Facebook says sharing is increasingly going private

While announcing another solid set of numbers, Facebook revealed that sharing is increasingly moving to private channels.

This presents some business challenges for Facebook as monetising services such as instant messaging has proven to be more difficult than just slapping ads in the middle of public streams. As a consequence Facebook’s share price fluctuated a fair bit during the earnings call on the back of knee-jerk reactions from investors.

“Public sharing will always be very important, but people increasingly want to share privately too — and that includes both to smaller audiences with messaging, and ephemerally with stories,” said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a public Facebook post. “People feel more comfortable being themselves when they know their content will only be seen by a smaller group and when their content won’t stick around forever. Messaging and stories make up the vast majority of growth in the sharing that we’re seeing.

Now, it’s worth noting that one of the main reasons people prefer our services — especially WhatsApp — is because of its stronger record on privacy. WhatsApp is completely end-to-end encrypted, does not store your messages, and doesn’t store the keys to your messages in China or anywhere else. This is important because if our systems can’t see your messages, then that means governments and bad actors won’t be able to access them through us either.”

It’s very interesting that Zuck chose to attribute such importance to privacy. There have, of course, been all sorts of panics this year around data privacy, with the Cambridge Analytica scandal still clearly fresh in Zuck’s mind. People are rightly more aware than ever of the implications of publishing their personal stuff on the internet and it’s possible that we may have reached peak social media sharing.

Another contributing factor may be the increasing likelihood of being permanently banned from social media platforms for posting content that falls fowl of increasingly broad censorship parameters. Most recently Facebook has taken down accounts associated with conservative activist group The Proud Boys and it seems likely that the move to private messaging is influenced by fear of being banned.

Zuck noted that a lot of this private sharing happens over platforms he owns – Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp – but censorship attention has now moved to his other main property: Instagram. The Daily Beast, NYT, and Verge have all written recently about how much horridness there is on Instagram and how shouldn’t be tolerated. As public sharing becomes increasingly risky, this move to private is likely to accelerate.

Don’t listen to the moaners, phones are great – Three

Three has launched a new marketing campaign designed to counter all the moaning about how bad phones are for you.

In a new campaign, simply named ‘Phones are Good’, the telco imagines how historical moments would have been different if smartphones had been around. From Henry VIII on Tinder, to the Titanic with GPS, it’s a bit of fun which indirectly encourages people to use the internet more, playing directly into Three’s USP.

“At a time when we are being told to get off our phones, Three’s customers are actually using them three and a half times more than other providers,” said Shadi Halliwell, Chief Marketing Officer at Three. “That’s because, unlike others, we understand how real people use their phones.

“And although we shouldn’t be on our phones 24/7, if it weren’t for our mobiles how would you find love lounging on the sofa? Buy new shoes while sitting on the toilet? Or get a chicken cooked, seasoned, garnished and delivered to your door at the drop of a hat? As the Best Network for Data, it is our duty to challenge the cynics, and help everyone see that Phones Are Good.”

As you can see from the video below, it’s a creative way to get Three’s message across, and quite entertaining.

While Three is suggesting all these wonderful ideas on how mobile phones could have changed the course of history, there is of course the other side of the coin…

  • If the Mesopotamians had used MyBuilder.com for its reviews of local tradesmen, their grain storage units would have never leaked and beer would not be a thing
  • The Spanish Armada of 1588 could have been successful in its mission to conquer England if Sir Francis Drake was taking numerous selfies for the perfect Instagram post instead of gazing onto the horizon
  • Had a clumsy Chinese chef been following a YouTube recipe he might not have dropped a natural coagulant called nigari into a pot of soybean milk and created Tofu
  • Juliet might never have fallen for Romeo had she done a bit of Facebook stalking beforehand (admittedly this didn’t really happen)
  • If Percy Spencer had been using a calorie counting app, he would have never had that chocolate bar in his pocket and invented the microwave
  • Finally, without the power of Twitter the US might have a logical and caring human being in charge…

Of course, the revolutionary impact of mobile devices, not just the smartphone, is countered with negatives. Instead of talking to that lonely women on the bus, we stare at cats playing the piano and or toddlers biting siblings fingers. But, we more connected to family members on the other side of the planet. There’s always rough with the smooth.

Ultimately Three is attempting to push the advantages of the internet and encourage more people to consume more data. As the telco which sells itself to the more digital-enthusiastic users, using the internet more benefits it. It sells itself on data volume more than anything else.

The idea of the smartphone contradicts all the lessons of politeness and paying attention which we were taught as children. Perhaps the next thing we should be worried about is virtual reality. Parents have been telling children all around the world sitting too close to a TV screen is bad for your eyes, yet VR places a screen inches in front of your face.

Facebook and Twitter coordinate once more over censorship

Facebook recently removed hundreds of accounts for ‘inauthentic’ behaviour and many of those affected have also seen their Twitter accounts suspended.

In a press release entitled ‘Removing Additional Inauthentic Activity from Facebook’, Facebook explained that its doesn’t like inauthentic behaviour, by which it means accounts that seek to mislead people about their real identities and/or objectives. While there is some concern that this could be driven by the desire to influence politics, Facebook reckons it’s mostly ‘clickbait’, designed to drive and then monetise internet traffic.

“And like the politically motivated activity we’ve seen, the ‘news’ stories or opinions these accounts and pages share are often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate,” said the release. “This is why it’s so important we look at these actors’ behaviour – such as whether they’re using fake accounts or repeatedly posting spam – rather than their content when deciding which of these accounts, pages or groups to remove.”

So Facebook is not saying it’s the arbiter of ‘authentic’ speech, which is very wise as that would put it in a highly compromised position. Instead it’s taking action against people posting political content via supposedly fake accounts or who are seen to generate spam. It seems to be hoping this will allow it to remove certain accounts that focus on political content without being accused of political meddling or bias.

All this context and preamble was offered to set up the big reveal, which is that Facebook has removed 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have broken its rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behaviour. It looks like the timing of this renewed purge is influenced by the imminent US mid-term elections, with Facebook keen to avoid a repetition of claims made during the Cambridge Analytica scandal that it facilitated political meddling by allowing too much of this sort of thing to take place during the last US general election.

Of course Facebook is free to quality control its platform as much as it likes, but if it is seen to lack neutrality and objectivity in so doing, it runs the risk of alienating those of its users that feel discriminated against. In this case the loudest dissent seems to be coming from independent media, some of which feel they have been mistakenly identified as clickbaiters.

The Washington Post spoke to ‘Reasonable People Unite’, which was shut down by Facebook, but which claims to be legitimate (let alone authentic). Meanwhile Reason.com reckons libertarian publishers were targeted and spoke to the founder of The Free Thought Project, who also found himself banned in spite of claimed legitimacy.

Matt Agorist, who writes for The Free Thought Project, tweeted the following, and his subsequent piece indicated that his employer had also been removed from Twitter. This seems to be another manifestation (Alex Jones having been the most high-profile previous case) of coordinated activity between the two sites that, together with YouTube, dominate public debate in the US. A number of other publishers removed by Facebook seem now to have been suspended by Twitter.

Other independent journalists have joined the outcry, including Caitlin Johnstone and Tim Pool in the video below. The latter makes the point that many of those purged seem to be left-leaning, which at least balances the previous impression that right-leaning commentators were being disproportionately targeted, and that many of the accounts taken down may well have been guilty as charged. But the inherent subjectivity involved in determining the relative legitimacy of small publishers is a problem that is only amplified by this latest move.

It seems unlikely that the primary objective of these social media giants is to impose their world view via the censorship of content they disagree with, but this kind of coordinated banning does feel like unilateral speech policing and that should be of concern, regardless of your political position. Twitter doesn’t even seem to have made any public statements on the matter. Meanwhile the range of views considered ‘authentic’ by these private companies seems to be narrowing by the day.

 

Even Snapchat is getting into the original content game

With social networking services seeking to improve the quality of content they host by making their own, even ephemeral messaging service Snapchat has felt compelled to act.

Snapchat has been teasing the idea of creating its own video content for at least a year, but this somewhat counter-intuitive move has taken a while to become reality. There is presumably only a very specific type of video content that is best consumed via a mobile messaging apps and now we finally get to see what that is.

“Today, we’re excited to debut Snap Originals – exclusive shows created by some of the world’s greatest storytellers, with new episodes released every day,” said the announcement. “Our first slate of Snap Originals includes Co-Ed, a new comedy from the Duplass Brothers; Class of Lies, a mystery thriller from one of the minds behind Riverdale; and Endless Summer, a docuseries following rising stars in Laguna Beach — from Bunim/Murray, the creators of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

“Snap Originals will also feature new Show Portals, letting you swipe up and step inside a scene from a Show to experience it for yourself. Snap Originals will also have Lenses, Filters, and other fun ways for you to share the show experience with your friends.

You can see the promotional video below. It indicates that Snapchat is trying to do some novel things that play to the strengths of video consumed via a smartphone. This trend also reinforces the consensus that video-driven mobile data consumption is growing exponentially and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Facebook eyes up the connected home space

Facebook has seemingly taken its first steps towards the connected home market with the launch of Portal.

As it stands, Portal is being marketed simply as a video calling product, though with partnerships with various content streaming channels and a tie-in with Amazon’s Alexa, the future could see Facebook enter the fray as a competitor in the smart home hardware segment.

Two products will be released to start with, Portal and Portal+. Portal will feature a 10-inch 1280 x 800 display, while Portal+ is a larger model with a 15-inch 1920 x 1080 pivoting display. Powered by AI, Facebook claims the smart camera automatically pans and zooms to keep everyone in view, while smart sound features minimize background noise and enhances the voice of whoever is talking. How effective the AI remains to be seen, however now the idea of smart communications products have been normalised in the home it won’t be too long before some pretty impressive products will start hitting the market.

Such a venture could prove to be a very useful gander for the Facebookers, as diversification is going to need to happen sooner or later. With younger demographics searching elsewhere for their social media fix, Snapchat and Facebook-owned Instagram benefiting, pressure will soon start to mount on the advertising business.

Shareholders are used to exceptional year-on-year growth figures, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to see these flatten; people are becoming less engaged by the platform, therefore spending less time exposed to adverts, while recent figures have shown key markets are not boosting total subscription numbers. Sooner or later a threshold will be hit; only so many adverts can be placed in front of users. Perhaps this is where the Portal products can help.

Unlike the other internet giants Facebook hasn’t really done an exceptional job of diversification. It has added more advertising products (i.e. different ways to engage users on the platform), but this isn’t genuine diversification. If the audience for the core product declines, Facebook’s business suffers; it doesn’t matter how many products there are if no-one is one the other side of the screen to see them.

Google or Amazon however have supported their core business with outside bets. Think of the cloud computing businesses they own, or the content platforms, or ventures into the grocery sectors. These are ventures which diversify enough to ensure negative impacts on the core business do not have a significant impact, however, close enough to lean on the brand and expertise.

With the Portal products, Facebook could make a play for the focal point of the smart home. This has a couple of interesting benefits, one of which will be controlling the gateway and therefore access to the consumer. By operating a window to the consumer, the owner of the window can charge access to gaze through. Partnerships are already in place with the likes of Spotify Premium, Pandora, and iHeartRadio, as well as Food Network and Newsy. This is a business model which could certainly be successful should Portal offer scale.

It is a simple, but effective idea. The window owner would also have the opportunity to launch new services and products which be installed as default, offering an entry-point to the data economy, in the same way Google dominates the mobile OS space with Android.

The focal point of the smart home is still an on-going battle, though Amazon and Google do seem to be winning with their smart speakers. The telcos have a chance with the router, though the proactive nature of the internet players is wrestling the ecosystem behind the speakers. However, today’s generations demand screens. Amazon has been trying to launch its own smart device with a built-in screen for months, though a difficult relationship with YouTube has not helped the situation.

Should Facebook be able to launch a video-orientated product, with high-enough specs, deep connections to the smart home ecosystem and smart enough AI applications, it could make a dent in the market. No-one has really produced a product which grips onto the space, and priced at $199 and $349, it isn’t out of the question for the Portal and Portal+.

Unsurprisingly, Facebook has made a point of security. AI applications are stored on the device, meaning data will be processed locally not transferred to the cloud. It’s almost as if Facebook has accepted it has a terrible reputation for data collection and management, and is offering an alternative to trusting the team with your personal information.

The big question is whether people trust the Facebook brand enough to give the business such prominent influence over so many different aspects of their lives. Even with a physical cover for the camera lens, users might be sceptical, though if there is ambition for additional services, there is a lot of work which will need to be done. The brand is not in a very good position when it comes to credibility and trust.

Another area which might prove to be a stickler for the product is that you have to have a Facebook account for it to work. This might not prove to be an issue at all in the long-run, though considering there will be people who don’t have and don’t want a Facebook account, or people who have intentionally deleted theirs as a result of recent scandals, it might be immediately ruling out a number of potential customers.

Nearly all UK workers muck about on mobile devices during meetings

UK VAR Probrand surveyed 1,000 UK workers about their use of tech in the workplace and found most of them multitask regularly.

89% of the people surveyed said they check devices during meetings, which may be indicative of poor attention spans or being over-worked but is more likely to be a coping mechanism for pointless meetings and tediously self-important presentations. Having said that 81% of them dick about on devices while they’re doing other stuff too.

The most popular activities for this tech multitasking are: checking email, social media and instant messaging, none of which is much of a surprise. Around half of those surveyed reckon this kind of multitasking makes them more efficient, while the other half think it’s wrecking their attention span. The two things aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive but focusing on just one task at a time seems to be an increasingly rare thing.

“The rise of multiple devices in the workplace in addition to the advent of remote cloud-based technologies mean that it’s never been easier for workers to be switched on 24/7 – but the research shows this isn’t always helpful,” said Probrand Marketing Director Matt Royle. “Some workers are being distracted by their devices during meetings, which can actually hamper productivity and focus.
“This is the workforce of the future, where a fully mobile workforce can collaborate and continue working when travelling or outside the office. This enterprise mobile movement is set to continue and those who fully embrace the multi-device environment will enable employees to work more flexibly and efficiently.”

This research coincides with the UK Health Secretary publicly wringing his hands about the mental health effects of social media use on children. “Unrestricted use by younger children risks being very damaging to their mental health. So I have asked the chief medical officer to bring forward formal guidance on its use by children.”

While the concerns are justified it seems unlikely that some arbitrary time limit advice from the man in Whitehall will do any good. Today’s parents may be under-informed about the effects of social media, so providing them with information to enable them to make their own parenting decisions would probably be more constructive.

Europe gets tech and ad giants to play ball on ‘online disinformation’

The European Commission’s drive to control what takes place online took one more step forward with the unveiling of a code of practice on online disinformation.

This code has apparently been signed up to by unnamed internet and advertising giants, but in its current form it appears to be nothing more than a set of vague aspirations designed to placate the EC for now. However it will probably be used as the thin end of the wedge to extract further concessions down the line.

It is an important step in tackling a problem which has become increasingly pervasive and threatens Europeans’ trust in democratic processes and institutions,” said Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mariya Gabriel. “This is the first time that the industry has agreed on a set of self-regulatory standards to fight disinformation worldwide, on a voluntary basis.

“The industry is committing to a wide range of actions, from transparency in political advertising to the closure of fake accounts and demonetisation of purveyors of disinformation, and we welcome this. These actions should contribute to a fast and measurable reduction of online disinformation. To this end, the Commission will pay particular attention to its effective implementation.”

Voluntary. That’s a good one. You can find out more about this voluntary code on this European Commission site. Disinformation is defined as ‘verifiably false or misleading information’. One good example of this could be describing something as ‘voluntary’ when in fact it was subject to duress. The EC and signatories will presumably argue the toss over what qualifies as ‘misleading’ for a while before everyone moves on.

UK news media want tech giants to pay them annual license fees

A UK governmental review into threats to the press, principally from the internet, has led to calls for tech giants to pay for news content that appears on their platforms.

The Cairncross review asked for submissions on the matter earlier this month and has so far received them from the News Media Association, press regulators IPSO and IMPRESS, and the National Union of Journalists. The NMA one is headed “NMA Calls For Licence Fee Agreement With Tech Giants”.

“A fair and equitable content licence fee agreement would ensure that news media publishers are appropriately rewarded for the use of their content by the tech giants, safeguarding the future of independent journalism which underpins our democracy,” opened the NMA press release.

“The primary focus of concern today is the loss of advertising revenues which have previously sustained quality national and local journalism and are now flowing to the global search engines and social media companies who make no meaningful contribution to the cost of producing the original content from which they so richly benefit.”

On one hand this smacks of special pleading by an industry that has found its business model rendered obsolete within a generation. But on the other there are good arguments that the press should receive special treatment given their democratic role in holding power to account and informing the population. This is also a good time to be trying to extract money from tech giants, following the approval of tough new digital copyright rules by the EU.

Given the virtual impossibility of tracking every news link published on every digital platform, the plan seems to be to come up with some kind of arbitrary license fee, essentially a special tax, and impose it on any tech company that is perceived to be profiting from news stories in any way. This cash would then be handed over to news media organisations according to a formula yet to be determined.

One of the potential variables for determining how much of a kick-back a given title would get could be the highly subjective concept of ‘quality. The NUJ and the regulators all dwell on this a fair bit but seem to all have their own definitions of quality.

“The union believes that the best definition of what constitutes ‘high quality journalism’ is work that complies with the NUJ’s long-established ethical code of conduct and the NUJ’s submission to the review highlights that NUJ members work hard to produce quality content for websites and newspapers in extremely challenging circumstances,” said the full stop-averse NUJ.

“Another problem with the move towards accessing our news online is the proliferation of fake news, often disseminated through social media,” said IPSO. “Without a thriving press, there’s little antidote to online disinformation – and the effect this might have on the public’s ability to participate meaningfully in society should be of concern to us all.”

IMPRESS wants the UK government to “create a new legal identity – ‘Public Interest News’ – for the publishers of high-quality journalism. This identity would be distinct from charitable status, so that publishers could still publish political news and comment, but it would have some of the benefits of charitable status.”

By definition a free press should be unshackled by external quality control. The European Commission has recently indicated it would like to regulate newspapers to prevent them criticising it and campaigning organisations such as Hacked Off (which supports IMPRESS, incidentally), want to restrict the press according to their own systems of weights and measures.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore this issue. Google and Facebook account for a very high proportion of all ad spend in most places they operate and a lot of the traffic they monetise is driven by content produced by professional journalists. Even alternatives to mainstream media are dependent on tech platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. While this internet tax has many flaws it is at least a reminder to the tech giants that if they don’t do more to ensure a healthy and diverse news media environment, governments might take matters into their own hands.

Facebook creative culture questioned as Instagram founders exit

In a move which should have Instagrammers all around the world worried, co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger have decided to take their leave from the popular social media platform.

With a short and sweet statement, Systrom has announced he and Krieger would be leaving the company they founded in 2010 to take a break and find themselves. While it might sound like the pair are readying their backpacks for a couple of months sipping beers and relaxing in hammocks, the wording does not suggest the Facebook business is in a particularly healthy state.

“We’re now ready for our next chapter,” wrote Systrom. “We’re planning on taking some time off to explore our curiosity and creativity again. Building new things requires that we step back, understand what inspires us and match that with what the world needs; that’s what we plan to do.”

This of course might mean nothing in particular, though it does seem to suggest the pair need to move elsewhere to flex their creative muscles. Is Systrom indirectly accusing Facebook and its legions of employees of lacking creativity and the absence of an environment to experiment with new ideas?

Having launched in 2010, the app proved to be an instant hit collecting one million users within the first two months. By the end of the first year, 10 million accounts had been created, a number which increased to over 800 million by the end of 2017. The platform was acquired in by Facebook in April 2012 for $31 billion in cash and stock, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing in the most recent earnings call the one billion user mark had been passed. The last couple of quarters have seen commercial activity on the platform increase notably.

While those who own such platforms are perfectly entitled to monetize their ideas, Instagram has been protected from the over-commercialised approach which has plagued the Facebook platform and destroyed the user experience. A balance has to be struck between advertising and maintaining a platform which entertains and engages users. The Facebook platform risks running the wrong direction.

In retaining the services of the two co-founders, perhaps this was the protection the platform needed from money-hungry Zuckerberg. With these two exiting the business what will become of the Instagram platform?

The Facebook platform has been suffering recently. While it is certainly a money making machine, this drive towards profitability has seemingly impacted user experience and the appeal of the platform. User growth has been slowing, with some questioning whether the glass ceiling is fast approaching, though there does seem to be a lack of creative spark in the platform. New features have been remarkably similar (some might suggest identical) to that of competitors, suggesting there is more of a focus on sweating assets for profitability as opposed to creating a platform which is attractive and engaging for users.

Research also supports the premise competitors are doing better at engaging younger audiences than Facebook. The Pew Research Centre has suggested only 51% of US teens aged 13-17 use Facebook today, with only 10% listing it as their preferred social media platform, compared to Instagram (72% use), Snapchat (69%) and YouTube (85%). In the Center’s 2014-2015 survey of teen social media use, 71% of teens reported being Facebook users, while 52% said they had an Instagram account and 41% for Snapchat.

With Systrom and Krieger leaving the business, citing a search for creativity as the reason, the assumption of a lack of creativity is being reinforced. The big question which remains is what is in store for Instagram?

With one billion accounts, low-advertising penetration in comparison to other platforms and a focus on younger demographics, this would certainly be an attractive proposition for any advertisers. The team has also done a much better job of capitalising on the video trend than parent-company Facebook, offering more opportunity to engage the motion-hungry users.

As co-founders, Systrom and Krieger would have certainly been influential on the development of the platform, though how much of the commercial tides were the pair holding back? Once replacements have been lined-up we’ll have a better idea as to whether this is a transition from Instagram 1.0 to Instagrabcash 2.0. We suspect Zuckerberg and the rest of the Facebook executives will be eyeing up Instagram to bolster year-on-year advertising numbers.

Only time will tell whether Zuckerberg will be able to over-commercialise this platform and destroy customer experience once again, but Systrom’s indirect critique of the environment does not suggest the best of scenarios.

Teens feel they’re being manipulated by tech giants

A new report from US youth-advisory NPO Common Sense claims 72% of US teens feel they are being manipulated to spending more time on their smartphones.

The report, which covers a wide range of topics from the preferences of teenagers in the US through to the emotional impact social media has on their lives, makes the bold claim Silicon Valley is playing the puppet master with the emotionally fragile teens being pulled from pillar to post. Unfortunately, while these teenagers realise they are being manipulated into spending more time on mobile devices as opposed to other important tasks, they seemingly feel somewhat powerless to resist.

“They understand that tech companies are manipulating them into spending more time on their devices, but they aren’t always able to resist,” the report states. “This is especially concerning when it comes to teens going to sleep or driving, where the potential health impacts for young people are substantial. But there are other, subtler ways in which teens may not even realize they’re being tracked or manipulated.”

With 72% recognising they are possibly being manipulated into spending more time staring at the tiny screen, you have to question why they are seemingly accepting this as an inevitability. Unfortunately, whether recognised or not, due to the way in which the digital society has developed, teenagers are becoming empowered or disillusioned by the success of social media activities. Although the negative impact is noted, the acknowledgement is not enough to remove the strangle hold on the emotional well-being of this demographic.

For those who are classed as having low social-emotional well-being, 70% sometimes feel excluded when using social media, 43% have deleted posts due to not having enough ‘likes’ and 43% feel bad about themselves if no-one reacts to their posts. The post reaction is an interesting one which the technology companies seem to be capitalizing on by expanding the variety of ways users can interact with a post (a range of different emojis). This has the power to compound the impact of the reaction on the user. 21% also feel more popular by using social media, 20% more confident and 18% better about themselves. These statistics show there is the power of good in social media.

While we might feel sorry for this apparently emotionally fragile segment of society, you have to question whether this is to patronising. It is easy to sit upon a strident high-horse and cast criticism down, though some adults should perhaps have a look at themselves. Your correspondent is guilty of checking how many likes have been received when putting something up on social media. Just because the media attention is directed towards teenagers does not mean we are not just as vulnerable or crave the validation of social media acceptance.

Another interesting aspect of the report is the way in which we communicate. Unsurprisingly, preference for face-to-face communication is declining, though it has now been over-taken as the most popular answer in favour of texting. Texting was selected as the top answer by 35% of respondents, in-person by 32%, 16% for social media and 10% selected video chatting.

Digital means of communicating are becoming increasingly popular, this is not news, though the question should be asked as to whether this is the new norm. This demographic is the first which could genuinely claim to be digitally native, and considering the aggressive thrust of technology in the face of young people nowadays, there should be little surprise. Perhaps this is only a blip, and as these young people mature they will realise the value of face-to-face communications? We doubt it, and believe this to be another patronising assumption.

Again, adults are not immune from this behaviour for which teens get criticized so heavily for. In your office, how often do you send an email instead of walking the thirty yards to have a conversation with a colleague? How often are phone calls ignored? How often are catch-ups done nowadays over the phone instead of going to grab a coffee? This might sound incredibly preachy, but your correspondent is incredibly guilty of it, occasionally ignoring a phone call in the knowledge an easier-to-deal-with email or WhatsApp message would follow.

Hearing technology companies are potentially emotionally manipulating teenagers into using their platforms more often is hardly a surprise, it is how they make money after all. But before you feel too sorry for the teenagers of the world, perhaps you should consider how much of a hold these platforms have on your life.