Danes May Ban Social Media for Kids
November 17, 2025
Australia’s ban on social media for kids under 16 goes into effect December 10. Now another country is pursuing a similar approach. Euro News reports, “Denmark Wants to Ban Access to Social Media for Children Under 15.” We learn:
“The move, led by the Ministry of Digitalisation, would set the age limit for access to social media but give some parents – after a specific assessment – the right to give consent to let their children access social media from age 13. Such a measure would be among the most sweeping steps yet by a European Union government to address concerns about the use of social media among teens and younger children, which has drawn concerns in many parts of an increasingly online world. … The Danish digitalisation ministry statement said the age minimum of 15 would be introduced for ‘certain’ social media, though it did not specify which ones.”
If the Danes follow Australia’s example, those platforms could include TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, X, Instagram, and YouTube. The write-up describes the motivation behind the push:
“A coalition of lawmakers from the political right, left and centre ‘are making it clear that children should not be left alone in a digital world where harmful content and commercial interests are too much a part of shaping their everyday lives and childhoods,’ the ministry said. ‘Children and young people have their sleep disrupted, lose their peace and concentration, and experience increasing pressure from digital relationships where adults are not always present,’ it said. ‘This is a development that no parent, teacher, or educator can stop alone’.”
That may be true. And it is certainly true that social media poses certain dangers to children and teens. But how would the ban be enforced? The statement does not say. Teens, after all, famously find ways to get around security measures. If only there had been a way for platforms to know about these risks sooner.
Cynthia Murrell, November 17, 2025
Despite Assurances, AI Firms’ Future May Depend on Replacing Human Labor
November 17, 2025
For centuries, the market economy has been powered by workers. Human ones. Sure, they have tended to get the raw end of any deal, but at least their participation has been necessary. Now one industry has a powerful incentive to change that. Futurism reports, “The AI Industry Can’t Profit Unless It Replaces Human Jobs, Warns Man Who Helped Create It.” Writer Joe Wilkins tells us:
“According to Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton — often called ‘the godfather of AI’ for his contributions to the tech — the future for AI in its current form is likely to be an economic dystopia. ‘I think the big companies are betting on it causing massive job replacement by AI, because that’s where the big money is going to be,’ he warned in a recent interview with Bloomberg. Hinton was commenting on enormous investments in the AI industry, despite a total lack of profit so far. By typical investment standards, AI should be a pariah.”
As an illustration, Wilkins notes OpenAI alone lost $11.5 billion in revenue just last quarter. The write-up continues:
“Asked by Bloomberg whether these jaw dropping investments could ever pay off without eviscerating the job market, Hinton’s reply was telling. ‘I believe that it can’t,’ he said. ‘I believe that to make money you’re going to have to replace human labor.’ For many who study labor and economics, it’s not a statement to be made lightly. Since it first emerged out of feudalism centuries ago, the market economy has relied on the exploitation of human labor — looms, steel mills, and automobile plants straight up can’t run without it.”
Until now, apparently. Or soon. In the Bloomberg interview, Hinton observes the fate of workers depends on “how we organize society.” Will the out-of-work masses starve? Or will society meet everyone’s basic needs, freeing us to live fulfilling lives? And who gets to make those decisions?
Cynthia Murrell, November 14, 2025
Old Social Media Outfits May Be Vulnerable: Wrong Product, Wrong Time
October 30, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Social Media Became Television. Gen Z Changed the Channel.” I liked the title. I liked the way data were used to support the assertion about young people. I don’t think the conclusion is accurate.
Let’s look at what the write up asserts.
First, I noted this statement:
Turns out, infinite video from people you don’t know has a name we already invented in 1950: Television.
I think this means that digital services are the “vast wasteland” that Newton Minnow identified this environment. I was 17 years old and a freshman in college. My parents acquired a TV set in 1956 when I was 12 years old. I vaguely remember that it sucked. My father watched the news. My mother did not pay any attention as far as I can recall. Not surprisingly I was not TV oriented, and I am not today.
The write up says:
For twenty years, tech companies optimized every platform toward the same end state. Student directories became feeds. Messaging apps became feeds. AI art tools became feeds. Podcasts moved to video. Newsletters added video. Everything flowed toward the same product: endless short videos recommended by machines.
I agree. But that is a consequence of shifting to digital media. Fast, easy, crispy information becomes “important.”
The write up says via a quote from an entity known as Jon Burn-Murdoch:
It has gone largely unnoticed that time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has since gone into steady decline
That’s okay. I don’t know if the statement is true or false. This chart is presented to support the assertion:
The problem is that the downturn in the 16 to 24 graph looks like a dip but a dip from a high level of consumption. And what about the 11 to 15 year olds, what I call GenAI? Not on the radar.
This quote supports the assertion that content consumption has shifted from friends to anonymous sources:
Today, only a fraction of time spent on Meta’s services—7% on Instagram, 17% on Facebook—involves consuming content from online “friends” (“friend sharing”). A majority of time spent on both apps is watching videos, increasingly short-form videos that are “unconnected”—i.e., not from a friend or followed account—and recommended by AI-powered algorithms Meta developed as a direct competitive response to TikTok’s rise, which stalled Meta’s growth.
Okay, Meta has growth problems. I would add that Telegram has growth problems. The antics of the Googlers make clear that the firm has growth problems. I would argue that Microsoft has growth problems. Each of these outfits has run out of prospects. Lower birth rates, cost, and the fear-centric environment may have something to do with online behaviors.
My view is that social media and short videos are not going away. New services are going to emerge. Meta-era outfits are just experiencing what happened to the US steel industry when newer technology became available in lower-cost countries. The US auto industry is in a vulnerable position because of China’s manufacturing, labor cost, and regulatory environment.
The flow of digital information is not stopping. Those who lose the ability to think will find ways to pretend to be learning, having fun, and contributing to society. My concern is that what these young people think and actually do are likely to be more surprising than the magnetism of platforms a decade old, crafted for users who have moved on.
The buzzy services will be anchored in AI and probably feature mental health, personalized “chats,” and synthetic relationships. Yep, a version of a text chat or radio.
Stephen E Arnold, October x, 2025
Sticky Means Hooked. Do Not Kid Yourself, Pal
October 27, 2025
The Internet is addicting. Smart devices paired with the Internet, especially phones are digital needles filled with zeros and ones. According to Herman’s Blog and a recent post: “Smartphones And Being Present” people spend an average of four hours and thirty-seven minutes on their phones. It’s a very high number when you consider that people are supposed to be sleep for eight hours and work an additional eight. Half of the eight hours dedicated to recreation time is spent on a mobile device.
Herman, the author of the blog, doesn’t enjoy carrying the Internet around with him and tried switching to an old black and white phone. It didn’t last long because a smart device’s utilitarian uses are too great. The author is very old school because:
“I care about living an intentional and meaningful life, nurturing relationships, having nuanced conversations, and enjoying the world around me. I don’t want to spend this limited time I have on earth watching short form video and getting into arguments on Twitter.”
He admits that it’s hard not to be addicted to his phone. In order to not spend all of his free time on his phone, he decided to make it as uninteresting as possible. He turned off his YouTube recommendations, uses adblockers, and limits media consumption to RSS feeds. He’s retrained his brain to not seek his phone as a reward or turn to it every time he’s bored.
Herman encourages people to try limiting their smart device usage and being more present. It’s great advice. Humans are addicts, however, and they’re not going to listen. Call be Negative Nelly, but try taking a mobile phone from a 13 year old girl.
Whitney Grace, October 27, 2025
You Should Feel Lucky Because … Technology!
October 24, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Doesn’t it feel like people are accomplishing more than you? It’s a common feeling but Fast Company explains that high achievers are accomplishing more because they’re using tech. They’ve outlined a nice list of how high achieves do this: “4 Ways High Achievers Use Tech To Get More Done.” The first concept to understand is that high achievers use technology as a tool and not a distraction. Sachin Puri, Liquid Web’s chief growth office said,
“‘They make productivity apps their first priority, plan for intentional screen time, and select platforms intentionally. They may spend lots of time on screens, but they set boundaries where they need to, so that technology enhances their performance, rather than slowing it down.’”
Liquid Web surveyed six-figure earners aka high achievers to learn how they leverage their tech. They discovered that these high earners are intention with their screen time. They average seven hours a day on their screens but their time is focused on being productive. They also limit phone entertainment time to three hours a day.
Sometimes they also put a hold on using technology for mental and health hygiene. It’s important to take technology breaks to reset focus and maintain productiveness. They also choose tools to be productive such as calendar/scheduling too, using chatbots to stay ahead of deadlines, also to automize receptive tasks, brainstorm, summarize information, and stay ahead of deadlines.
Here’s another important one: high achievers focus their social media habits. Here’s what Liquid Web found that winners have focused social media habits. Yes, that is better than doom scrolling. Other finding are:
- “Finally, high-achievers are mindful of social media. For example, 49% avoid TikTok entirely. Instead, they gravitate toward sites that offer a career-related benefit. Nearly 40% use Reddit as their most popular platform for learning and engagement.
- Successful people are also much more engaged on LinkedIn. Only 17% of high-achievers said they don’t use the professional networking site, compared to 38% of average Americans who aren’t engaged there.
- “Many high-achievers don’t give up on screens altogether—they just shift their focus,” says Puri. “Their social media habits show it, with many opting for interactive, discussion-based apps such as Reddit over passive scroll-based apps such as TikTok.”
The lesson here is that screen time isn’t always a time waste bin. We did not know that LinkedIn was an important service since the report suggests that 83 percent of high achievers embrace the Microsoft service. Don’t the data go into the MSFT AI clothes hamper?
Whitney Grace, October 24, 2025
Parents and Screen Time for Their Progeny: A Losing Battle? Yep
October 22, 2025
Sometimes I am glad my child-rearing days are well behind me. With technology a growing part of childhood education and leisure, how do parents stay on top of it all? For over 40%, not as well as they would like. The Pew Research Center examined “How Parents Manage Screen Time for Kids.” The organization surveyed US parents of kids 12 and under about the use of tablets, smartphones, smartwatches, gaming devices, and computers in their daily lives. Some highlights include:
“Tablets and smartphones are common – TV even more so.
[a] Nine-in-ten parents of kids ages 12 and younger say their child ever watches TV, 68% say they use a tablet and 61% say they use a smartphone.
[b] Half say their child uses gaming devices. About four-in-ten say they use desktops or laptops.
AI is part of the mix.
[c] About one-in-ten parents say their 5- to 12-year-old ever uses artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini.
[c] Roughly four-in-ten parents with a kid 12 or younger say their child uses a voice assistant like Siri or Alexa. And 11% say their child uses a smartwatch.
Screens start young.
[e] Some of the biggest debates around screen time center on the question: How young is too young?
[f] It’s not just older kids on screens: Vast majorities of parents say their kids ever watch TV – including 82% who say so about a child under 2.
[g] Smartphone use also starts young for some, but how common this is varies by age. About three-quarters of parents say their 11- or 12-year-old ever uses one. A slightly smaller share, roughly two-thirds, say their child age 8 to 10 does so. Majorities say so for kids ages 5 to 7 and ages 2 to 4.
[h] And fewer – but still about four-in-ten – say their child under 2 ever uses or interacts with one.”
YouTube is a big part of kids’ lives, presumably because it is free and provides a “contained environment for kids.” Despite this show of a “child-safe” platform, many have voiced concerns about both child-targeted ads and questionable content. TikTok and other social media are also represented, of course, though a whopping 80% of parents believe those platforms do more harm than good for children.
Parents cite several reasons they allow kids to access screens. Most do so for entertainment and learning. For children under five, keeping them calm is also a motivation. Those who have provided kids with their own phones overwhelmingly did so for ease of contact. On the other hand, those who do not allow smartphones cite safety, developmental concerns, and screen time limits. Their most common reason, though, is concern about inappropriate content. (See this NPR article for a more in-depth discussion of how and why to protect kids from seeing porn online, including ways porn is more harmful than it used to be. Also, your router is your first line of defense.)
It seems parents are not blind to the potential harms of technology. Almost all say managing screen time is a priority, though for most it is not in the top three. See the write-up for more details, including some handy graphs. Bottomline: Parents are fighting a losing battle in many US households.
Cynthia Murrell, October 22. 2025
Want Clicks? Use Sex. It Works
October 15, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Imagine
I read a number of gloomy news articles today. The AI balloon will destroy the economy. Chicago is no longer that wonderful town, but was it ever. Telegram says it will put AI into its enchanting Messenger service. Plus, I read a New York Times’ story titled “Elon Musk Gambles on Sexy A.I. Companions.” That brilliant world leading technologist knows how to get clicks: Sex. What an idea. No one has thought of that before! (Oh, the story lurks behind a paywall. Another brilliant idea for 2025.)
Thanks Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk, already known for pushing boundaries, has broken with mainstream norms and demonstrated the lengths to which he will go to gain ground in the A.I. field, where xAI has lagged behind more established competitors. Other A.I. companies, such as Meta or OpenAI, have shied away from creating chatbots that can engage in sexual conversations because of the reputational and regulatory risks.
Elon Musk has not. The idea of allow users of a social media, smart software game that unwraps more explicit challenges is a good one. It is not as white hot as a burning Tesla Cybertruck with its 12-volt powered automatic doors, but the idea is steamy.
The write up says:
The billionaire has urged his followers on X to try conversing with the sexy chatbots, sharing a video clip on X of an animated Ani dancing in underwear.
That sounds exciting. For a dinobaby like me, I prefer people fully clothed and behaving according to the conventions I learned in college when i took the required course “College Social Customs.” I admit that I was one of the few people on campus who took these “customs” to heart, The makings of a dinobaby were apparently rooted in my make up. Others in the class went to a bar to get drunk and flout as many of the guidelines as possible. Mr. Musk seems to share a kindred spirit with those in my 1962 freshman in college behavior course.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk has said the A.I. companions will help people strengthen their real-world connections and address one of his chief anxieties: population decline that he warns could lead to civilizational collapse.
My hunch is that the idea is for the right kind of people to have babies. Mr. Musk and Pavel Durov (founder of Telegram) have sired lots of kiddies. These kiddies are probably closer to what Mr. Musk wants to pop out of his sexual incubator.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk’s chatbots lack some sexual content limitations imposed by other chatbot creators that do allow some illicit conversations, users said. Nomi AI, for example, blocks some extreme material, limiting conversations to something more akin to what would be allowed on the dating app Tinder.
Yep, I get the point. Sex sells. Want sex? Use Grok and publicize the result on X.com.
How popular will this Grok feature be among the more young-at-heart users of Grok? Answer: Popular. Will other tech bro type outfits emulate Mr. Musk’s innovative marketing method? Answer: Mr. Musk is a follower. Just check out some of the services offered by certain online adult services.
What a wonderful online service. Perfect for 2025 and inclusion in a College Social Customs class for idea-starved students. No tavern required. Just a mobile device. Ah, innovation.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
Parenting 100: A Remedial Guide to Raising Children
October 13, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am not sure what’s up this week (October 6 to 10, 2025). I am seeing more articles about the impact of mobile devices, social media, doom scrolling, and related cheerful subjects in my newsfeed. A representative article is “Lazy Parents Are Giving Their Toddlers ChatGPT on Voice Mode to Keep Them Entertained for Hours.”
Let’s take a look at a couple of passages that I thought were interesting:
with the rise of human-like AI chatbots, a generation of “iPad babies” could seem almost quaint: some parents are now encouraging their kids to talk with AI models, sometimes for hours on end…
I get it. Parents are busy today. If they are lucky enough to have jobs, automatic meeting services keep them hopping. Then there is the administrivia of life. Children just add to the burden. Why not stick the kiddie in a playpen with an iPad. Tim Apple will be happy.
What’s the harm? How about this factoid (maybe an assertion from smart software?) from the write up:
AI chatbots have been implicated in the suicides of several teenagers, while a wave of reports detail how even grown adults have become so entranced by their interactions with sycophantic AI interlocutors that they develop severe delusions and suffer breaks with reality — sometimes with deadly consequences.
Okay, bummer. The write up includes a hint of risk for parents about these chat-sitters; to wit:
Andrew McStay, a professor of technology and society at Bangor University, isn’t against letting children use AI — with the right safeguards and supervision. But he was unequivocal about the major risks involved, and pointed to how AI instills a false impression of empathy.
Several observations seem warranted:
- Which is better? Mom and dad interacting with the kiddo. Maybe grandma could be a good stand in? Or, letting the kid tune in and drop out?
- Imagine sending a chat surfer to school. Human interaction is not going to be as smooth and stress free as having someone take the kiddo’s animal crackers and milk or pouting until kiddo can log on again.
- Visualize the future: Is this chat surfer going to be a great employee and colleague? Answer: No.
I find it amazing that decades after these tools became available that people do not understand the damage flowing bits do to thinking, self esteem, and social conventions. Empathy? Sure, just like those luminaries at Silicon Valley type AI companies. Warm, caring, trustworthy.
Stephen E Arnold, October 13, 2025
Telegram and EU Regulatory Consolidation: Trouble Ahead
October 6, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Imagine you are Pavel Durov. The value of TONcoin is problematic. France asked you to curtail some content in a country unknown to the folks who hang out at the bar at the Harrod’s Creek Inn in rural Kentucky. Competitors are announcing plans to implement Telegram-type functions in messaging apps built with artificial intelligence as steel girders. How can the day become more joyful?
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough pair of goats. One an actual goat and the other a “Greatest of All Time” goat.
The orange newspaper has an answer to that question. “EU Watchdog Prepares to Expand Oversight of Crypto and Exchanges” reports:
Stock exchanges, cryptocurrency companies and clearing houses operating in the EU are set to come under the supervision of the bloc’s markets watchdog…
Crypto currency and some online services (possibly Telegram) operate across jurisdictions. The fragmented rules and regulations allow organizations with sporty leadership to perform some remarkable financial operations. If you poke around, you will find the names of some outfits allied with industrious operators linked to a big country in Asia. Pull some threads, and you may find an unknown Russian space force professional beavering away in the shadows of decentralized financial activities.
The write up points out:
Maria Luís Albuquerque, EU commissioner for financial services, said in a speech last month that it was “considering a proposal to transfer supervisory powers to Esma for the most significant cross-border entities” including stock exchanges, crypto companies and central counterparties.
How could these rules impact Telegram? It is nominally based in the United Arab Emirates? Its totally independent do-good Open Network Foundation works tirelessly from a rented office in Zug, Switzerland. Telegram is home free, right?
No pesky big government rules can ensnare the Messenger crowd.
Possibly. There is that pesky situation with the annoying French judiciary. (Isn’t that country with many certified cheeses collapsing?) One glitch: Pavel Durov is a French citizen. He has been arrested, charged, and questioned about a dozen heinous crimes. He is on a leash and must check in with his grumpy judicial “mom” every couple of weeks. He allegedly refused to cooperate with a request from a French government security official. He is awaiting more thrilling bureaucracy from the French judicial system. How does he cope? He criticizes France, the legal processes, and French officials asking him to do for France what Mr. Durov did for Russia earlier this year.
Now these proposed regulations may intertwine with Mr. Durov’s personal legal situation. As the Big Dog of Telegram, the French affair is likely to have some repercussions for Telegram and its Silicon Valley big tech approach to rules and regulations. EU officials are indeed aware of Mr. Durov and his activities. From my perspective in nowheresville in rural Kentucky, the news in the Financial Times on October 6, 2025, is problematic for Mr. Durov. The GOAT of Messaging, his genius brother, and a close knit group of core engineers will have to do some hard thinking to figure out how to deal with these European matters. Can he do it? Does a GOAT eat what’s available?
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2025
Graphite: Okay, to License Now
September 24, 2025
The US government uses specialized software to gather information related to persons of interest. The brand of popular since NSO Group marketed itself into a pickle is from the Israeli-founded spyware company Paragon Solutions. The US government isn’t a stranger to Paragon Solutions, in fact, El Pais shares in the article, “Graphite, the Israeli Spyware Acquired By ICE” that it renewed its contract with the specialized software company.
The deal was originally signed during Biden’s administration during September 24, but it went against the then president’s executive order that prohibited US agencies from using spyware tools that “posed ‘significant counterintelligence and security risks’ or had been misused by foreign governments to suppress dissent.
During the negotiations, AE Industrial Partners purchased Paragon and merged it with REDLattice, an intelligence contractor located in Virginia. Paragon is now a domestic partner with deep connections to former military and intelligence personnel. The suspension on ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations was quietly lifted on August 29 according to public contracting announcements.
The Us government will use Paragon’s Graphite spyware:
“Graphite is one of the most powerful commercial spy tools available. Once installed, it can take complete control of the target’s phone and extract text messages, emails, and photos; infiltrate encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp; access cloud backups; and covertly activate microphones to turn smartphones into listening devices.
The source suggests that although companies like Paragon insist their tools are intended to combat terrorism and organized crime, past use suggests otherwise. Earlier this year, Graphite allegedly has been linked to info gathering in Italy targeting at least some journalists, a few migrant rights activists, and a couple of associates of the definitely worth watching Pope Francis. Paragon stepped away from the home of pizza following alleged “public outrage.”
The US government’s use of specialized software seems to be a major concern among Democrats and Republicans alike. What government agencies are licensing and using Graphite. Beyond Search has absolutely no idea.
Whitney Grace, September 24, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
