuff, but Meta's hateful conduct policy has been updated.

T: Okay. 

H: So it now says, and this is a quotation from the policy, "We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation,  given political and religious discourse about transgenderism  and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like weird." Direct quotation.  

T: Absolutely speechless. 

H: Sounds like something from the Handmaid's Tale.

T: Nazi Germany.

H: Nazi Germany.

T: Right. That's all it's screaming to me, I'm afraid.

H: Yeah, 100%.

T: It's giving eugenics.

H: Well, it's funny you should say that because other updates in this policy include being able to like, extol the limitations of gender. So misogyny is now fine and dandy. You're allowed to use sex or gender exclusive language.  And I think the thing that stands out to me with this  is that it's not just  we've stopped punishing, it's that we're encouraging this because it's free speech. 

T: Yeah, absolutely. It's an absolute dog whistle, isn't it?

H: Oh, 100%.

T: It's just, you know, anybody who's ever felt that they align with a right-leaning rhetoric, now is your time, apparently, according to Meta. And just, that is possibly some of the most frightening opinions and- well it's certainly not facts, is it, because we're not doing facts anymore!

H: We don't like those. Yeah.

T: Yeah deeply frightening.

H: So one thing that I wanted to kind of raise as  a topic of conversation especially with that last point  is we've seen a lot of people kind of get into debates I guess of  should I stay on this platform or should I leave  so I just kind of wanted to-

T: Open that door.

H: Raise your thought on it I guess of with that  sort of yeah the hateful conduct policy particularly but I think with everything else as well. Thoughts on people kind of leaving or staying on these platforms because of that policy? Where do you think that will take us, I guess?

T: I do think  that Meta and X/Twitter  will see a decrease in their membership. I think that, I know I've said this before when we've talked about what is woke and stuff, I think  there are more people than we recognise that don't think that this is right. 

H: Yeah.

T: I do believe that the majority of people aren't looking to be bigots, honestly.

H: Yeah, I think so, yeah. 

T: And I think with that, people will have some strong feelings about being associated with these types of social media moving forward. It certainly does for me. I'm kind not the target audience for this, you know, I work in DNI, obviously. But I know that it'll really make people think twice about whether they stay on it or not, I believe.

H: Yeah, because I've seen like    people who work in D&I and  like charities and organizations kind of saying like well actually now that this no longer aligns with  our values and beliefs we'll go elsewhere, which, very fair. I've also seen though people kind of saying like no I'm staying because you can't kick me out of my community, which I think - I haven't quite decided where I stand with it but-

T: It's hard though isn't it when the overall community don't want you there. 

H: Yeah yeah exactly.  But then again because a lot of this is algorithm based then essentially you're creating an echo chamber  if everyone who disagrees with the fact checking leaves you won't need fact checking because it's all the same opinions.

T: It is yeah.

H: Which I think is one of the, for better or for worse in the grand scheme of things, one of the good things about social media is that there is such diversity of opinion in there,  so if you're kind of creating this  space that is very hostile to  one particular viewpoint  or culture or background, whatever it might be, then you all leave, you are creating that echo chamber even more so.

T: Yeah, absolutely.
H: So with that article then, where do you think that stands for D&I? Do think it's a good thing or bad thing? Pointless question!

T: I think it's an unmitigated disaster, Henry!

H: Well I'm glad, we're in accordance.

T: Yeah, I think  if you are  in any way, shape or form belonging to any kind of group  that has been historically marginalised... Why?

H: It's not a breath of fresh air.

T: No, do you know what I mean? Why would you spend your time trying to convince people who frankly don't think you deserve to exist? 

H: Yeah.

T: What is there to say around that?

H: Yeah.

T: It's a really horrible state of affairs, but that is the way that things are currently if they want to continue down this trajectory.

H: Yeah, definitely. And I think like we've started off with some real positivity here in Article 1, but I think this is, yeah. Like you say, unmitigated failure for D&I.

T: Yeah, big time.

H: Not going well.

T: Mm-hmm. 

MUSIC

H: Okay, I think our second article today is gonna get some debate going. I don't know whether it's gonna be between us or playing Devil's advocate or just responding, but I think it's very interesting. So, this one's from November 2024, so similar sort of time, and it's called "Australia passes social media ban for children under 16."
T: Right, okay. Yep.

H: Yep. So this law forces social media such as TikTok and Meta to stop minors logging in or they'll face fines, not the minors, the big social media giants will face fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars. 

T: Okay.

H: Some trial methods for enforcing this have started from January this year with the ban to take effect next year. So a very living  situation. From the title, because it's journey this one, from the title what are your initial thoughts?

T: My initial thoughts? I think it sounds great in theory.

H: Yeah, that's it.

T: Is my honest thoughts. I think I do genuinely believe that a lot of the issues and mental health issues that young people are experiencing these days does stem from an overuse of social media and them not seeing the right things or seeing all the wrong things and potentially being indoctrinated and  all this awful stuff that goes on online. We're adults and we see it, can you imagine how harmful that is to a child that's 12 years old?

H: Yeah, definitely.

T: So I do think there is something to be said about how we put better protections in place for young people using social media at the moment. It's a cesspit.

H: Yeah, I agree. And I think like when we were on social media as young people like it was a very different situation.

T: Extremely different.
H: Like almost unrecognisably...

T: It certainly wasn't us sat scrolling through a phone.

H: No, yeah exactly, you had to be very deliberate in how you used it. It was usually getting onto the big family computer, doing it in a room with other people around. Like, completely different ballpark.

T: It was.

H: And yeah, it's just kind of noticing how different it is now for like you say, imagine being 12 on- I don't like it and I'm nearly 30 so...

T: Honestly it really frightens me about like what children have unintentional access to, I find it really really scary. So I think yeah, I mean a social media ban, yeah, great in theory. My key concern is how on earth do you make sure this is properly enforced?

H: Yeah that leads perfectly onto the to the rest of it so basically, as we've kind of already said, the law has come from an increased concern for social media's mental health impact on young people, so valid, and an inquiry throughout 2024. This is where it starts getting bit muddy for me. So the key kind of drivers of this were parents of children who had been bullied through social media and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, they had a 'Let Them Be Kids' campaign and those two groups were the key drivers for this inquiry. Okay. Which for me that's where it starts getting a bit like oh where's this coming from?

T: What's Rupert Murdoch doing getting involved in it is my question. What's his angle?

H: Yeah, and who's he getting involved for?

T: Yeah yeah because I mean he historically me and Rupert Murdoch are ethically opposed I think.

H: Yeah so this is exactly it: it's when when you start going oh I agree with that and then see who was pushing for it-

T: Who's behind it.

H: and you're like oh should I?

T: Red flag, red flag, red flag. Yeah.

H: Absolutely. So the article says like some places have passed laws to restrict access for minors so places like France, some US states have passed laws restricting access but this Australian ban is absolute, it's saying that there is a blanket ban. The proposition for this has also faced opposition from privacy advocates and some child rights groups. 

T: Okay.

H: So, yeah, there are different parties at play here which I think is a really interesting thing. So the article says that the ban could strain Australia's relationship with the US too, which...

T: Oh for crying out loud.

H:  Yeah, here's again, more parties that are getting involved.

T: It's like all roads lead to Rome at the minute, innit? It's just...

H: Right?

T: Yeah. bothersome.

H: So Musk has said that this seems like, a quote, "a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians," which I think is a bold claim coming from Musk This is also probably exacerbated by the fact that Australia was the first country to make social media  platforms, paid media outlets, royalties for sharing their content, and is now planning to use fines to get rid of social media scams. So Australia has already come for big social media.

T: Sure.

H: Which makes sense that there's already opposition to this.
T: Do we know why they've got such a different view of social media in Australia compared to the rest of the world? Because it seems like to me that they've always desired more protections around it than, I dunno, us, for example, as the UK.

H: I don't know, actually. I know that this has been quite a long-standing thing. I don't know where it came from. I don't know whether some groups, like advocacy kind of activism groups, maybe are just stronger in Australia, or if perhaps because the parents with children who have been bullied through social media  are pretty leading in this, so I don't know whether maybe actually they've just rallied more efficiently around it or something like that?

T: It's interesting nonetheless isn't it?

H: It is yeah. So yeah I'm not sure where it's coming from but it's a precedented move which explains why big names are bit more invested I think. 

T: And concerned. 

H: And concerned. Yeah.

T: False concern, faux concern. Really concerned!

H: So yeah, a Meta spokesperson said that there was concern about  rushed legislation in this case, failing to properly consider evidence, and also what the industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences. And also the voices of young people and I find it interesting that even Meta spokespeople are saying are you actually listening to kids in this?

T: Yeah but it's all done through a lens of... it's all insidious.

H: Propaganda!

T: Do you know what I mean? Like it's not done with like-

H: Good intentions.

T: You know, a genuine concern for the voices of children is it?

H: 100%.

T: It's done so they're not losing loads of members on their platform.

H: And so that they don't look really bad because-

T: You know?  It's just so insidious.

H: Yeah. And likewise, a Snap, which is Snapchat's parent group, spokesperson, also raised doubts about how it would be implemented in practice, which I think is a really fair concern. 

T: Yes. It is. So, other than the big social media companies, a lot of pushback comes from youth advocacy groups and academics who say that this could be more harmful for the most vulnerable young people like LGBTQ plus people and migrant teenagers. There are also real doubts about the fact that enforcing this could lead to heightened collection of personal data, which could be a slippery slope to digital identification based state surveillance.

T: Interesting.

H: Which, yeah, I think that's an interesting one because a lot of people kind of go with a very knee-jerk, empathetic reaction to, yeah, get kids off social media without really thinking, like you say, of how is that going to be implemented, what else will that mean?

T: Yeah, you'll be nicking your mum's driving license out of her bag, won't you?

H: Oh, 100%.

T: Stamping that in instead.
H: Yeah. Sarah Hanson Young, who is a Green Party senator, said that "This is boomers trying to tell young people how the internet should work to make themselves feel better."

T: I mean, it's bold, but I think it's fair. 

H: Yeah, yeah, definitely.

T: I do question whether the knee-jerk reaction to get rid of social media is the right one, or do we need to spend more time thinking about how social media is, its current state, how we can change the current state of social media rather than just getting rid of it altogether. I don't know. I don't know what the answer is.

H: Yeah, open question.

T: Yeah. 

H: Another person who was quoted in this article was Enie Lam, and I hope I pronounced her name right there. And she has recently turned 16, so is only just out of the cusp of being affected. So I think it's really nice that she's got this...
T: Platform.
H: Opportunity, yeah. So she said, "Yes, social media contributes to problems and bullying, but a total ban may drive young people to less visible, more dangerous parts of the internet, and it will only make people more technologically literate in bypassing these walls." 

T: That is so true.

H: That's exactly where I'm coming from with this. 

T: Yeah, that's absolutely spot on really, that isn't it?

H: When, ever, in the history of ever, has a governmentally enforced ban on something succeeded in banning it? 

T: Prohibition. Oh wait! 

H: Oh wait. Yeah. Drugs. Oh wait. Alcohol. Sex work. No. All of these things, it just makes it more dangerous to engage in it. It doesn't stop engagement. 

T: So right.

H: And I think we're seeing it at the moment, with abortion rights. Making it illegal will not stop people from seeking them out.

T: Requiring medical attention in an abortion, yeah absolutely.

H: So yeah, just, wild to me how someone's gonna go, "Oh yeah, a ban will fix all of our problems." When has that ever worked? Ever?

T: It hasn't, you're absolutely right, it hasn't worked. 

H: I've got big feelings about this article. Like I've thought about this a lot and I think partly from working with young people as well.

T: Yeah. 

H: Because like you say, social media doesn't do enough to protect young people from accessing it beyond that little box that says you've got to be over 12 to access this content. Are you over 12? Yes!

T: Stupid. Yeah, it's ridiculous.

H: Of course you're going to click the button. So yeah, I do think like more needs to be done. However, I do think we are also really underestimating the technological abilities of kids.
T: Yes, massively.

H: Things like with the age verification for instance. VPNs exist, kids know how to use them. Yeah, they're not hard to use.

T: If I asked my mom what a VPN was she'd have no clue.

H: No, same.

T: So-

H: I think it's kind of just, quite naive to think that a ban will fix this.

T: I agree.

H: Especially if you're not getting into  really intense levels of surveillance, which is the only way that I can really see it being enforced.

T: Yeah, I think like we said at the very beginning of discussing this article, it's great in theory, it's probably not going to work in practice, it's definitely going to drive young people to much more insidious corners of the internet. 

H: And I think as well it will also make the internet as a whole more insidious because we're assuming that it's going to become a 16 over area and therefore content will match it.

T: Yeah, that's very true.
H: Because suddenly there won't be an awareness of, "Oh kids might be reading that, I won't swear." That's obviously the nice angle of stuff, but it will create an over 16 space because that's exactly what it's trying to do.  So therefore when kids inevitably slip through these gaps, these nets in safety, they're going to be slipping through into a quite a hostile space.

T: Yes.

H: So yeah, that, that concerns me, but also things like, and again I'm coming from a perspective of having  worked with kids and like taught them how to, how to research effectively and usefully and all this. It also kind of obliterates any chance to teach them how to use the internet well if you're just putting a blanket ban on you can't use this under 16. When are they gonna learn? They're going to be thrown into like a 16 plus space without having been taught to use it because they weren't allowed on it to see.

T: Yeah, it's odd.

H: Yeah, and also like self-censorship is a really valuable skill. if you, I don't know, if I picked up a book that I wasn't vibing with or if it started talking about stuff that I wasn't comfortable with reading, I had to learn to put that down and that's been great. This is what's  fueled my blocking ability on social media now, is because I now know actually I'm not comfortable with that, I can control my situation.

T: Yep.

H: And without that ability to practice that or or even without someone to lead you through it, that's not a skill that you just know. And while I think throwing, yeah, three-year-olds onto Instagram to scroll through and see the world is not ideal, there needs to be the capability to learn how to do it correctly.

T: Yes. 

H: Because at the end of the day, the world isn't age segregated. There are always going to be spaces where you can walk into, like, on the bus. If you walk into that situation and someone's having an adult conversation behind you, you're not going to be able to go-

T: Age verification? 

H: Yeah, yeah!

T: Actually, I'm not old enough to hear this conversation, so you're going to have to stop. 

H: 100%. And, like, fake IDs will always be a thing. You'll get kids seeing films that they're not actually able to especially with like, streaming services. They don't even need to check.  So that kind of ability to go, "Oh, that's either not for me, I don't like that, that's something that I shouldn't be seeing."  Those are all really important skills, even as adults, to go, nah, not my business.

T: Yeah, absolutely. It almost seems like the measure's quite punitive for the wrong audience, do you know?  We've decided to protect the kids, look after the kids and the way that we're going to do that is to cover their eyes and hope that they don't see anything around them.

H: Yeah, it's giving a book ban. 

T: Yeah, it's bit daft isn't it? And I think actually the solution to the problem is holding  these organisations that are running the social media to account. 

H: Yeah,  and an interesting point that was in another article, I went on a real rabbit hole with this one, another article that was linked said, the social media companies have actually said that the onus should be firstly on parents and kind of that capability to teach this behavior and how to use social media responsibly. But they also pointed out things like smartphone creators should bear some of that brunt as well in terms of having privacy locks and, I don't know, child-proofed internet access and things like that, which I thought was an interesting one because I hadn't really thought of that.

T: I mean how do you do that though? Does that mean you're bringing out an entirely different phone for someone who's under the age of 16?

H: I'm not gonna lie, I would love a phone that doesn't have social media on it. I've tried looking for one, they don't exist unless you're a kid.

T: Yeah, it's an actual child phone.

H: As much as I would love a Spiderman themed phone. But yeah, I think like it's an interesting question because there's always going to be that where does the onus lie, and who is in the right position to be able to match that onus? Because I don't think anyone is other than the child equipped with the right skills to say "Oh I shouldn't be there."
T: I think I might need my own theme tune for what I'm about to say next because I feel like I'm a bit of a broken record with it. What do you think I want to mention?

H: *theme tune* Capitalism!

T: Nailed it! Okay, so I've got some thoughts about how late stage capitalism interacts with this. I mean, beyond the obvious. And when I say beyond the obvious, I mean the reason that we have social media is because it makes all of these people at the top loads of money off the back of all the advertising.

H: It's really good at advertising.

T: That's the obvious stuff. The not so obvious stuff of how these things interact, given the conversation around who is the onus on to protect these kids from the stuff that they're seeing on the cesspit that is social media. And we talk about adults and I think, or rather parents,  and I think where this intersects with of like late stage capitalism is, can we honestly say that late stage capitalism and parenting go hand in hand anymore because I think  I think they're on the complete opposite end of the scale. How can you expect someone who's working 40 plus hours a week, both of them usually, both parents in the house- even more compounded if you're a single parent family- let's just go with a two-parent family, both of them are working full-time, which is usually the case these days because one income households are few and far between, for the general folk at least. So how does that then intersect with providing hands-on, close parenting? The two don't go hand in hand. And that was very  beautifully illustrated by one of the most fantastic pieces of television that I've seen in years. The whole idea, the premise of the show Adolescence, there is a 13-year-old boy who comes from a middle-class family.  Mum, dad, both work. He's got an older sister. That's kind of the setup. His house is raided, the police come in, they arrest the 13-year-old boy, he's the suspect in a murder case. The programme continues, it transpires that  the reason that this has all happened is because of social media. There's a lack of understanding from the parents of what some of the emojis that are being used and left on Instagram posts and all this stuff.  And the general conversation and discourse online around it has been, what can we be doing to protect our children as parents? And I just think that this conversation that we're having now and how that then interacts with like late stage capitalism: it just doesn't work in terms of protecting children in the way that we want to as parents.

H: And I think to add on to that is the next conversation that always happens with that is well it's going to fall onto schools to teach kids how to use it. Awesome, great, wonderful. Yes I think that should be the case.  Should also be given capacity to do that but that's another another question. But I think there's an additional kind of point in what you were saying about like the capacity of parenthood in terms that actually to be able to enforce this and teach your child and encourage your child to make the right decisions in this, you also need to know a lot about it.

T: Absolutely.

H: And like you very rightly said, when do the parents have the time to learn about this? 

T: Pass.

H: Because, I mean, social media has changed so much. If you're still, and I'm using my parents as like a point of reference for this, if you're still using Facebook as it was originally intended to catch up with alumni, you're not gonna be on TikTok. You're not gonna be on Snapchat. You're definitely not gonna be in the same circles that your child is. And you're probably not gonna be algorithmically led to those circles either. So like, yeah, parents really need to be active and open in learning about the good things I think as well, but also how easy it is to be misled because I think, the problem that I have with this blanket ban is it seems quite akin to victim blaming for me.

T: Yeah.

H: In like, it's not gonna stop the children going on it, it's just gonna make them better at hiding it.

T: Also that, and what are we expecting children to replace this with? Are we just gonna like, stock them with colouring books? 

H: This is like another thing, it's like, the world under capitalism-

T: It's changed.

H: -no longer has free spaces to hang out.

T: Yeah, third spaces are an absolute mystery these days.

H: Like, they don't exist.

T: No.

H: And that space is filled by social media. So yeah, what are you gonna fill it with? And I think I'm gonna raise the elephant in the room as well is if we're saying that this is opened up to giving parents more control and you know, parents should be the ones teaching. What about the parents who aren't good parents? 

T: Exactly that.

H: The kids is mentioned in the article like LGBTQ plus children, children who have migrated. That's not to say obviously that parents of LGBTQ people or migrants are like bad parents, but it's really isolating in terms of community for those people. Sometimes, we all hate to hear it, but sometimes parents don't have the children's best interests at heart. What's going to be put in place for them? Because there aren't third spaces to go to. We're cutting off anyone who they might feel that they can talk to. They're also cutting off the very healthy aspects of social media in terms of education, in terms of resources, in terms of connection, all of these things. So what's happening for them? Leaves them isolated and very much open to falling into the wrong areas of, you know-

H: Exactly. It just makes it real life instead of social media. 

T: -communities that you really don't want them to be a part of.

H: Yeah. I find this a really interesting topic because it's such an emotive one because you hear the title and go, "Yeah, ban on social media, what a great idea." But then, yeah, the more you kind of dig into it, I don't know, yeah. Great in theory.

T: Great in theory. Yeah.

MUSIC

H: So a couple of questions that we've got for today then. The first one is probably quite a bit of an obvious one for this topic, is do you think that social media is overall more good or bad for the landscape of D&I? This is a huge question, no nuance, yes or no?

T: You know I'm not capable of doing that. Depends which one?

H: Okay, cool. Yeah. 

T: I think overall you are not going to find anything positive with a D&I lens on things like Meta and Twitter and I think that's been the case for  years, frankly.  think you probably will on things like TikTok because there's not a high degree of right-wing bias going on there. Again, all this-

H: Or you've just got a really good algorithm.

T: Well, you took the words out of my mouth. Obviously all this stuff is algorithm based as well, so depending on what it is that you've got an interest in and what you're seeing, and the interactions that you've made will very much dictate that. Do I think it's good or bad overall?  I think it's how you use it. I think it's completely individual. 

H: Fair enough. 

T: Yeah.

H: Yeah. I think if I was going to decide on a good or bad, no nuance, I think good.

T: Okay.

H: But absolutely right in terms of like how you're using it and the side of the site that you're on. The reason I think good is because I don't think you could  find another way that allows people from such different backgrounds to talk to each other.

T: I agree.
H: That can be really great, it can also be really bad. So yeah, I think very much like how you, how you use it. I think on the trajectory it's going at the moment, I think no, I don't think it's great for the D&I landscape, things have become very polarized. There's been a real reluctance to find a middle ground or seek out a middle ground.

T: Yeah for sure.

H: And also that self-censorship thing in terms of like you can just you can just not engage in that and that's fine.

T: I've always found this fascinating.

H: Like you're just getting angry.

T: Like the compulsion to put a comment on that's just vile.

H: Yeah. If you're not gonna say anything nice, don't say say anything at all.

T: Don't say it! Exactly. 

H: Yeah so I think the trajectory that's going currently, I think it's probably quite bad for the D&I landscape. I think it has the capacity to be something very, very good.  But I think we've kind of passed that point, if I'm honest.

T: Do we go fully radical and just get rid of the entire lot?

H: I love that.

T: And just go back to books.

H: I would be so here for that. I'm very willing to concede that I think I'm in a minority there.

T: Yeah, I think we both are there.

H: Yeah. Cool. And our second question is  what do you think is the biggest danger of social media and how can we overcome it because it's not going anywhere any time soon! So yeah, how can we mitigate bigger dangers? 

T: That's a really big question. I think things like algorithms really do scare me. You know, we talk about how you kind of build your own algorithm to a certain extent. 

H: Yeah you kind of train it.

T: You do yeah it's through the things that you like and whatever else. However one thing I do find very interesting, I am an avid user of TikTok as has been revealed by this episode. My husband is not. However, what my husband enjoys watching his things like outdoor wilderness videos and happy dogs and all the rest of it, you know,

H: Fair enough.

T: Like could scroll through his TikTok and I will come across at least  one video that I personally think I'd class as misogynistic. Just because...

H: It falls into the same categories.

T: He is a man on social media.  And he watches "men" in inverted commas.

H: Manly things.

T: You know what mean? Manly content. You know, however you want to phrase that. 

H: Happy dogs.

T: You know, dogs, flat caps, and knocking  trees down and making huts with them. You know, it's this kind of stuff that has a very sort of, um-

H: It's all coded, isn't it?

T: Yeah, it's very masculine coded and  let's not try and digress into a conversation about gender binary.

H: That's a whole new episode.

T: Yeah, we have not got time. Okay, so yeah, the point I'm making is because that's the type of content that he enjoys looking at,  what very quickly happens is we start to get some very toxic content.

H: Yeah, it stereotypes itself incredibly quickly, isn't it?

T: Thank you, that's what I'm trying to nail down. It's the idea of the stereotype that if you watch this thing over here that's about being outdoors,

H: Yeah, then you're that kind of person.

T: Then you must clearly like to talk about women in a really negative way, and it's like the two are not synonymous.

H: It must be an incredibly interesting social experiment, I think, to just create a random TikTok account and scroll and see what kind of thing is suggested to you not having liked anything, not having kind of like timed the length of time you spend on a video. Like I would be really interested to see where it just leads you.

T: Yeah, so that's what I think is the biggest danger. It's the algorithm when it starts to stereotype you based on something that's fairly innocuous and yes, definitely starts feeding you some really quite right wing rhetoric. Yeah, that scares me quite a bit.

H: How would you like overcome that? Or, how does your husband overcome it? By not falling into misogynistic ways of thinking.

T: Honestly, yeah, like it's just, it's really trying to think critically about the things that are being delivered to you and why and, you know, how it makes you feel a lot of the time and who's on the receiving end of this? Who does this benefit and who's at detriment of this information that you're receiving? And I always try and think that, you know, there are so many times that I've been completely let down by people that I've followed for months, know, creators that you follow for months and stuff and then all of a sudden they start weighing in on an opinion that absolutely nobody asked for ever.  And you're like, no, I watch you because you do fun things with leeks. I  don't want your opinions on immigration. 

H: Nobody asked!

T: I say that and I'm coming across flippant. But I think what it does is then it shines a light on how crafted some of the things that you see are on social media. And I think that's really sad, but  ultimately I think the only way you can overcome that as a person is just by applying your own critical thinking. 

H: And practicing it as well.

T: Yeah, and really like trying to understand the nuance of the things that you're seeing constantly. Otherwise you'll just be just blindly absorbing things all the time and not really thinking about how that is affecting your mental capacity, and your mental health and the way that you think about things and the way that you view the world.

H: Yeah definitely. I think one thing I've seen in that same vein is getting really good at asking yourself what is an ad. Because it doesn't necessarily have to be something you buy, it can be the way that you look at yourself. What is it selling me? Well, it's selling me, I don't know, this beauty product or this particular cream or this pill that I can take that loses me weight or... you can kind of really work out, like you said, like what's wanted from me in this situation because a lot of the time it's something.

T: Yeah, absolutely.

H: And that's where I think there's a bit of a danger of what do you want from me? And how much will it cost?

T: Yeah, I agree.  I think anytime I'm like seeing in the corner it's like commission paid, hashtag ad, next.

H: Oh, yeah, where's that come from?

T:  But in a similar vein to that, have you heard the phrase, and I think it's brilliant, have you heard this phrase like, if something's free, especially like online, you're the product.

H: Yes, I love that phrase.

T: Love it. It's like, you know, it's free. It's like, yeah, because they're trying to sell all your data to some weird company god knows where that's why.

H: Or they want your time or investment in something like yeah. Again it's one of those conversations that leads into like conspiracy theory very quickly but yeah no i think algorithms is definitely one of the things that scares me? I think yeah that was probably accurate actually I think it does scare me quite a lot. I think like you say, how easy it is to manipulate that algorithm for someone else's gain.

T: Oh yeah.

H: Yeah. And I think for me, one of the biggest dangers is that one person owns this. Like that really doesn't sit right at all with me. And especially given that it's a global  phenomenon, whether or not the whole globe uses it, different question, but it's open to everybody and anybody can be bought.

T: You know, it's interesting that it's always sort of packaged up as free speech, but it's starting to feel very much like a censorship.

H: Yeah, 100%.

 T: Maybe the two are more closely linked than what we're led to believe, eh?

H: Yeah, wild that.

T: Someone fact check it please. Oh no, wait, you can't do that.

H: And... actually I'm gonna ping off that with the answer to the question of the biggest danger, censorship I think is a big one. You see it on TikTok, on Instagram and stuff, things like kill or unaliving people. 

T: The internet language, yeah. 

H: And that's really dangerous as well because if that is a trigger for someone that's gonna be the words that you want to  blacklist or look out for or be kind of aware of. If those are always being replaced with euphemism,  then you really have no capacity to control your own space and that's dangerous. And and also we were having a conversation, yesterday I think it was, about things like OCD being tossed around quite flippantly, the same thing's happening with unaliving.
T: Yeah, yeah definitely.

H: Because it's removed the weight of that and the tangible severity. 

T: Using things like pew pew for gun. 

H: Yeah, or the water pistol emoji. Obviously that's gonna lose its weight and significance.

T: Yeah, coining the term as SA'd if we're talking about sexual assault. Yeah, there's a lot of internet language that's, like you said, changing and basically just massive euphemism for anything that could potentially get your content banned in one way, shape or form.

H: And I think as well from a different perspective, if you are reporting something and you're using those words, firstly there's the danger that it won't be taken seriously by people who don't potentially know what these things mean.  If you show up to an adult and say, my friend got essayed, they'll be like, "ugh silly internet lingo." That's a very serious thing! Actually giving these things their proper names is important. 

T: But you can't do that.

H: Can't do that.

T: Because you're censored. Yeah. Absolutely to your point, yeah.

H: So I think for me like the knock-on effects are definitely the danger. I mean it's dangerous in the instant but then I think the more that you kind of think about it the more you're like oh you pull on the thread and it really kind of...

T: Yeah, the jumper starts unravelling.

H: Yeah, everything does.

T: Yeah, absolutely.

H: This has been a really cheery episode, this, hasn't it? 

T: No.

MUSIC

H: Well thank you for joining us for this incredibly depressing episode of D&I Digest. It has been really interesting though, like it's been a really good one to really delve into.

T: It always is and I think that like we've said already there's loads of branches that can come off of this.

H: Yeah we very much picked the darkest one.

T: Yeah and do you know what, I don't think it's our fault that sometimes these conversations end up this way.

H: I think we can absolutely shift the blame here.

T: You know I mean like the world's a bit of a horrible scary place right now and us coming in with a bucketload of toxic positivity probably isn't the best way to combat it.

H: No definitely.

T: But what we hope we are doing is providing a bit of context and nuance around the things that are happening in the world right now and you know, unfortunately, not all of it is rainbows and smiles.  So whilst we can sit and chuckle and say it's mildly depressing, which I agree with,  it's all in the aid of trying to spark a conversation that people might not be having at home.

H: Yeah, and actually in terms of go and fact check this, because this is very much only one perspective, we've very much only come at it from one particular angle and that is talking about how does this sit with diversity and inclusion, which isn't great. That's not to say that social media in and of itself is only bad. There are very great things that it does for D &I and for other situations as well, but yeah, having that one angle on it, we have been very biased in this conversation for good reason, I think. It's been very valuable to see that bias because I don't think it often comes out in this sort of a conversation. So, yeah, it has been an interesting one, and it's been deep, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

T: Yes. Absolutely agree with you. 

H: So I hope that after all that, you'll come back for next time! Remember that you can follow us on our website and social media and it's bye from me.

T: And it's bye from me.

Both: Bye!