04/01/2018 Newsnight

The playground has always been

a judgemental space...

But there's no playground

more judgemental than

that of social media.

What does getting a like mean?

You

get popular.

Popularity.

You know

people like me.

It's hard enough for adults

to navigate their way

through the world of social media -

so feel for the children

who have to learn the do's

and don'ts for themselves.

England's Children Commissioner

thinks they need guidance.

We'll ask what parents

and schools can do to help,

and what damage is done

if they don't.

Would you be more likely to invest

in a furniture manufacturer

if they put the word "blockchain"

in their name and said

they were now getting

into the crypto-currency business?

Yes?

You're not alone.

It's all the rage.

We have a psychology professor

to help analyse your problem.

And activist power.

A new study tells us

what the members of

political parties think.

And, yes, they do think.

But are they exerting too much power

over parties that are really meant

to be accountable to the people?

Hello.

We've all met adults

who are worryingly addicted

to social media and the sense

of self worth it gives them.

So how much more concerned should

we be, when it comes to children?

Well, the Children's Commissioner

for England, Anne Longfield,

is very worried about those leaving

primary school, who end up craving

acceptance via likes

and positive comments on line.

Publishing a study on social media

use of 8 to 12-year-olds,

she concludes that schools need

to help the pre-teens prepare

for the emotional assaults

they will endure on social media

when they are in secondary school.

Enormous change in the use of social

media from something that is fun

and friendly and part of family life

when they're

younger, to an absolute cliff edge

when 13 go to secondary school -

which we know is one

of the most pressured times

for children when they

start to learn what the new

environment is about, where they

have an avalanche of

pressure from social media.

Suddenly, the whole new peer group

has a phone in their hand

and has access to social

media as part of that.

She thinks parents need

guidance too, by the way.

But before we talk about how

to best help young people

navigate social media,

let's hear from them.

We sent Katie Razzall to a girl's

state secondary school

in south London today.

She talked to some eleven and

12-year-olds. Their school has a ban

on phones, but for a conversation

about phones and what these students

do with them, the rules quite fairly

went out of the window. Does

everyone in your class have a smart

phone?

Yes.

I got it when I was 10,

because my mum thinks I'm sensible.

As I got into year six I started

having Instagram and things like

that and yeah...

Lie did you want

them?

I think it is because everyone

else had it and it is not like, it

is at school I want it.

You're

supposed to be 13 to have them?

Yes.

It makes people our age feel under

pressure, because you know you're

supposed to have this thing and your

parents say you can't and it is over

and over again like a cycle, should

I get it?

Other people have Facebook

and Instagram.

Some people that you

have got to be like them and do

everything they do and if you don't

have something, people aren't going

to like you.

I had music in my

phone, because I thought it would be

fun. Then I found out that all the

stalkers and all the other people

that are not really good. So I just,

my mum told me to take it off.

I

spend about... Six to seven hours on

my phone.

Every day?

It just depends

on what I'm doing every day.

Used to

spend a lot of time on my phone, now

I spend kind of enough.

What is

that? Four or five hours a day. But

I'm also on games.

I don't spend

much time on my phone, because I do

things like learning Japanese

because of some obvious reasons.

What does getting a like mean?

You

get

popular? People appreciate me.

I

don't have the social media that

gets me like, but my friends care

about getting likes.

When I observe

my friend getting them likes, they

go, like they have won the lottery,

like I got a like. And for them it

means the whole world.

Do you think

it can be damaging to people?

Yeah,

because for example Instagram it is

something like the perfect image and

the perfect body and people can

change that and start to not eat

anything or start to change the way

they look or you know do things

without their parents knowing. Yeah,

it is damaging.

Do people worry about being rejected

if they're not part of something

online?

Yes. It depends who it is.

Some feel if I don't get added to

this group, then you're not part of

anything and you feel like excluded

from everyone.

People go out of

their way to try and make themselves

look like the perfect image. They

have seen someone like a celebrity

and they're, like, they're perfect.

So they try to make themselves look

like them in speech or in appearance

or even in personality.

Sometimes

two people are having an argument

and loads of people go on one side

and the other person feels bad. And

they get upset and people add them

back to torment them.

People believe

people, like they say, oh, you're

not good enough. And yeah, that is

what they say.

Online?

Yeah.

How

does that make people feel?

Sad.

Views from one school there.

Now, I am joined by head teacher

of Passmores Academy Vic Goddard,

author Shannon Kyle,

and Carina Maggar who is choosing to

take a step back from social media.

I want to ask each of you, if I put

a button here and if you pushed that

button all social media disappears

and is eradicated from everyone

under 16 would you push the butt snn

Yes.

Why would you do that?

Because

it has so many negative effects and

it is so time consuming on their

daily lives. So much time is spend

on their phone.

They can keep the

internet and look things up, just

the social media.

I would push it as

well.

Yes?

Definitely. I think the

ability to communicate orally is

affected by the fact is that they

communicate in that way and I think

it will limit their life chances.

You can have both, but that takes

parenting and balance.

We have heard

one pupil in that saying, six hours

a day on the phone.

That is

ridiculous.

Do you come across that

that?

Yes. If I ask a pupil where

their school planner is they can't

find it but they know where their

phone it.

I believe it can be a

force for good and I think that

there is a lot of hysteria around

this that is unnecessary. It is like

in the 1960s when our grandparents'

generation were worried and the

coffee shops and it was just

something for young people and I

think that it can do a force for

good. They can make friends and get

advice that they wouldn't otherwise

get. Of course, it can be a bit of a

beast and it needs containing and

using responsibly, but ultimately it

is a fantastic thing. When I was a

teenager in the nineties I was stuck

in my bedroom thumbing through old

copies of Just 17.

I'm struck by if

kids are not being cruel this way,

they're going to be cruel in another

method. Maybe we worry about the

vehicle.

It is control. Where is my

child at its safest? In my house. If

my son's in my house he is safe. Not

any more. He is not safe in my

house. If I don't know what he is

on, what social media, we have got

to translate social media into the

real world, would you allow a

stranger to walk into your child's

bedroom? No. That is not good

enough. Would you like a stranger to

walk up to your child in a park? No.

It is about good parenting.

Kit be a

superaccelerator of problems,

children can bully each other, they

always have, but it can be

particularly aggressively magnified

when there is this power of

communication. Is that not a

problem?

Of course it is. I wouldn't

deny for a second that it was. But

at the end of the day, on social

media, you can block somebody. If

you're getting bullied in the school

ground, you have to see them. And if

you educate your children to

actually acknowledge when this is

happening, when something's out of

order, you can get them to do it.

Do

you buy that?

I find it so difficult

to answer that question. It is about

educating your kids and about

knowing... I would worry that

putting up a selfie and a kid

receiving ten likes will feel ugly

and insecure and it is about

educating your children about the

things they should be sharing

online.

Let's talk about how we make

it better. We haven't got the

button, we just have to make the

best of what exists. You have writ

an letter to your parents.

Bizarrely

today.

It had nothing to do with

this. You have rules, you let them

bring phones in. You could say no

phones.

Schools do. When you speak

to the parents of the children in

the school, because some work in my

school and they go they have never

handed their phone in once. The the

school has achieved that the phone

is not disturbing learning. Some say

you have to hand it in. I haven't

got one today, Sir. Of course you

haven't. For me, it is about as a

parent giving them a space where it

is monitored. Getting them to

understand having a phone is a

privilege, not a right. I have given

them that phone and there comes

responsibility for their behaviour

and how they deal with each other.

Charging stations in your house no,

phone in the bedroom. Before you go

to bed, the phone is charged here.

You have a night's sleep. The

fear... Of missing out.

What with

your daughter, do you let her keep

the phone with her by the bed at

night?

She is 16 now, I would defy

any parent after the age of 14 or 15

to take that phone off them. It is

about being sensible, but it is

also, it is about education, so the

kids need to know when they have had

enough. Sometimes my daughter says,

I have had enough of my phone and

I'm going to put it away.

She is

just fooling you.

That is what I

started to do, I found I was

spending too much time on my phone.

And you have to have the will power

to say it is not the first thing I

will look at in the morning. It is a

fairly tale land, this is the real

world. What is in the palm of your

hand is a fairy tale version.

It

takes a lot for a teenager think

that when everybody else is looking

at their phone.

There is a thing

about tough love, I don't think it

is tough love, it is authentic care.

I want to keep my child safe and Pow

understand the power and what it can

be used for in the good and to

understand when it is time to put it

away, I as a adult will make that

decision if I have to.

Do you allow

your daughter secrets on line, you

don't read her texts?

No, not now.

When she was younger I was there

when she signed up to Facebook and

giter and looked to see what she was

doing. She fined up at 1.

She is not

allowed at 11.

The rule is 13. But

they're all doing it at 11. I made a

decision, maybe I may...

You let her

lie online?

Yes I did. I hold my

hands up.

What does that teach her?

Why are they different ages?

This is

the thing. The social network

companies need to get together and

they need to monitor this. It isn't

being monitored. Kids will do what

they want at whatever age. You are

right, it starts at secondary

school, that's when the problems

start. If you go to secondary

school, you don't have a mobile

phone, you are not on social media,

you are really left out.

It must

come back to the schools, as much as

it comes to the parents. If the

parents try to impose something on

their child that none of the other

are doing.

What impact can I have? I

cannot tell parents that, I can

encourage, but I can't do it.

At

least the hours you have them at

school, you can say put the phones

away.

That is what we say. From my

point of view, if a child is doing a

science experiment, they can put it

on their phone, and use it later,

that is worthwhile. I used to like

the blackberry phones, because they

used to flash a red light in their

pockets. IPhones, we say in your

bag, unless we give them permission

to have it out. A parent who gives a

phone to their child without

boundaries, they have reneged on

their responsibilities.

We will

leave it there. Thank you.

You've heard of bitcoin,

and its ability to apparently

create money from nothing.

And hundreds of billions

of dollars of money at that.

But you may have missed just how

wacky the world of crypto currencies

has become in recent weeks.

There are over a thousand

of them now - and more

are being created all the time.

It's a classic gold rush.

But even more weird has been the way

ordinary companies have jumped

on the bandwagon with some

spectacular market results.

One American iced tea maker,

for example, changed

its name in December

from Long Island Iced Tea Corp,

to Long Blockchain Corp -

blockchain being the technology that

powers bitcoin and other

digital currencies.

The share price tripled.

Not surprisingly, regulators

are worried and many think this

is reminiscent of the worst excesses

of the dot com bubble.

Our technology editor David Grossman

explains what has been going on.

A rose by any other name, of course,

but in the corporate world names

matter. The promising start-up

backrub that managed to conquer the

world would not have done had it not

changed its name to Google. Wood

blue ribbon sports have made such a

swoosh if it hadn't become Nikkei?

-- if it hasn't become Nike. We have

had the words biotech and nano

putting companies -- are giving

companies a good share price. Now,

the word is blockchain.

If people

stick blockchain in their company

name, people will think, we will go

with them, because I will see a good

return. You are seeing that a lot.

Anything with bitcoin is doing well.

Blockchain Might be able to do

similar, so people will want some.

It's the technology that underpins

currencies like bitcoin. It allows

every currency to verify every

transaction. It means you can do

away with a central register which

is vulnerable to hacking.

Blockchain

Is opening up a way to do finance

which is more transparent, cheaper,

faster, and it gives us the ability

to cut out a lot of the middlemen

and automated processes, whilst

still keeping the same level or an

improved level of security. But

it'll take time. We still have a

long way to go. We need to battle

test the technology. There will be

ups and downs along the way. From a

starting point, it's a really good

start.

Our company simply cashing in

on the name? Take, for example,

online plc, an Essex -based company

that plodded along with a share

price so that you could hang washing

on it. Until late October when it

changed its name to online

blockchain plc, the 400% share price

rise immediately. The name change

simply reflected the reality of what

the company was now doing, according

to its owner.

Clearly changed our

name once in a generation. But it

was a big change. It's had a big

effect. We could have carried on

with online and not change the name

and nobody would know for another

six, nine months, that would be a

distortion of the facts. It's

important with names that you tell

people what you are doing and that

you transmit your message. It's all

well and good being called something

obscure, but it's hard to get your

message across.

In some cases,

though, in the early stages of a new

technology it isn't always possible

to say which companies claims are

real and which mere illusion.

Investors have to be very careful.

There is a lot of good projects out

there and equally there are a lot of

projects that have understood that

by just using the buzzword

blockchain you can attract a lot of

investors and money. Homework is

required. A lot of self education,

self teaching, is required before

putting any money to these products.

As the super investor Warren Buffett

sagely remarked, only when the tide

goes out to you discover who has

been swimming naked. The blockchain

tide is still rising and come who

knows, it might do for decades, or

it might drain on the Santa Maria

exposing, well, who knows what?

Well, at least in the time

of tulipmania, there were actual

tulips at the end of it all,

and people understood

what they could do.

Let's talk to Professor Peter Ayton

who is a psychologist specialising

in behavioural economics.

Would you buy shares into a company

that changed its name, and changed

its focus to dabbling in crypto

currencies?

Possibly. I'm a human

like everybody else. I don't suppose

my baby would be that discrepant

from what everybody else might

think.

To me it looks crazy. -- I

don't suppose my behaviour. What

would motivate people to go into

this? Has agreed taking over? There

were some psychology, isn't there?

-- has agreed.

There is a behaviour

which is anonymous with respect to

what economists think ought to be

happening. That shouldn't be a

surprise. We have had another Nobel

Prize for a behavioural economist

this year. What we observe happening

is no surprise to me.

Is it almost

hormonal, biological, you can put

people's brains into MRIs and see

what they are thinking when they

make these choices?

This is the

field of new economics. The

existence of such a field would be a

science fiction 20 years ago. But

now it is providing us with all

sorts of insight into the way the

brain does things, which then have

ramifications. It is slightly

curious to me that we have this,

sort of common interest in

phenomena, which, sort of, looks

psychological more than economic.

Irrational exuberance is one of the

hallmarks of the surprise that human

beings have brains and emotions and

all sorts of things, why shouldn't

that reflect in economic behaviour?

Looking at this, though, you've got

people borrowing money to invest in

these things. In the currencies

themselves. And now presumably in

some of the shares of companies

dabbling in it. Probably doing that

in the hope others will do that, so

the prices will go on up. Isn't that

just a bubble? An archetypal case of

a bubble?

The stock market is based

on an audit assessment of what

people think other people will

think, other people will think it's

worth, and so on. -- based on nth

assessment. You are basing things on

people's behaviour, rather than

understanding asset value of a

business.

What is the asset value of

a business that says, we made

furniture, now we are going to do

something involving a currency like

bitcoin... How do you possibly think

this company is going to be in a

particularly good position to

generate profit?

I don't really

understand exactly why the sort of

thing happens. Neither does anybody

else, for that matter. The idea that

changing the name of something might

make a difference is as old as the

hills. We've seen that happened many

times -- happen many times.

You see

more relaxed by this than perhaps

even regulators are. They are

obviously worried lots of people

will lose quite a bit out of it, I

think.

I don't know how you can

regulate for people to prevent them

from speculating in a way they see

fit. There is an market if you

regulate that out of existence.

And

people losing money. The advice is

not to invest into it if you cannot

afford to do that if you lose.

I

don't know how much the investment

is discretionary. I don't know, I

would be astonished if everybody

backed their hat on it -- on

bitcoin, for example.

Thanks Ray

much.

-- thank you very much.

Viewsnight has no aspirations to add

blockchain or any other

cryptocurrency terms to its title.

It is is of course our opinion slot,

and this week we are getting views

on big issues that face us in 2018.

Now on Brexit, among fervent

remainers, there is a big

debate going on right now

as to whether it is right to aim

at reversing Brexit,

or whether that is anti-democratic.

It's a lively argument, but tonight,

Times columnist David Aaronovitch

argues that Brexit voters may be

in demographic decline.

The Brexit generation is dying out.

The other evening I was talking to a

friend from Yorkshire about, you

know what.

Should we be grateful to the members

of political parties?

They pay subscriptions that help

keep the parties going, they trudge

the streets trying to bring politics

to your doorstep, they go to

meetings to help shape party policy.

And however much you may

dislike politicians,

you at least have to recognise that

democracy requires functioning

parties, even if it is only to give

you something to complain about.

So, yes, we should be

grateful to the activists.

But at the same time

there is a problem - they now

have the power to pick a Prime

Minister and yet they are not

altogether representative

of the population at large.

And we can say that now

because of a big survey of party

members, carried out

by the Mile End Institute attached

to Queen Mary University of London.

And on and on TV coverage of the

party conferences. Maybe you can

tell they are not typical. The

average age of conservatives is 57.

The population at large is younger,

average age 40. Labour is more

surprising. You might have seen

images of lots of young Jeremy

Corbyn supporters, but the party's

membership actually has an average

age is not much different to the

Tories, 53. But what about their

views? Labour and Tories are poles

apart, they imported the divisions

within the country. On same-sex

marriage, for example, conservatives

are only 41% in favour, labour, 85%.

The public are in the middle at

about 66%. On the death penalty,

most Tory members think it is the

most appropriate sentence for some

crimes, and fewer than a tenth of

Labour voters do. National polls put

public support for the reinstatement

of the death penalty at between 36

and 49%, depending on how you ask

the question. Then there is Brexit.

Should Britain stay in the single

market, for example, a quarter of

conservatives want to, the vast bulk

of Labour members want to. As for

the public at large, polls vary, as

do the questions, but generally

support for the single market is

nearer 50%. You would expect

activists to be unrepresentative,

particularly as there are so many

fewer of them as they used to be.

The Tories boasted of having over 2

million members in the 50s, now it

is maybe fewer than 150,000, but

they don't publish figures any more.

But that's select group has the

potential power to select a Prime

Minister. In 2016, when David

Cameron resigned, Tory members came

close to having a say between

Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom over

who would lead the country. It would

have been the first time party

members had chosen a PM and on the

evidence of the poll Tory members

would have been closer to Andrea

Leadsom. She, of course, dropped out

of the race before they had a

But the country is already divide

and politics need to involve the

process ofarbitration between values

and should power be in the group who

tend to have opinions at the extreme

ends of spectrum. When I said there

was 150,000 fewer Tories, some say

it half that number, but they don't

publish the figure.

Ustin Fisher is Professor

of Political Science

at Brunel University London.

Cherry Mosteshar is co-chair

of Momentum in Oxford.

Chloe Ahmed is a member

of the Conservative party.

Why do you do it?

I ask that myself

on a very cold January evening when

I'm standing at someone's door

trying to persuade them to vote

Labour and all they want is why

Jeremy Corbyn wears a certain kind

of shoe. It does get soul-destroying

sometimes. But I believe that if you

want a certain sort of world and you

have a vision of how it can achieve

that, you have to go out there and

try and at least talk to people and

tell them why you think they would

be better off.

What about you Chloe,

do you, hope that you will influence

the Conservative Party in some way

as an individual?

That and you have

to be, to change anything you have

to be part of it. You can't expect

your future to be a certain way if

you don't put anything into it. You

can't sit back and say this will

happen.

It is civic duty.

Yes, you

can't expect anything to happen if

you don't put anything in.

You are

half the age of Conservative

Parties, you must be the youngest

person in the room by a mile.

Everybody says that, but no, there

is lots of young Conservative

groups, we have a great young

Conservative movement and we go to

lots of socials and meetings and I'm

not the only person.

You're the

liberal end, the younger

demographic, political views as

well, you support Theresa May in

favour of same sex marriage.

Yes

definitely.

I go to meetings and I'm

the oldest one. How did that happen.

We have shown this young activist

Labour Party, your members are the

same age as the Conservative

Parties. 53 to 57.

There is a big

influx of new, young members and

they have more energy than activists

have had. I have been doing this

for... 40 years and I have never

seen so many people that are going

we are going out are you coming?

Labour do have half a million

members.

It is incredible.

Now

professor Fisher, is it an issue

that these people have too much pow

sner

-- power? If it is an issue, it

has always been an issue and at the

start of 20th century people asked

if it was right that lead we are

accountable to the members. Labour

kept the unions, because they were

scared of people being too radical.

Before it was a balancing act

between voters, the leader and the

activists, what we see in Labour is

the leadership and the activists, at

least the momentum being more

aligned than usual. As we have seen

in this data, the voters are nor

centrist.

I'm not a separate group.

I organise under a banner calmed

momentum -- called momentum, it was

the campaign to elect Jeremy Corbyn.

It is to preserve his legacy. You're

a Labour Party member No 1.

Did you

campaign for Blair?

I did, but those

were my salad days.

Is it the case

that parties, this is the crucial

question, parties have that have

more members have become more

alienated from the voters.

That has

tended to the care, particularly

with more left of centre. That is

largely because right of centre

parties have been able to command

things like finance from outside

sources. Left of centre parties tend

to be less well served financially.

Labour has had the unions in the

past. But you know now we see that

the Conservative Parties are more a

wealthy party. It is a balancing

act. You have got to give the

members something back. But

sometimes democratic participation

can be unpredictable.

What do you

think of momentum, do you think of

momentum as a great democratic

force, you obviously don't adegree

with them. - agree with them. Do you

see it as a good thing.

I to engage

people, yes. It is a good thing for

every political party to be able to

engage with the general public. But

what momentum has become, do I agree

with it no, it has become a platform

for people to abuse.

There is no

such thing as momentum as, we're a

disparate group. We are leaderless.

I there is no one to answer to.

What

I want to ask, would you consider it

democratic in 2016 if Tory member

had picked Andrea Leadsom as leader.

Does that feel to you democratic?

We

have

We have to look at the whole

system.

You believe in members.

I

believe that members and specially

ly now with the growing members of

Labour Party.

Would you be happy

with Tory members picking a Prime

Minister. Of course you're happy

with Labour members picking a Prime

Minister, what about Tory members.

That is democracy. It is like

saying, yes, I would like to choose,

but we weren't going out of Europe.

But I can't.

Why not, when Blair

resigned, as leader, the Labour

members had the opportunity to elect

a new leader. It was the same one

member election that we had in the

Conservative Party. But it is no

different if it is the Conservative

Party or the Labour Party.

The

members, the MPs, are accountable to

their voters. And so you used to be,

until recently that the MPs chose

the leader a the Prime Minister and

now the MPs might be foisted upon

them somebody they don't want as

leader.

That is always a danger. We

saw that with the Conservative Party

when Iain Duncan Smith was elected.

What you have to remember is the

parties have to give members

something to keep them involved.

Cherry and Chloe do all the

wonderful things that party members

do, campaigning and so on, but what

is the incentive for someone to get

involved if they don't get a say? It

is a real balancing act for parties.

It is extending it. You know having

members choose the leadership,

whatever party is more democratic.

It is about...

Better than the MPs.

Yes, because they're a small group

and they can be, deals can be

stitched up, they think about their

promotions.

They're accountable to

the voters in t way that the

activists aren't.

If you're asking

members, we are members of

Conservative Party, but anybody can

be a member of a political party.

Anyone can join.

This argument has

been raging since 1902. So we won't

resolve it now.

We are trying to

make politics that reflects the

people.

Thank you all very much. A

very quick time to look at the

papers, the financial times

companies want to replace hard ware.

The Times question President Trump's

mental health. The Guardian, Theresa

May says sorry to patients and The

Express give foreign aid crash to

NHS.

Well, that is it for this evening.

But Glasgow film festival announced

today it will open with the UK

premiere of Wes Anderson's new film

- an animated feature

called "isle of dogs".

Anderson is famous

for his hyper-stylised

and symmetrical aesthetic.

You may have seen it in films

like The Grand Budapest Hotel

and The Royal Tenenbaums.

Well sometimes life imitates art.

Wally Koval's instagram feed,

"accidentally Wes Anderson" gathers

some evidence for that.

Good night.

MUSIC: Alone Again Or by Love.