Social media companies are using tobacco giants’ playbook in refusing to admit they are harming children, Lord Puttnam has said.
In an exclusive interview and article for The Telegraph, the renowned film producer says social media firms are acting in the same way as tobacco manufacturers, who sought to “wilfully deny” the damage their products caused when they faced tougher regulation in the 1990s.
And so are the UPF companies, and the vaping, and the booze, and the fossil fuel and….well, everyone who doesn’t bow down to hte current left liberal consensus. Which, if we’re honest about it, might be the linking thread there. Not the tactics, but the left libeals squeeing that someone disagrees with them.
The fag companies in the UK didn’t deny it in the 90s. The 60s maybe.
All you have with social media is some vague psychological studies based on self-reporting.
What’s the evidence in the stats? How many kids are failing exams? Getting knocked up? Topping themselves compared to before?
Vee vill ask zer kwestions.
Hasn’t #metoo got him yet? Or is he sufficiently left wing to be immune?
What do other ‘renowned film producers’ think about this issue. Come to think of it, what qualifies him to be considered someone worthy of listening to on any other subject than film producing?
I wouldn’t consider him worth listening to on that, considering how many flops he had.
People only really know him because Chariots of Fire won the Oscar. There’s 4 or 5 watchable films from him whole career.
He was good at knockabout screwball comedies, like Midnight Express and The Killing Fields ( or Carry on Khmer Rouge ).
I can see Charles Hawtrey as Ho Chi Minh and Kenneth Connor as Kissinger.
In truth, there’s those 2, and Local Hero and Bugsy Malone are really good. Chariots of Fire is boring. I can only assume someone was dishing out suitcases of cash for that to beat Raiders of the Lost Ark to best picture.
Well, a bloke who makes films for a living should know all about psychological harm to kids. I still bear the mental scars of finding out why John Wayne’s gun was called a six shooter when I’d just seen him kill 38 Indians without reloading…
I thought it meant the Duke could shoot six injuns at a time.
Children are socialising with each other, authorities horrified. Film at 11.
Film producers are using tobacco giants’ playbook in refusing to admit they are harming children, self-appointed expert has said.
In June 2019, Puttnam chaired the special House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee,[24] set up to investigate the impact of digital technologies on democracy and oversaw the publication of its findings in June 2020. The report, Digital Technology & the Resurrection of Trust, made 45 recommendations to government to address the spread of misinformation and disinformation and the consequential erosion of public trust. And that the media has a duty to “balance freedom of expression with wider moral and social responsibilities.”
Let me decide, I’m a film producer.
I am a non-smoker – always have been – and hate it when people let their smoke intrude into my space – but… If I got in a time machine, and went back to an RAF airfield in 1943, could I tell those kids about to get into their Lancaster that smoking would kill them decades hence? They were probably thinking that they wouldn’t see sunrise. If that cigarette calmed their nerves, it was a health benefit.
Social media companies are taking lots of viewers, money and profits away from the movie industry .
Movie industry man says social media companies should be restricted.
Turkeys support a ban on Christmas.
Social media companies are not tobacco companies. Defamation writ large.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to an inappropriate authority.
Parents are responsible for what their children are exposed to, not social media companies. Putnam/Telegraph imply that everything should be childproofed. Well, no, “Not my job, Mon.” And I betcha this is Putnam/Telegraph trying to get their nose under the tent to require social media to monitor content. It’s for the children.
The non-science playbook. Make unprovable, therefore unfalsifiable, claims about something. Accuse anyone who does not accept guilt of “denying”. Like, climate change will destroy the Planet and Mankind causing it by burning fossil fuels. It’s “true” because all the experts agree.
Smoking tobacco was by empirical methods be shown to cause pathological changes at the cellular level in autopsy of Humans, and comparative animal studies.
I haven’t seen this done with alleged harm of social media on children.
Claims are not evidence and not science.
Asking to prove claims of harm from whatever source is not refusing to admit harm.
We need to go back to the days when teenagers could afford fags. Apparently Gen Z is the first generation in recorded history to be cognitively inferior to their parents (!)
A nice, calming drag of nicotine gets the brain moving. Also, it encourages spacial awareness (are there any teachers in sight?)
Since children were banned from buying tobacco, the tobacco giants may have felt justified in denying that they were harming children. How did this article get into the UKIPgraph instead of the Grauniad?
Film producers are like tobacco companies, they deny they use special effects and tricks and wheezes to get us hooked on their product and when we go an see it they encourage us to scoff crap that is bad for us.