Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#791

Post by kraf »

roenxi wrote: post #459
zmmmmm wrote: post #405

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it'…

Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make…

This is not about stopping kids from communicating. The list of negative consequences of being on social media is long and real.

A government regulating something is also not authoritarian.

"Government bad" is not an argument by the way, and also not a given. It's just libertarian confusion.

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#792

Post by jfjfnfjrh »

roenxi wrote: post #459
zmmmmm wrote: post #405

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it'…

Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make…

Why not compare it to smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? You need to be an adult to decide legally you can do that and that makes sense. Its the same thing here.

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#794

Post by rdm_blackhole »

tzs wrote: post #621
indymike wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead. Anonymous speech is very important to maintaining freedoms... such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

> "Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead. That depends on the implementation. Do it the wrong way, like many countries or US states, and that is a problem. Do it right, like the EU is doing in their Digital Identity Wallet project, which is currently undergoing large scale field trials, and the site you prove age to gets no information other than that y…

> Do it right, like the EU is doing

Doing it right like the EU? You mean like the EU, scan everything that is sent through anybody's phone in the name of protecting the children?

> the site you prove age to gets no information other than that you are old enough, and your government gets no information about what sites

That is the case for now. What happens when the lobbies get in there and decide that this info is actually very valuable and that they should have the right to know who is visiting their client's websites and apps, will the anonymity remain? I think not.

And what about the defense industry who in the name of fighting terrorism will demand that users that identify themselves on "suspicious" sites now need to have their data recorded?

The issue is that once everyone is using this system, then it's very easy for any government to come and start expanding the scope of the data recorded and as always under the cover of good intentions.

This is how it goes: - In 2025, they record nothing - In 2026, they start logging IP addresses and passing along suspicious log ins to the cops - In 2030 they start recording more and more data until all anonymity is gone

I wouldn't touch the EU's identity wallet with a 10 foot pole and I certainly wouldn't use anything that the EU is doing now as a benchmark considering what happened with the Chat control law recently.

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#795

Post by lencastre »

zmmmmm wrote: post #405

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it'…

triggering thoughts…

it’s a difficult balancing act, and I tend to agree as blocks are put in place, there are very likely two groups of outcomes: the kid gives up and finds other alternatives which can be healthy or unhealthy, the kid perseveres and bypasses the block

both provide good learnings and shape development, but blocking isn’t the answer, communication, understanding, and moderation is

the alternative that one could flood the kid with unfettered access till the kid becomes nauseated and desensitised doesn’t really work either because it can be too risky

the best solution may be something in between, make it a hinderance more than an inconvenience, like the parent post, and go for the greatest impact on network effects, the evil genie in me would make all these platforms super unreliable, spotty at best

but hey, it’s a developmental milestone for the average generation member to rebel against the member’s previous generations

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#797

Post by stinkbeetle »

petesergeant wrote: post #787
roenxi wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make…

It’s Australia, it’s a nanny state and always has been, and much as the locals complain, they also love it, and keep voting for it. The rest of the Anglo world is much less obsessed with government control than the US is; UK is absolutely fine with cameras everywhere, for example, and has almost no protection against parliament. Law enforcement is much more seen as by the people and for the people in these countries.

> It’s Australia, it’s a nanny state and always has been

Australians think of themselves as carefree but good hearted larrikins who snub their nose at authority, and would always be ready to duff a steer or two from a wealthy cattleman for some hungry orphans. The reality is this type of Australian only remains as fading memories in Henry Lawson stories, the few that ever existed. The real Australian is not only a spineless sticklers for the rules completely subservient to authority, with little sense of adventure, but is also very envious of others driven by their greedy and selfish nature.

During covid "lockdowns", Australians were far more eager to tattle on other commoners for breaking the precious rules than they were concerned with questioning government's hypocritical behavior or unscientific rules and policies. It was fine in their minds that their rulers misbehaved, so long as their neighbor didn't get to take their kid to a park if they weren't allowed to as well.

EDIT: I don't mean this to sound overly harsh to Australians, it's not unique to them. What is funny is just their opinion of themselves. At least the British are admittedly subservient sticklers.

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#798

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

jfjfnfjrh wrote: post #792
roenxi wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make…

Why not compare it to smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? You need to be an adult to decide legally you can do that and that makes sense. Its the same thing here.

Exactly, go tell your physician, that any kind of authority is bad.

Its a two sided bias, on the one, governmemt authority is categorically bad and on the other you cant participate and change it. You could frame social media corporations in the way, but not, when you are a libertarian, i guess.

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#799

Post by grahar64 »

Social media is cigarettes. There are lots of studies showing the negative impacts to say that limiting their reach is probably good for society and individuals.

Just about all arguments against this are the same arguments that would stop governments limiting booze or tabaco

Re: Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

#800

Post by mk89 »

I like this article more: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo

It goes through numbers, potential ways it's gonna be implemented, and also which other platforms are affected.

For example:

> Dating websites are excluded along with gaming platforms, as are AI chatbots, which have recently made headlines for allegedly encouraging children to kill themselves and for having "sensual" conversations with minors.

It wasn't enough the online pedo or weirdos trying to get your kids through chats or games.

It wasn't enough the instagram meat grinder that leads to depression, social anxiety, etc.

Now we even have to worry about chatbots leading kids to suicide.

What a hell of a world are we building - no wonder people don't want to make kids anymore.

Post reply on HN