The Times They Are A-Changin’: Fight the Power 

 

 

“Looking for a ride to your secret location
Where the kids are setting up a free-speed nation for you”(1) 

 

The ban on under-16s using social media is a subject I wouldn’t normally chose to comment on, My combined lack of usage and of knowledge on the subject makes me uniquely unqualified to comment.  

 

However, there is a bigger picture. 

 

The government’s proposal involves a wider set of restrictions than those of Australia. In addition to setting age limits for many social media platforms, the government will prevent under-16s from livestreaming themselves, will ban adults from making unsolicited contact with children on gaming sites and will ban children under 18 from engaging with “romantic” chatbots. 

Platforms impacted include X, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok. 

The PM said: Social media is making children unhappy, it’s making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them, and it could even be harming their mental health.” 

He argued the ban was not anti-tech. “I do not accept, and I will never accept, that you can’t be both pro tech and AI, and at the same time say we must protect our children.” 

The bigger picture is the tech companies, their influence, and relationship with Trump. 

Ministers are expecting push-back from the US, and have embarked on a concerted lobbying operation to prevent any backlash from the Trump administration, and to ensure that these restrictions are not viewed as being specifically aimed at US tech providers. 

As one UK official said: “This is about protecting children in Britain, not taking on US tech.” 

The threat retaliation is very real as Trump has previously threatened the UK with “a big tariff” if the government does not drop its digital services tax. 

 

‘The bigger picture is the tech companies, their influence, and relationship with Trump’

 

The providers have been quick to respond.  

“Rent-a-post ”Musk, who owns X, posted: “This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.” 

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said: “As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls.” 

YouTube said: “Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services.” 

Snapchat: “Because the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, an outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn’t make them safer – it may simply push them to less safe platforms.” 

Of course, smoking wasn’t dangerous, or so big tobacco told us! 

 

‘Of course, smoking wasn’t dangerous, or so big tobacco told us!’

 

The reality of any ban is simple, it is unlikely to be 100% effective, but even 50% is better than nothing. 

Part of the bigger picture is the failure of the providers to police themselves. Again, I readily accept they cannot stop 100% of offensive content, comments or users, but as with the ban, 50% is better than nothing. 

There is, however, a simple reality, the tech barons are so wealthy and powerful that they appear to be the law. They are the power behind the Trump throne, in a self-serving relationship that benefits both parties. 

 

Forbes shows that 8 out of the worlds 10 richest people are in tech, with a combined wealth of C.$3trn. 

https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ 

 

Comparing the top-5 in 1918 with todays top-15 (the population has tripled hence the broader capture), the top-5 had 0.77% of the overall wealth compared to 1.54% today. Measure against GDP, the top-5 had 2.51% compared to todays 8.54%. 

N.B., this data is prior to the Space-X IPO. 

Research by the New York Times showed that 300 billionaires contributed 19% of all donations in the 2024 election. 

This, in part, reflects how they are using their wealth to buy influence. This is now being extended into ownership of the media.  

 

‘they are using their wealth to buy influence’

 

Musk purchase of Twitter wasn’t an investment, it was to provide him, and other right-wing commentators, with a platform. Larry Ellison, America’s second-richest man, purchase of CBS has converted an independent news source it into another Trump friendly mouthpiece. Ellison is doing similar with CNN. 

The presidency itself has become a transactional asset, with Forbes estimating that Trump has added $4.2 bn to his personal wealth since regaining power. 

In 2024, Mark Zuckerberg prevented bipartisan legislation that was intended to protect children from psychological harm due to social media, which would have impacted Meta. In its place, Zuckerberg focused on rolling back internal content restrictions, shifting away from third-party fact-checking to promote open speech on his platforms. 

In fairness to Meta, they have sought to comply with Australia’s restrictions, deactivating hundreds of thousands of accounts 

The Koch family have actively campaigned for years to prevent action against climate change. Through their “Americans for Prosperity Action” super PAC, it is estimated that they contribute $150m+ to Trump’s 2024 election campaign. 

 

Source: https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2024/11/05/koch-super-pac-shatters-its-election-spending-record/ 

 

There is also an interesting comparison to be made between the charitable donations made by between todays uber rich and those of yesteryear. 

Andrew Carnegie of Carnegie Steel, wrote “The Gospel of Wealth”, that the rich are merely trustees of their wealth and that “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced“. He went onto fund over 2,500 public libraries worldwide, as well as Carnegie Mellon University and Carnegie Hall. 

John D. Rockefeller, the Standard Oil tycoon, established the Rockefeller Foundation, which heavily funded scientific research, public health (including the eradication of hookworm), and the arts, alongside founding the University of Chicago. 

 

‘todays uber rich appear to have more in-common with pre-revolution France and Russia’

 

Todays oligarchs are, to date, far less generous. According to Forbes. Musk and Ellison have both given away less than 1% of their fortunes. 

Perhaps those of yesteryear better understood the value of the PR, whereas today’s uber rich don’t need it seeing more value in political influence. 

If there is a comparison to be made, then todays uber rich appear to have more in-common with pre-revolution France and Russia. 

If so, they best beware, that didn’t end too well! 

 

 

“To revolutionize make a change nothing’s strange” (2) 

 

Notes: 

1. Teen Age Riot by Sonic Youth  
2. Fight the Power by Public Enemy   

 

@coldwarsteve

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: