Ban a medium whereby generally powerless people can have a say, just because a few weak, pathetic characters do away with themselves because someone said something they don't like? You cannot be serious!

“Governments are under pressure to act”. By whom? The mainstream media whose lies and bigoted left reporting social media threatens and reveals just how irresponsible the traditional media has become?

Social media is not just Facebook. Start censoring that or banning that, and the next thing you know, the Marxist nannies will be attacking and destroying Online Opinion and privately run blogs. We have already seen what the outrageous so-called human rights commision and the activists courts have done to people like Andrew Bolt.

We are subjected to enough Far Left authoritarianism now, thanks very much.

Some social media needs to be banned for sure, but we also need a ban on private phone numbers. There's nothing more infuriating than getting missed calls & being unable to call back.
Especially calls from Govt departments.
Going back to social media, I think it'd be sensible to put a minimum age of 15-18 to join. I mean, many adults don't have sufficient sense so we can't really expect 12 year olds to be any better. I remember when I saw a group of school kids sitting in the bus shelter watching who went to work & their messaging went into overdrive. I had a funny feeling so I sneaked home again & waited & sure enough a couple of that group came into the yard. Somehow they must have sensed I was there because suddenly they took off in a real hurry.
It's for the reason to prevent criminal networking by juveniles that social media & open phones should not be available to them. By all means let them call 000 or their guardians etc but don't let them have access willy nilly. We hear of bullying etc via social media, well, there's a very effective way to stop that instantly. Don't give them access !

While one may empathize with the views of the author and indeed some of the outcomes described. One wonders if social media is reflecting symptomatic issues rather than being their primary cause?

Moreover, we know that prohibition merely drives whatever is prohibited elsewhere be it drugs abortion or alcohol. And almost as difficult s preventing kids from viewing porn on the internet.

Yes, we can and should limit the time kids spend in front of screens, and ought to get back to a time when the foundation stones of education were most notable by the absence of any form of electronic gadgetry in the classroom.

And we were forced to learn to use the inboard biological computer to download programs for later use.

The average human brain has I'm informed around fifty billion circuits and we don't fully develop our total cognitive abilities with a fully developed brain until our mid-twenties, and should have our screen time severely rationed until then So as to come to these electronic aids and memories with our's fully developed and functional.

Children need to spend more time socializing and playing team sport and participating in outdoor fun activities, not fastened behind some screen playing games that include acceptable levels of animated violence.

And they need to see phones as a useful communication tool not the entire scope of their de-humanized social life! Therefore their first phones should be a flip phone minus a screen so they are used to talk to someone or used for SOS purposes!
Alan B.

The Government has assisted the regressive immoral academics who have managed to contribute greatly to fatherless families. The breakdown of the natural family and any sort of morality has had much more influence on suicide than social media.

runner,
I agree entirely !

The article title "Should social media be banned?" is merely a viewer-fodder, straw man.

No politicians (except those in North Korea) would dare pass legislation in Parliament to ban the whole "social media". Legislation would be immensely unpopular with voters and would also fail Freedom of Speech tests.

Also "Social Media" are vast, hard to define networks of the INTERNET. The whole Internet would need to be banned.

Furthermore, new communications technologies carrying "Social Media", like 5G mobile, would fail as Big End OF Town (political donation providing) businesses.

People who attended schools 40 years ago know that many kids were teased endlessly. Personally I was teased and I teased others. I would never condone bullying but can't help to observe the snowflakes we are producing. The pussy head tantrum throwing Hilary supporters are probably among the best examples. Even though far more guns were available 40 years ago the suicide rate seemed to be much lower. Bullying and teasing won't stop. The leftist/marxist are among the biggest culprits. Somehow we need to get people to toughen up. Strangely enough the porn industry which the fenminist/marxist argued was/is harmless has sent the message to every young girl and boy that her sexual prowess determines his/her worth. THe 'experts' are still dumb enough to ask why? Really they don't want truthful answers.

On one day an article on the evils of censorship. The next day, an article about banning social media. I don't blame the articles or the authors, because these are issues of today's politics. But does anyone else get the impression that your being conned between two choices of extreems.

With the diverging narratives too easily ready to exaggerate to make a point, or cause a reaction, all we get is an "either or" fallacy between two extreems.

It seems like a con job. And since it's just about exaggerating possible actions, the truth is that both are part of a a con.

Make it simple. If a website does ________, or has __________ in it, hand them a hefty fine on each occurance. Something to get the point accross. They'll fix it on their own. If they don't change and 5 or so more occurances happen in a 2 year span, shut them down. Something of that nature will have results to curbing issues people have with social media. just let crime and punishment enter the Internet sector of the world like it does in ever other sector of the world.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,
Do you want Graham Young fined and/or sued for our comments?
You know this site will cease to exist under that regime.
- And do you not realise the rules will be dictated by corporate media wanting more profit and monopoly over where people get their news and information and sellout governments wanting control over the narratives.

Hear, hear Armchair Critic and well said!
Alan B.

To Armchair Critic.

What would you suggest? There have been abuses done on social media. From data a privicy sold, (not just collected, sold) and fake news promoted and spread, to the extreem of gathering extreemists, and or promoting illegal activities among like minded groups of people, (videoing assault and rape).

Honestly the use of social media has a good deal to it, but there has to be something slow down or stop the criminal aspects that can just as easily use social media and get away with it. If nothing is done except the extreem approaches (do nothing, or ban everything), then all you I'll have are extreem results of things just getting worse, or the loss of certian social media all together.

Voting for certian laws for social media to self regulate to remove any criminal elements us not a bad approach. And if the social media can't do it, then yes I would say let it be removed.

I don't think OLO has anything to worry about, because it already does some monitoring of what happens on it's site. But I see where your concern lies.

Videos of assault and rape for distribution among like-minded folk is the only tool the authorities have to nail the bastards. By pretending to be part of a like-minded cohort until the entire evil cell is exposed and brought to justice.

Without which they operate with comparative impunity and an ever-increasing tidal wave of victims. Shutting down allegedly suspect sites just sends those same sites into the black and nothing whatsoever is solved! Dumkoff!
Alan B.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

"What would you suggest?"
I'm going to have to go with 'I don't know'.

Usually I'd come up with something, but as you've alluded to there's a lot of issues to take into account.
I suppose I'd need to lay the whole thing out, look at the big picture and dismantle it piece by piece to find the fairest and most ethical way forward.
- As well as some time to think it over and foolproof it.

As shown by Alan B above, some of the issues require some thought.

I suppose at this point it's fairly easy to identify the problems;
But not so easy to find the right solutions;
- That's really all I can come up with at the moment.

"Voting for certain laws for social media to self regulate to remove any criminal elements us not a bad approach."
I'm honestly not sure I can agree it's a good or ideal approach either, it has its flaws.

"I don't think OLO has anything to worry about, because it already does some monitoring of what happens on it's site."
Graham rarely censors users content, but I think the leftists and progressives would have a field day with OLO if they thought it was influential enough to matter.
I won't be surprised if some point a team of leftist trolls converges upon this website and attacks the conservative views of the posters who use it.

I'm not familiar with the people behind the 'one way mirror' at OLO, but I like em.
They rarely 'pull' comments, and it appears they are 'reasonable' in their decisions.
I rely on a forum to allow one to communicate free and frank, without fear of being directed by censorship, which is merely another way of saying 'you will say what I want you to say and nothing else'.
There is a vial example of extremely prejudicial conduct by one of the worst forums I have ever encountered, called QUORA.
These arrogant neanderthals have a most irrelevant mantra of 'Be Nice, Be Respectful'.
I have complained many times, explaining that I will not lie or mislead simply because they have this misguided mentality of being superior or more virtuous than the rest of the world.
It is a matter of fact and reality, that if the discussion calls for a certain kind of delivery, it 'must' be said, or the point being made will not have the impact or substance required to make that point.
You see, if one is 'talking', then the message is clearly understood because of inflections.
The same conversation, in writing, cannot convey the same message because of the lack of inflection, other means are employed such as punctuation marks, inverted commas, words in capitals and so on.
It is social engineering or kidnapping to insist on people to talk a particular way.
Words were invented for the purpose of communication.
We must not entwine or use emotions to alter a natural act of the need for someone to abuse another.
It is extreme hippocracy to expect a language to change to accommodate certain people.
Where will it end.
Bullying, insulting, picking on, abusing people, these are all part of life.
The fact that some mentally tender wall flowers prefer death to toughening up and facing the challenge or ignoring it, is sad but too bad.
Those aggrieved by what is being said about them, should 'grow up' and not attack free speech and the freedom of expression by the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of us.

'Be Nice, Be Respectful'

What a bunch of pansies.

It's my right to tell anyone what I think;
And if they don't like it...
Then I can tell them where they can go as well.

AC, hear, hear and Kudos to you too.
I am 'buoyed' to hear when someone speaks their mind, good for you.
Even if it is to tell ME off, even better, don't you dare let the panzies and nancies try to subvert you.
If they try, hold your ground and see them off with a round of profanities, to them, it's like kryptonite is to Superman.
Good for you!

To ArmChair Critic.

OLO doesn't seem to censor much of what's said here, and for that, this site might be the rarity for open dialogue among diverse opinions. However there still is some posts removed. Not long ago I saw a post that was only a list of websites. Basically it was spam advertisement. I reported it and it was removed. I don't know what else OLO's policy is on removing comments but in at least with what I've seen, I truth them in it. How ever rare it is.

To be honest, my position is on social media is not really about forums like this one. But instead it is just about recognizing that criminals have become orginized because of social media apps. (Or at least that's a comment I've read in a paper a long time ago regarding terrorist organizations).

I'd like for kids to get away from social media a bit more because they seem too sensitive about it, like the article blaming social media for a guy's daughter killing herself. Let them get out in the world unplugged, and just toughen up, make friend and the bonds that strengthen them while their young. So my position about censorship would be about a service seeing any actual dangers in their app or their site, and to take responsibility in it. What would count as a danger? I guess that would be up to the legislation either to be voted on or agreed on by politicians. If that's too much a risk and politicians can't be trusted with censorship legislation, then fine, keep the issue out of legislation. But we should still do something to help police keep the piece, and to stop crime before it gets too big or orginized. (Call me crazy for is looking at legislation to help).

I'd be up for any other suggestions, or even if there are already other solutions already in place, just to know and to silence the exaggerated "ban all social media" approach.