From Paris to New Delhi, the Push to Ban Teens from Social Media Is Going Global(wsj.com)
wsj.com
From Paris to New Delhi, the Push to Ban Teens from Social Media Is Going Global
https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/from-paris-to-new-delhi-the-push-to-ban-teens-from-social-media-is-going-global-5ee5f314
67 comments
This is such great news, we have seen mental health decline a lot this decade while social media among teens have become a commodity.My only concern is how this will be enforced, trusting private entities with IDs and passport doesn’t seem reliable with the recent leaks. We do not want to risk children like this. I don’t know which country started this trend, with banning social media though, maybe it was Australia but I am in favor of it. I hope next step is for schools to ban phones as a whole.
> This is such great news, we have seen mental health decline a lot this decade while social media among teens have become a commodity.
Yes, and simple solution could be (or: could've been) making parents control their kids social media usage. It's only harmful in excessive amounts, several hours a day. (Unlike drugs, or alcohol that only needs secons to be harmful.) Parents can control that, and absolutely would if government told them so.
There is absolutely no reason to ban kids from social media.
Yes, and simple solution could be (or: could've been) making parents control their kids social media usage. It's only harmful in excessive amounts, several hours a day. (Unlike drugs, or alcohol that only needs secons to be harmful.) Parents can control that, and absolutely would if government told them so.
There is absolutely no reason to ban kids from social media.
An even simpler solution would be for the industry to not make their product more addictive and toxic at every opportunity to maximize engagement.
AIM and IRC did not get us to this point. I doubt the original Instagram that was purely about posting dumb photos with your friends would have either.
Given how concentrated the industry is, the buck stops with about four dudes who decided this was the course they wanted to set.
AIM and IRC did not get us to this point. I doubt the original Instagram that was purely about posting dumb photos with your friends would have either.
Given how concentrated the industry is, the buck stops with about four dudes who decided this was the course they wanted to set.
Users have a choice. They like the product and use it. The product makes money by users using it. This is totally expected. We don't need regulation; we need to let people maximize their utility curves!
We live in a society that explicitly rewards that behavior. If you don't change the reward systems, you cannot expect the system to just "become better". There is a reason AIM doesn't exist anymore and IRC is just a few grey hairs shouting at clouds. They lost. Capitalism won.
i dont know if you deleted your response or if it got censored. if you genuinely consider the 2005 internet as comparable to whatever the hell passes for the internet nowdays , then there is no way to bridge our viewpoints.
Just last week I read about a child being groomed online to perform sex acts with siblings and a dog.
That was a "we are not in Kansas anymore" moment.
That was a "we are not in Kansas anymore" moment.
>simple solution could be (or: could've been) making parents control their kids social media usage
How?
How?
Gather evidence that it is harmful. Put it on TV, radio, billboards and brochures that it is harmful, and parents should control the time their children spend on social media. Problem mostly solved.
I don’t think you understand, widespread organized media campaigns were pretty successful with smoking, which is physically and chemically addictive, but that’s different because with smoking we were willing to put in some effort. Not possible here.
You are right, I definitely do not understand. My views:
- moderate amount of Internet is *not harmful* for children
- parents, in most of the cases *can* control excessive amount of usage
- governments haven't tried educating the children and their parents yet. (Or any other method)
- instead they are banning the kids from the Internet and deanonymise adults
>governments haven't tried educating the children and their parents yet. (Or any other method)
Can you explain what this means?
Are people not aware that the Internet can be dangerous for children? Probably everyone thinks this so what else does the government need to educate?
What about the significant amount of people who don't trust the government
Can you explain what this means?
Are people not aware that the Internet can be dangerous for children? Probably everyone thinks this so what else does the government need to educate?
What about the significant amount of people who don't trust the government
They banned sales of cigarettes to people under 18
And yet underage smoking was still common until a decade later when focused campaigns lowered the attractiveness of smoking. Age bans never really worked.
I ain't paying for a propaganda competition with foreign mega-corporations. Just ban them outright, the kids will be alright. Nothing of value is lost by not exposing them to these FOMO-maximizing, brain-rotting, billionaire-owned propaganda machines.
sure, there would be absolutely no reason to ban kids from social media in a utopic society where people treated each other with respect , were all as educated as the average hacker news inhabitant , and behaved rationally. meanwhile in reality, modern social media have nothing to do with socialization and everything to do with abusing brains to maximise engagement. while this point is n=1, it really does not take more than a few minutes for short form content to crash my motivation, so i completely disagree with your 'several hours' figure.
fuck it, ban kids from having any form of smart phone or social media. give em all sony ericssons with pre paid sims that force them to put effort into their texts and actually socialize. maybe that will give imagination a fighting chance. what possible benefit could there be to let kids doom scroll? if you were a kid, why would you read or play or socialize when you could doom scroll? yes it is a parents responsibility to control their kids, and not one parent has any idea or education as to how modern social media affects a child - do you expect modern parents to spontaneously manifest this knowledge?
for what its worth , i once suggested to simply make it illegal for parents to let kids on facebook. but that doesn't offer much scope for multi national corporations to scrape PII (which is probably the real priority)
fuck it, ban kids from having any form of smart phone or social media. give em all sony ericssons with pre paid sims that force them to put effort into their texts and actually socialize. maybe that will give imagination a fighting chance. what possible benefit could there be to let kids doom scroll? if you were a kid, why would you read or play or socialize when you could doom scroll? yes it is a parents responsibility to control their kids, and not one parent has any idea or education as to how modern social media affects a child - do you expect modern parents to spontaneously manifest this knowledge?
for what its worth , i once suggested to simply make it illegal for parents to let kids on facebook. but that doesn't offer much scope for multi national corporations to scrape PII (which is probably the real priority)
[deleted]
I think it was China who first noticed that children were spending all day online. The CCP isn't captured by tech bro billionaires so they were able to respond faster.
At the time of the Christian Inquisition horrors, same things happened with books...
Despots are happy to have uninformed youth who cannot organize globally.
Social media inanities are exactly how we prevent youth from becoming informed.
Being informed of what? Whatever their dad tells them? Although the pitfalls of social media are many, the answer lies with regulation and moderation, not banning a significant portion of the population from them. The diversity of perspective and opinion is what allows people to gain the exposure needed to develop informed opinions. What blows my mind is that governments have the world's biggest media market makers by the throat and they refuse to force regulation. If they removed AI, made the algos public/modifiable, and actually moderated content for age restricted stuff this wouldn't be an issue.
> Being informed of what?
From being informed of literally anything.
Before COVID, the median US High school grad could not pass a middle school reading or math exam by merit. The trend has worsened so that today's median grad cannot demonstrate knowledge they were presented after elementary school. By the numbers, scrolling is inhibiting education on a societal scale.
The GP implied that nefarious forces might be working to remove social media from youths in order to control them better. My argument is that social media has them pretty well under control.
From being informed of literally anything.
Before COVID, the median US High school grad could not pass a middle school reading or math exam by merit. The trend has worsened so that today's median grad cannot demonstrate knowledge they were presented after elementary school. By the numbers, scrolling is inhibiting education on a societal scale.
The GP implied that nefarious forces might be working to remove social media from youths in order to control them better. My argument is that social media has them pretty well under control.
> The diversity of perspective and opinion
I don't think this is what social media provides. With social media people are able to choose one perspective and seem to just immerse themselves in a bubble so that they only get exposed to the view of their choice.
I don't think this is what social media provides. With social media people are able to choose one perspective and seem to just immerse themselves in a bubble so that they only get exposed to the view of their choice.
I suspect government support for limiting children's online presence is more about government tracking of adults.
edit: rewording
edit: rewording
So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face?
Just this past 12 months both my drivers license and passport have been involved in data breaches and there are no penalties or recompense for the companies at fault, so my patience for providing ID is near zero.
Just this past 12 months both my drivers license and passport have been involved in data breaches and there are no penalties or recompense for the companies at fault, so my patience for providing ID is near zero.
> So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face?
Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want.
You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health.
Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want.
You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health.
Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Ok, let's assume for today that age gating is the thing to to.
Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think. You're forcing people to reveal PII for limited gain, and building systems you can't knock down later.
The EU is working on a zero knowledge proof system for exactly this purpose, but it doesn't quite seem to be ready for prime time yet.
https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexe...
Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think. You're forcing people to reveal PII for limited gain, and building systems you can't knock down later.
The EU is working on a zero knowledge proof system for exactly this purpose, but it doesn't quite seem to be ready for prime time yet.
https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexe...
The restricting law is mostly concerned with the age gating, not the how.
You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly.
But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be.
I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly.
But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be.
I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
> I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there.
There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there.
There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
> I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there.
But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth.
> There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.
But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth.
> There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.
> But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction
I'd say it's an expansion of the "attack surface". Not to mention: what happens with those IDs after the fact?
> I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks
It already happened in my country (an European country) during the pandemic (and not in the first days). So it's not fictitious.
I'd say it's an expansion of the "attack surface". Not to mention: what happens with those IDs after the fact?
> I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks
It already happened in my country (an European country) during the pandemic (and not in the first days). So it's not fictitious.
Ok “StopDisinfo910”, thanks for your independent and impartial perspective on this.
> Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think
It is in the sense that it entices the industry to come up with a better approach.
Otherwise they'll just sit on their piles of gold saying that it can't be done, as they have been doing for far too long.
It is in the sense that it entices the industry to come up with a better approach.
Otherwise they'll just sit on their piles of gold saying that it can't be done, as they have been doing for far too long.
This approach is just fine for the industry: delegate the problem to the lowest, shadiest bidder. After all, privacy breaches aren't their problem. If governments want an ID system they should provide one.
And maybe they will.
We have gone from the industry clamouring that what's being done now is not possible and spending millions of lobbying money against it, to such laws spreading like wildfire.
The next step is the (inevitable) mess up because implementations won't be foolproof, followed by yet more millions of lobbying money being spent to amplify the effect of these mess ups.
Eventually we will come to a new normal. It will take time. But the hope is that the cat is out of the bag and we don't come back to a model that we know hurts children and pretend it's just how it is.
We have gone from the industry clamouring that what's being done now is not possible and spending millions of lobbying money against it, to such laws spreading like wildfire.
The next step is the (inevitable) mess up because implementations won't be foolproof, followed by yet more millions of lobbying money being spent to amplify the effect of these mess ups.
Eventually we will come to a new normal. It will take time. But the hope is that the cat is out of the bag and we don't come back to a model that we know hurts children and pretend it's just how it is.
> You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health.
If this would have been the case, proper parental controls would have been in place everywhere. Instead, parental controls are only used to maximize profits.
If this would have been the case, proper parental controls would have been in place everywhere. Instead, parental controls are only used to maximize profits.
dont parents control what their kids do? if its that hysterically dangerous, take the phone off your kid.
Applies equaly to land mines and crack cocaine.
The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available.
Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.
The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available.
Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.
> Applies equaly to land mines and crack cocaine
but no parent lets their kid play with either land mines or crack cocaine do they? cos the dangers are real. if the dangers were real, YOU wouldnt be on it would you?
Just like porn, its so dangerous kids just CANNOT be shown it, yet fine for adults obviously. that is not the same for crack cocaine and land mines (ie real dangers)
but no parent lets their kid play with either land mines or crack cocaine do they? cos the dangers are real. if the dangers were real, YOU wouldnt be on it would you?
Just like porn, its so dangerous kids just CANNOT be shown it, yet fine for adults obviously. that is not the same for crack cocaine and land mines (ie real dangers)
Good luck with that. On Android or Windows Google or Microsoft has control on what you can run with parental controls. (I don't know if on Apples iOS parental controls work as expected).
On Android you cannot limit app installation
On Android you cannot limit app installation
You absolutely can enroll devices in device management systems. Parents need to treat their children the same way corporations do with employees.
I'm not normally given to "conspiracy theory", but .. this feels coordinated, right? Quite possibly by the age verification vendors, or some shadier intelligence service sockpuppeting them?
It's just so rare for so many governments to simultaneously, suddenly, after so many years of social media agree that it's a problem on the scale of chloroflurocarbons.
It's just so rare for so many governments to simultaneously, suddenly, after so many years of social media agree that it's a problem on the scale of chloroflurocarbons.
My pet theory is that consciously or unconsciously, democracies are being forced into identifying individuals behind speech online and controlling certain ideas. The status quo is a vulnerability, it makes it too easy for adversaries to manipulate public opinion and sway elections. China and Russia have no such vulnerability. No doubt social media for children is a bad thing, but this is just a convenient excuse to make you hand over your ID.
It’s called “managed democracy” (or guided democracy apparently) and it’s what happens when a democracy decays into authoritarian governance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_democracy
There is also the related term “defensive democracy”, supposedly different but in practice the end result is the same. In both cases the democratic process is failing to achieve the results desired by those in power, so forceful intervention is used to steer future results.
There is also the related term “defensive democracy”, supposedly different but in practice the end result is the same. In both cases the democratic process is failing to achieve the results desired by those in power, so forceful intervention is used to steer future results.
Voting em out: I reckon the hidden key to democracy, is being able to vote disliked politicians out.
Managed democracy seems fine so long as you can remove the bastards if they become Putin-like.
There's a lot of hot air about democracy being voting for parties or politicians for the policies we like. Personally I have never felt that I've ever positively influenced policy with my voting. I have voted against a party because I disliked their policy, but that counterfactual is harder to judge (either my vote loses, or the policy doesn't occur : either way it is unclear if my vote mattered?).
I'm rather cynical about democracy - it feels mostly like children's participation awards (which are great!).
Managed democracy seems fine so long as you can remove the bastards if they become Putin-like.
There's a lot of hot air about democracy being voting for parties or politicians for the policies we like. Personally I have never felt that I've ever positively influenced policy with my voting. I have voted against a party because I disliked their policy, but that counterfactual is harder to judge (either my vote loses, or the policy doesn't occur : either way it is unclear if my vote mattered?).
I'm rather cynical about democracy - it feels mostly like children's participation awards (which are great!).
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of this term.
Yes, the 5rights Foundation + their backers are behind the age verification bits and probably the social media ban, I have no idea what their destination is or how far they will take their prohibition.
They work with other orgs, e.g. Fairplay (formerly CCFC) in the US.
They work with other orgs, e.g. Fairplay (formerly CCFC) in the US.
The less conspiratorial view is that the Australian government was the first to actually legislate it. Much easier for everyone else to follow in someone else's footsteps rather than being the first to take the plunge.
> this feels coordinated, right?
Yes. Like most of the "news".
Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple really need your personal data.
Yes. Like most of the "news".
Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple really need your personal data.
Jonathan Haidt. It’s not a shadowy conspiracy, it’s that all the teachers, parents, and the kids themselves agreed with him.
Sadly it shows that there is really a kind of "world order" conspiracy, and it is not conspiracy theorists that are crazy as we always assumed.
Just have a look at Epstein files, you can see that a lot of "occidental" politics and business leaders were connected to him one way or another. You see that we don't have equal rights but some get privileged info about big financial changes that could help them grow their wealth.
Look at how hard we had to fight Microsoft contracts creeping in everywhere in public institutions and schools, when you see in background that Microsoft was spending billions organizing events, gifts, ... to "legally" bribe officials.
Now we can all see that there is a big dictatorial shift in the political leaders of occidental countries that used to be lands of freedom and rights. Politics see that they are unpopular and there is an uproar of the population to have change, but on the other side they see that a lot of dictatorial countries are able to control their population and stay in power using liberty restriction regulations (China, N Korea, Russia, Arabian countries, ...). So they are going to do the same.
And the best way for them to support such reduction in freedom for populations is to bound together to do it together: - One "western" country leader that would instigate censorship, and reducing freedom and privacy right would be seen too clearly as abusing and on a dictatorial trend. - But if multiple of them push for that at the same time, it might more easily be seen as "for the greater good", because they are the "free countries"...
So sad that the second world war is so far away, almost everyone forgot what happened in the years before the Nazi took control of Germany and started the obvious horrors. But we are on the same path.
Putin's Russia is also a good example of how a country that was on the verge of freedom and liberty for its population, slowly but surely shifted to the current dictatorial state. All of that without a clear "revolution" or sudden shift. And officially it is still a "democratic" country...
Just have a look at Epstein files, you can see that a lot of "occidental" politics and business leaders were connected to him one way or another. You see that we don't have equal rights but some get privileged info about big financial changes that could help them grow their wealth.
Look at how hard we had to fight Microsoft contracts creeping in everywhere in public institutions and schools, when you see in background that Microsoft was spending billions organizing events, gifts, ... to "legally" bribe officials.
Now we can all see that there is a big dictatorial shift in the political leaders of occidental countries that used to be lands of freedom and rights. Politics see that they are unpopular and there is an uproar of the population to have change, but on the other side they see that a lot of dictatorial countries are able to control their population and stay in power using liberty restriction regulations (China, N Korea, Russia, Arabian countries, ...). So they are going to do the same.
And the best way for them to support such reduction in freedom for populations is to bound together to do it together: - One "western" country leader that would instigate censorship, and reducing freedom and privacy right would be seen too clearly as abusing and on a dictatorial trend. - But if multiple of them push for that at the same time, it might more easily be seen as "for the greater good", because they are the "free countries"...
So sad that the second world war is so far away, almost everyone forgot what happened in the years before the Nazi took control of Germany and started the obvious horrors. But we are on the same path.
Putin's Russia is also a good example of how a country that was on the verge of freedom and liberty for its population, slowly but surely shifted to the current dictatorial state. All of that without a clear "revolution" or sudden shift. And officially it is still a "democratic" country...
Well said. Freedom only ratchets one way, we always lose freedom until something monumental happens to reset. Something on the scale of a world war or revolution. The bureaucrats cooking up these laws never loosen the cuffs.
its because of hysteria. same thing happened with tv. some girl in england killed herself after she herself had been searching out suicide content, the algo obviously suggests it back to her and because of that we basically got the Online Child Safety act. Whos going to tell grieving parents the kid did it to herself?
> the algo obviously suggests it back to her
Pro-suicide content has been a thing since the days of USENET. It's been a (lesser) problem on social media since the start. Is it really just that one case got over the hysteria threshold?
But yes, if the algorithm is suggesting pro-suicide content then the developers are morally, if not legally, liable for that and should expect some consequences. I note that one of the few taboos maintained by the otherwise grossly irresponsible UK media is not reporting on suicide (because this is known to be a trigger). You might see "famous musician died suddenly at a young age" and have to connect the dots yourself.
Pro-suicide content has been a thing since the days of USENET. It's been a (lesser) problem on social media since the start. Is it really just that one case got over the hysteria threshold?
But yes, if the algorithm is suggesting pro-suicide content then the developers are morally, if not legally, liable for that and should expect some consequences. I note that one of the few taboos maintained by the otherwise grossly irresponsible UK media is not reporting on suicide (because this is known to be a trigger). You might see "famous musician died suddenly at a young age" and have to connect the dots yourself.
> But yes, if the algorithm is suggesting pro-suicide content then the developers are morally, if not legally,
if she hadnt searched for it herself, it wouldnt have suggested it. the parents (understandly) want to blame someone for it. politics is emotion, not logic.
if she hadnt searched for it herself, it wouldnt have suggested it. the parents (understandly) want to blame someone for it. politics is emotion, not logic.
> if she hadnt searched for it herself, it wouldnt have suggested it
That is not an excuse for suggesting it.
That is not an excuse for suggesting it.
i mean, it kind of is. do they similarly blame chrome for showing suicide content in her auto-complete? this would have never happened if the girl hadnt searched for it herself. and if this suicide content is so powerful, how come everyone who reads it isnt killing themselves? i suspect to search for suicide content, she may well have been suicidal. a bold accusation, i know
Politics is also logic
Lol. Once again, so-called “leaders” mistake the symptoms for the root of the problem. This will end badly. Hopefully the kids pull a Nepal.
well thank god it has absolutely no ill effects on adults or wed all be screwed amirite!>!>!/?!one
A certain part of the political aisle are seeing what free flow of information is doing to their youth numbers and they don’t like it. This is only the beginning.