Let’s Panic About: Kids and the Internet?

Bullying, grooming, extremist propaganda, “making children lazy/stupid” etc; there doesn’t seem there’s many crimes the virtual world isn’t guilty of. It’s like a constant drip-drip-drip of new reports; a teenager commits suicide? Must be social media’s fault. My son is showing “unhealthy” interest in sex? Internet porn. My daughter is anorexic? Pro-ana, websites, clearly. It’s become almost boringly predictable call-and-response; “(problem)? – internet’s fault!” akin to how far-right loons and shitlords whisper “the Jews”. And it’s becoming the largest moral panic we’ve seen since… I’m not sure we’ve had this one this big before in the UK. But… is it worth panicking about? And if so, what do we do – or should not do – about it?

When I Was Young…

Part of the problem is that the virtual world has become ubiquitous. For many of us, the quickest, easiest way to contact us is online, it’s the primary source of news and often the bulk of the “reading matter” we’ve consumed. It’s offered viable alternatives to newspapers, books, magazines, telegrams, telephones, the radio, records, television, videos, the cinema, letters, public meetings, shops, the office, schools, strip-clubs… it’s clearly up in the “top ten” most disruptive inventions known to humanity so far. And the simple fact is, even us ‘Xennials’ don’t really appreciate how the virtual has become the norm when compared to all the above items.

That unless you’ve taken the conscious effort to remain current, the vast majority of older adults don’t get this. If you’re reared in the world where the virtual is everywhere and “always has been”, to not be there seems quixotic, weird or just plain stupid. I’ve had this myself; trying to explain how much of a bitch a week with no internet would be on my life to a relative who barely ever goes online. Basically, it was impossible; they were unable to shift their mental gear off their own setting to see the situation from a differing view.

These folk often are the followers of the Luddite option with their kids – simply to deny the tech. No smartphone, sometimes no mobile phone period. No laptop or tablet; casual ones say “in the bedroom”, the hardcores might have a complete ban – or perhaps one “family computer” in the front room, with screen visible to all and possibly with a timer of your “daily usage”. The constant parental breathing down neck and “what’s this rubbish you’re looking at?” is optional, but highly popular.

Unsurprisingly, these folk are often hypocrites. When not using their own social media etc “for work purposes” or whatever, they seem to usually not object to any tech which pre-dates their own youth. The most obvious example of this is television – something which I’ll bet they consume by the metaphorical gallon. Which was attacked too back in the day; I once lived in a placement where the device was rationed to no more than two hours a day – often less.

It is also futile. You’re subjecting your children to relative social isolation, keeping them away from tech despite the fact the world is full of it. It’s akin to making sure your daughter doesn’t get pregnant by never letting her come in contact with any male who could do the deed. And like the daughter, your kids will have to encounter the virtual at some point, and your Luddite ways could result in a severe fuck-up, like the girl with her abstinence ring and baby bump.

Scaremongering…

In a more reasonable level, we have the “think of the children!” crowd. Perhaps “less insane” is a better description; they at least recognise the basics of reality, like the virtual is here to stay and it has positive uses. The problem is, citing children is often the easiest way to short-circuit technical knowledge or simple common sense – and gain political kudos.

We saw this recently in the UK, with the now aborted “PornPass” plan. In a nutshell; in the guise of protecting The Children! from online pornography, it required British ISPs to put up gates to pornography sites, only accessible via the inputting of a valid Pass. Which you could either get online or physically from shops.

There’s so many holes in this proposal I’m not sure where to start. Hmm, the fact you’ll be creating basically a list of all pornography consumers in the UK, which would be worth millions for blackmail if stolen? The fact that there’s many sites where you can get The Stuff which aren’t obviously porn sites? That you can circumvent the blocks by using proxy servers? How about the fact a horny, tech-savvy teen can simply get their parent’s credit card details from say their Amazon account and get a pass that way? Or that – as far as I can tell – much of The Stuff circulates through peer-to-peer networks?

Naturally, the Helen Lovejoys of this world are perfect stooges for politicians with authoritarian instincts. From demands to remove encryption from communications to wanting social media profiles to be linked to RL identities – the authoritarian state desires every single one of us to reside in a virtual panopticon where we can be checked on at any time They see fit. Or more likely, when the algorithm flags us up as “suspicious”. But… think of the children!

Not My Job…

While the Luddites are stupid, the Lovejoys are lazy. They cannot be bothered to learn how tech works, to fit say internet filters or to simply communicate with their damn kids. They’re palming off their responsibilities to the state, then they complain that it’s “not doing it right”. If you don’t want your kid learning about sex from porn, teach them yourself. In fact, occasionally pornography can help this; a quick trawl of said sites can usually offer up a whole gamut of body shapes – which can help a teenager realise that they’re not as freakishly ugly as they imagine. Rinse and repeat.

One worrying development I’ve seen, however the various trackers and spyware some parents put on their kid’s devices (well, at least I can’t accuse them of laziness here). The alarm goes off if they’re outside the “permitted area”, a report is emailed if the keylogger shows they’re searching “banned words” and the like. Now, while I get why a small kid would have these, I feel for them to be present for a teenager is a violation of both trust and privacy.

A lot of dysfunctional parent-child relationships happen because of lack of trust. When the teen knows or suspects they’re being spied on, they’ll invariably take “measures” against it, often on a matter of principle. The more they feel “the truth” will be used against them, the more they’ll hide from their parent(s). And once they feel the trust has been violated, chances are it’s gone for good. Trust me, I know this; growing up in care meant I lost all trust in adults by the age of twelve, and this led to me having a partial breakdown at fourteen. Lastly, we need to remember that some privacy is good; there are things we simply don’t need to know about others, and this includes teenage kids.

Moral Panic?

Don’t get me wrong; there are clearly dangers online. There always will be. But once again, it’s all about perspective. For example; the NHS reports the rise of mental health disorders amongst the under eighteens between 2004 and 2017 to be around 10% – and this could be attributed to other factors than social media – for example reporting bias (more children are open about admitting they need help), a wider application of the definition (such as gender identity issues) or other societal issues (erm, the Great Recession, Austerity, Climate Emergency etc).

But there’s no need to have us all living in virtual panopticons or using sledgehammers to crack nuts to “protect children” from things which may be exaggerated or even non-existent. As history shows us, there’s been various panics over decades; rock and roll didn’t turn all 50s kids into delinquents, Dungeons & Dragons didn’t make 80s kids Satanists and violent computer games didn’t make all 90s kids go and shoot up their schools like in Columbine. Why do we assume that this situation is “completely different”?

You want to protect your kids from the Evil Online? Get decent internet filters, learn of the current trends and educate your kids on things like personal boundaries, privacy and mental scepticism. And to always be emotionally available to them to discuss tricky issues as and when they arise. In a manner which doesn’t simply mock them either – just because you think it’s trivial, doesn’t mean they do. Lastly, to build and keep trust. Trust over all. Even the most sullen Kevin the Teenager – if they know they can trust you – will run to you if in a big enough jam. Well, eventually.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Essays‘ series.

Let’s Panic About: E-Cigarettes?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last year, you’ve surely spotted the strengthening tone against the use of e-cigarettes (‘vaping’). All the signs of the public backlash are visible; increasing restrictions and bans, highlighting the “vaping deaths” in the USA, the myriad of politicians weighing in against it on – I think – mainly on the strength of media reports.

I’ll put it bluntly; in my opinion, we’re in the throes of a moral panic about vaping. Don’t believe me? Go and compare some of the comments about vaping with the anti-vaxxers, or even the old Dungeons & Dragons Satanic panic (you know the Big Bad in some Chick Tract would be Juuling if the author was still alive).

No Smoke Without Vape

Naturally, a ‘crisis’ needs actual events to make it so, and so got it in the USA, which has made thousands of people sick and at least twenty dead. Scary, right? Well, like many things this requires more information to make it useful. The crisis was limited solely to the USA and all the cases are strongly linked to the use of knock-off pods and/or juices containing THC (the active chemical in cannabis).

That’s the thing; we in Europe vape too, but we’ve not seen this crisis. If vaping per se was bad, we’d be seeing coffins too, right? But we’re not, so logic insists that another attribute(s) must be the culprit – QED. And while I’m no expert on this, I do know at very least the regulations regarding e-cigarettes [and their juices etc] is much stricter in the EU than the USA. Is this what is stopping the deaths?

The counterfeit pods and THC juices are easy to basically “explain away”. If something is counterfeit, it does not have to conform to any production or health standards the legitimate item would. Just like a knock-off iPhone charger might explode when plugged in, the pod might deliver levels of nicotine immediately hazardous to health or be made using toxic chemicals. As for the THC… the reports are that they were mainly cannabis oils put into the pods, which said pods were never designed to do.

To draw a comparison; blaming the e-cigarette industry for said illnesses and deaths (appears) to be akin to blaming the alcohol industry for the “negative outcomes” found by those drinking bathtub gin or lighter fluid. And like alcohol, the solution appears to be for the USA to simply mirror the EU’s stance; regulation and quality controls.

A Moral Crusade?

But the main attribute about a moral panic is that something as tawdry as facts has no relevance. As seen in American law enforcement who can’t tell the difference between a legal nicotine liquid and an illegal cannabis one, the parents who think any sort of flavouring is encouraging children to vape and politicians who’s knowledge of the subject is so poor it’s gone past laughable.

The worrying thing is that e-cigarettes are coming under the exact same attacks that tobacco did in the 60s and 70s – with one vital difference. The attack on tobacco was led by actual scientific evidence which the industry was doing it’s best to suppress, while the attack on e-cigarettes has precious little scientific evidence and is based primarily on scaremongering.

Sure, vaping is not “completely and utterly safe”; we all know that, for example nicotine is bad on developing minds and bodies. However, almost all the other concerns currently have a “more research is needed” written at the bottom. For example, we do not know the “long term risks” for they’ve only been around for about a decade – but in the 50s scientists could find millions of people to study who’d smoked two packs a day for fifty years.

But… the vast majority of campaigners don’t care about the science. They hate vaping, want it gone and will use any means, fair or foul to achieve this.

Success Breeds Hubris

The anti-smoking lobby has been amazingly successful in the last fifty years. Further than their wildest dreams, in fact. Through the teeth of opposition from the vested interests and sometimes the public themselves, they waged a true Fabian campaign; slowly going against advertising, packaging, sponsorship, public acceptability regarding smoking. And at every step, lying through their teeth that complete prohibition was not their ultimate goal.

In this – admittedly worthy – goal, science was abused (esp regarding passive smoking), the public manipulated and the state assumed draconian powers in regards to smoking bans. Before the 90s said bans were put in for legitimate fire risk reasons – here in the UK, smoking was banned on Underground trains in ’84 and in said stations in ’87 after a pair of smoking-caused fires – but after this, we saw a gradual blanket ban creep over everything… just because Smoking Is Bad. Ending up at the point where you could get in trouble for lighting up while standing on a deserted, outdoor train platform at midnight.

And all was well until around 2010, when several e-cigarette products managed to build up critical mass, go mainstream and grow so quickly in market share that Big Tobacco realised their obsolescence was possibly now at hand and got into the business themselves. This caused the anti-smoking alliance to fracture.

Science Vs Ideology

Before this, there were two wings of the alliance; those who campaigned against tobacco because of the health risks and those who did so for their objections about nicotine (usually for moral reasons). E-cigarettes managed to divorce the two aspects, and thus the alliance cracked; while every public health body in the world is solidly anti-tobacco, they’re all over the shop regarding e-cigarettes.

We’re seeing similar splits in anti-smoking groups; even the “Action on Smoking and Health” is deeply sceptical about vaping to the point it wishes to ban even claims it’s “less dangerous than smoking” – but it’s British arm is actually rather cautiously optimistic about it being a weapon to rid the country of tobacco.

What the “nicotine prohibitionists” are doing here is using all the old tricks in the book; from FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to shifting definitions (I know people who think vaping is “exactly the same” as cigarettes), along with lashings of the “Appeal to Children” line. It’s the exactly the same that happened with the American “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” group in the 80s, which started out campaigning against drunk driving, then drink driving (a subtle difference) and finally to drinking full stop – to the extent the founder actually quit over this blatant “mission creep”.

You think I’m wrong? Imagine what would happen to the anti-alcohol lobbies etc if we managed to create booze which didn’t cause cirrhosis of the liver…

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Thoughts on Operation Midland

Like many people, I spent the late spring following the trial of one Carl Beech, which many more know as ‘Nick’ of ‘VIP abuse ring’ fame (also ‘Steven’, ‘Lucy’ and more recently, ‘the accused’). Part of my interest was personal, more due to the fact it allowed a distraction from the B-word; but the biggest draw was that I found the whole affair interesting from a sociological point of view. Now, I’m not going to go into the details of the accusations, the trial or recent reports on the whole police investigation – people have covered these better than I ever could – but there’s a few aspects which I feel have not really been covered.

Credible And True?

Firstly, the truly fantastical level of the accusations Beech made; truly, the reports most folk saw of it in the likes of BBC News was nothing. This only came out at the trial; for like a tale-telling habitual liar, Beech had told various stories to different people over a period of years, and the weight of all these different stories ended up forming a kind of ‘critical mass’ which ended up exploding in his face.

Why he did this, I do not know; perhaps he got in over his head, had let his ‘enthusiasm’ run riot, arrogantly believed he’d get away with explaining away the ‘errors’ or simply couldn’t remember the previous stories. One feeling is certain, though; it wasn’t the who he’d accused which finally led to his appearance in the dock, but the what – the accusations had so many huge, glaring holes (though no smoking gun) and inconsistencies that by the end no reasonable person would believe them. Which leads to the obvious question; ‘why did the police’? Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever get an answer for this; just the standard ‘mistakes were made, lessons were learned’ crap we’ve had already.

Next, we have the accusations themselves. When you ‘enjoy’ them in full, you come to appreciate that Beech’s tales have a solid provenance; that of the old ‘Satanic ritual abuse‘ moral panic of the 1980s which led to such things as the proven hoaxes of Michelle Remembers and Satan’s Underground. The murders, the torture, the secret locations and unknown figures; all that was missing was sinister robes, chanting and pentagrams daubed with blood. After all, said ‘Satanic groups’ were meant to have wielded significant power and control… which incidentally, so would ‘The Group’ have done. If it had been real, that is.

The Sympathy Bandwagon

The aspect which most interests me, however is why people believed Beech’s allegations – for the majority of people did (or very least, granted them a very fair hearing). My suspicion is twofold.

Firstly, it was simple remorse. Savile’s death cause a huge skip-load of old sexual scandals to be dumped on our collective lawn, and the amount of people / organisations who’d looked the other way or even worse, actively helped cover them up for decades was unbelievable. Not just national figures, but local ones too. What’s more, the Big Public were sufficiently disgusted that they demanded real action to ‘put the injustices right’.

A most laudable aim, but as with so many things to make up for the laxity of the past the other extreme was indulged; I recall (for example) being accused of being an abuse apologist on the simple grounds I cited the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle in regards to Rolf Harris (something I do not regret doing, even knowing that he was found guilty). The drive for historical justice had morphed into social media mobs baying for blood. To simply be ‘a suspect’ was guilt enough for them.

Into this milieu strode Beech, starting around this time (we now know) to peddle his first iteration of ‘experiences’ on abuse survivor’s forums. And that as his tales got larger and more intricate, a ‘believe Nick’ cult increasingly formed online; that folks who committed crimes of questioning some of the details, pointing out the similarities between his allegations and other narratives (sometimes, their own) or going with their feelings that his writings didn’t sit right (one complained that they read like bad erotica) were shouted down, bullied and in some cases exiled from the community.

Misery Sells

There’s also the aspect that even now, we don’t know the ‘full story’. Before the trial, the mists of ignorance was even thicker, and almost a choking fog for the average member of the Big Public. This actually worked in Beech’s favour; the snippets they were getting shown were within the territory of ‘implausible, but such things can happen’.

Much of this blame can be laid at the door of our journalists; in their desire for ‘good copy’ they simply cherry-picked bits out of Exaro’s reports, edited them to fit the allotted space and basically failed to do any due diligence on the sources – which turned out to comprise of Beech, a couple of pseudonyms of the previous, a tiny stable of dubious people uttering hearsay and recycling old rumours from such reputable sources as David Icke’s website.

However, said journalists can plead entrapment in partial mitigation, due to the actions of politicians and the police. From then Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson picking this as his new ’cause’ after his successes over phone hacking to the ‘credible and true’ statement made outside of Scotland Yard, it could be argued said scribblers felt that ‘there must be something in it’ for such serious donkeys to be taking it, well seriously. We shall never know really why, but Beech had gained quite hefty ‘cover’, and he knew it.

The man revelled in the attention, the sympathy and praise. He was perhaps the second most famous person in the land under a pseudonym (the first being Banksy, obviously). His activities – involvement in at least two charities, the public events, the ‘consultations’ and talks – puffed up the ego and was a key stepping-stone into becoming a ‘professional victim’, something which I have little doubt he was intending to develop into a sideline. Which, I can personally tell you can actually be rather lucrative. Even more lucrative for a man who was perennially in serious debt due to his penchant for giving the illusion of success via conspicuous consumption.

Class Bias?

That’s the thing which I keep on wondering about; was Beech believed longer and stronger than others simply because of his class? Well-spoken, (seemingly) prosperous, in a ‘professional job’ and without any ‘defects’ such as substance abuse, alcoholism or a criminal record – it would have been easier for the journalists to ‘relate’ to Beech and made him appear more ‘credible’ and ‘believable’ a witness in their eyes. Not just that, but Beech was bright enough to ‘play the game’ with Exaro; a dodgy little outfit which was desperate for a sensational scoop to make their name and restore their finances. In a sad way, they deserved each other.

However, I think the most uncomfortable ‘reason for belief’ in this is that some people believed for they wanted it to be true. That their view of ‘the Establishment’ was so hostile, so negative that they wanted murder, torture and abuse to add to their ‘crime sheet’. That their belief in secretive cabals of wealthy white men doing what They pleased with apparent impunity had become so strong they’d automatically assumed said ‘revelations’ must be true.

Dress Rehearsal?

Yet, I don’t think I’m quite there. The last slice of the pie, I suspect has it’s roots outside of the UK. From St Petersburg, in fact. Yes, I think that the now renowned Russian troll farms have a part to play in this saga. Not in making Beech’s massive ball of lies, no; but helping to propagate them. They clearly had the capabilities by 2014 to do this – the point of ‘peak Nick’. The question is why they’d bother to do this.

The answer is simple enough; the troll-farms have two general tasks – to press pro-Kremlin propaganda and to sow division within the West. That by giving extra oxygen to Beech’s claims, it was fermenting suspicion and distrust of the British ‘elite’ and the lack of ‘proper investigation’ (ie the finding of evidence) held up as examples of a continuing cover-up by ‘Them’. Which wasn’t that far from the truth; for there had been coverups regarding Savile, Cyril Smith and so on.

How does this help the Kremlin? It doesn’t; at least not directly. But if it can convince the targets that ‘their’ governments, media and so on cannot be trusted or believed, it leaves them open to other disinformation campaigns which can assist Moscow’s goals. I’ll cite here the left-wing farms like Redfish and in a more old-school manner the Morning Star, which push hard anti-capitalist lines which sometimes get close to being full-blown anti-Americanism. That’s the glories of the system; by the end you’re so cynical you believe nothing you’re told, that everything originates from a bot-farm.

Lastly, let’s remember; Russian bots also pushed ‘Pizzagate‘, in which Beech’s tale shared quite a lot of narrative with (though lacked a current political edge, unlike the American one).

Can I prove any of this part? No. The best I can do here is draw the lines, that in the same manner a prosecution in a trial would cite; motive, means and opportunity for the defendant. We have to remember it was only in 2016 that we started becoming aware of the troll-farms; a time where Beech had shot much of his bolt.

* * *

And this may be the ultimate link between Beech and Brexit. Just like this segment accused any questioner of the ‘Warrior Survivor’ as being ‘part of the Establishment’, they also accuse any person posing valid criticisms about the glories of a ‘WTO Brexit’ as a ‘Remoaner’, ‘part of the elite’ or just plain old ‘traitor’. I believe what I’d like to be true, and all contrary evidence can go to hell and so on.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.