Summary

Social media influencers are fuelling a rise in misogyny and sexism in the UK’s classrooms, according to teachers.

More than 5,800 teachers were polled… and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils’ behaviour.

One teacher said she’d had 10-year-old boys “refuse to speak to [her]…because [she is] a woman”. Another said “the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils] interacted with females and males they did not see as ‘masculine’”.

“There is an urgent need for concerted action… to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists.”

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    In my opinion the huge difference between this generation and all previous ones is that content is no longer vetted by anyone. It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult. If a TV station marketed to children something that most parents would not approve they would face protests or maybe even legal action. On social media any asshole can post literally anything and millions of kids will consume it without any supervision.

    • Blinsane@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s the whole point of screaming about “liberal” or “leftist” media for all this time even when most media outlets are owned by for profit orgs. They usually have to comply with laws. On social media you’ve been able to lie as much as you want without consequence or being called out. Corporations mostly use this to market to children and get them addicted to gambling.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Most media is liberal though. Liberalism is a (right-wing) hegemonic ideology. CNN, Fox, NYTimes, NYPost, NPR… All liberal.

        Not so much for leftism though. It’s “strange” how the right-wing conflates the two.

        • Blinsane@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          I agree but it’s beside the point (the liberal party in my country is openly supporting the nazi party). For profit media can per definition not be objective but at least it has to comply with the laws of the country it operates in. The internet bypasses all this legislation and pretty much every country was slow to catch up.

          What really grinds my gears is when my fellow countrymen believe propaganda about our state sponsored media. Which cannot be controlled by our government because it’s been proxied off behind several foundations running it. The only thing our government can do (and then only with support from the opposition) is reduce or increase money going into it. It’s pretty much the only source of reporting in my language without sponsors dictating content.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 days ago

            Tankies are permanently stuck in backwards day. Left is right and right is left. They do this because they’re just fascists that don’t like to be associated with other fascists. So they call their fascist group “leftist”, but they hate democracy, liberalism, the jews, etc just as much as any other fascist.

    • Baggie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      You know you’re actually right on the money, and it’s a little startling that it never occurred to me before. Shit.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yep, that’s why the only way to be a good parent nowadays is to not give your kids smart phones or computers of their own. There was a time when it was kinda ok for them to have those devices, but that time is permanently in the past.

        • vga@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I mostly disagree with that. Cocooning up into a terminally online person makes one’s life worse, not better.

          Straight up abusive parents are another thing of course. But even then those kids need sheltering, not the internet.

          • scintilla@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I think you underestimate the sheer number of homophobic parents that aren’t necessarily abusive but would be if their kid ever came out. There are a lot of people I’ve talked to that their online escape was the one thing that kept from killing themselves.

            I’m not saying that it’s healthy but there are a lot of kids in a situation that they can not escape from because of the way that society treats children. Children are treated as something that is closer to property than an individual when it comes to things like law enforcement and emotional abuse.

            • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Homophobia is abusive. Regardless of the intentions. Ignorance of that fact doesn’t excuse it.

              • scintilla@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                I agree. Try arguing that to a conservative judge in the south and you will simply be sent home with your abusive parent, who is likely enraged about having to defend themselves from the “law”.

                • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Yeah, absolutely. Having been in a marriage with an abusive person, there is zero reasoning with them once they’re in that state.

            • pablodaniel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I think muad’dib is just projecting and maybe you are, too.

              Using the internet to avoid dealing with problems in real life is an unhealthy crutch.

              • scintilla@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 days ago

                unfortuatly the healthy way to deal with a situation like that is to remove yourself from it which children are not allowed to do.

              • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Using the internet to avoid dealing with problems in real life is an unhealthy crutch.

                So is pretending the internet is not part of “real life” like it’s 1998.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        This is a very dangerous line of reasoning that will play right into the hands of fascists.,

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

      If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it’s the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you’re fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone’s recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.

      Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you’re running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn’t be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don’t personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult.

      I love how you got a ton of upvotes by vaguely gesturing at the past.

      When was this time you speak of?

      What has changed is the social fabric of society has been ripped up.