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.
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.
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.
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).
Is there a reason to not ban closed-source software?
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.
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
Yeah, it would be a step
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.
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.
I think i know my situation better than you
Absolutely, but we both know nothing about how the situation would be if the internet didn’t exist.
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
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.
Internet helps young people find community and perspectives outside IRL bubbles they’re trapped in.
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.
Well, that is something i’d expect from a company backed “charity”
Archived link for whoever don’t want cookies: https://archive.is/Be1VW
Fuck cookies, i prefer tiramisù.
