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

Australia's social media ban has failed

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#71

Post by flowerbreeze »

astrobe_ wrote: post #59
intothemild wrote: post #12

I've said this to every single person who pushed for this. "Imagine you're a teenager, and your parents and government tell you to not do something... What will happen?" The answer is of course that they keep doing it anyhow. But hide it. As an Aussie, and a parent. What I wanted was that the government mandate that in order for your website or app to launch in Australia, that if you want to allow kids between certai…

Here some types of small motorize vehicles can be used by persons under 16. Of course, they have built-in speed limiters. What if we had this kind of distinction for mobile devices with Internet access? Adult's smartphone vs kid's smartphone? It could be some sort of combo of a specific "for kids" SIM card (with, say, DNS blocking at ISP level and/or date of birth of the user) and a "kids hardened" OS that prevent by…

It'd be the sensible non-surveillance option. All that would be required is that the OS or SIM sold is a tiny bit different with a flag that the browsers/apps respect and that each website that accepts underage users sends a header that browsers can check and allow/disallow access. Compliance with child friendly legal requirements would still be with the company owning the website.

Of course it's not as attractive to the governments as putting in place a full scale surveillance aparatus that puts KGB to shame.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#72

Post by dalemhurley »

This is pathetic, it is like saying anti smoking laws failed because within a few months teens were still smoking. This is a generational change. No sane person ever expected teens already using social media would stop using social media. It is the next cohort that it is going to make a difference to.

I expect better from Reuters than to be the propaganda mouthpiece of social media platforms.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#73

Post by dalemhurley »

teruakohatu wrote: post #11

It has been banned for a few months. Hardly a failure. It will be a failure if 10 year olds continue to join social media at the rate they have done so in the past. It’s not likely to get 15 year olds who have been addicted for 5 years off it, anymore than smoking bans have any impact on teens who have been smoking or vaping for years.

Exactly. This is a pathetic excuse of “journalism”

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#74

Post by defrost »

Skyy93 wrote: post #66
defrost wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you also standing up for the right of 12 year olds to access porn and graphic violence though? That's a somewhat loaded question, I'll assume you're not (correct me if I'm wrong) and move on to the question of should 12 year olds have smartphones and if so how should they limit access to porn and graphic violence when used by 12 year olds? Please don't fob this off by requiring that all parents should have CS deg…

I think this is a very funny question. Since different countries seem to answer this very differently. In countries like the US the first Season of The Walking Dead was aired with an age rating of TV-14. At the same time the same in Germany this season was rated with an Rating of 18 (Germany uses 0,6,12,18 as ages for rating). So I am somewhat puzzled. Similar when a movie shows a pair of boobs or at least implies so…

> a goverment should not simply impose more and more bans and restrictions.

Fair point. I'd argue that a government should work to the benefit of that governments employers, aka its citizens.

eg: In the instance where parent citizens want more control over phones that flood in from outside, particularly when

> both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, [and] they are not able to do this

for themselves.

I can see the appeal of a UBI income and a minimum wage guaranteed to support parents and families on 20 hours of work per week but that doesn't seem to be as immediate and practical a solution as, for example, a government requiring foreign actors to adhere to certain standards, or requiring foreign hardware suppliers to issue child safe smart phones, or opening a tender for functional parental control software for phones, etc.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#75

Post by grebc »

Skyy93 wrote: post #65
grebc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're trying to say sorry.

My proposition is that parents should have more time for their children. If they would have more time with them, they could fix issues and show to their children how to live a better life instead of becoming a social media controlled zombie. Someone else in this thread mentioned that obesity should be fixed first, different issue, same solution. Since parents are expect from our current society to work both over 40 h…

I feel like your point is tangential to this.

We don't think parental education wholly stops underage drinking or smoking, hence we have laws against it.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#76

Post by dalemhurley »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #68

Here's a revolutionary idea. Instead of mandates, why not lower the tax burden on citizens. That would give move freedom to parents to decide not to work, and actually, parent their kids. Don't force parents to both be absent from home because the burden of the bureaucracy salaries is too great without sucking blood from the middle class Houses don't need to cost 0.5M AUD with long mortgages that force 2 parents to w…

What houses cost under $1.5m?

Plenty of single income families had their children on social media.

This is just a conflation of different issues to push an unrealistic narrative.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#77

Post by dalemhurley »

Alien1Being wrote: post #43

Here in Australia, every parent I have spoken to is happy about the ban. The media is predictably unhappy since they lose eyeballs, advertising revenue and money. Previous approaches like expecting parents to educate children failed miserably. Most parents lacked at least one or more of motivation, time or knowledge.

Exactly. This is a propaganda piece from the social media platforms

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#79

Post by Skyy93 »

defrost wrote: post #74
Skyy93 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a very funny question. Since different countries seem to answer this very differently. In countries like the US the first Season of The Walking Dead was aired with an age rating of TV-14. At the same time the same in Germany this season was rated with an Rating of 18 (Germany uses 0,6,12,18 as ages for rating). So I am somewhat puzzled. Similar when a movie shows a pair of boobs or at least implies so…

> a goverment should not simply impose more and more bans and restrictions. Fair point. I'd argue that a government should work to the benefit of that governments employers, aka its citizens. eg: In the instance where parent citizens want more control over phones that flood in from outside, particularly when > both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, [and] they are not able to do this for themselves. I can see t…

I do not think we will come to an agreement here. For me the current solution feels like patchwork and through this behaviour, which goverments all around the world follow, we postpone urgent policy changes further and further.

Especially that once rights are taken they are much harder to get back.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#80

Post by Skyy93 »

grebc wrote: post #75
Skyy93 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My proposition is that parents should have more time for their children. If they would have more time with them, they could fix issues and show to their children how to live a better life instead of becoming a social media controlled zombie. Someone else in this thread mentioned that obesity should be fixed first, different issue, same solution. Since parents are expect from our current society to work both over 40 h…

I feel like your point is tangential to this. We don't think parental education wholly stops underage drinking or smoking, hence we have laws against it.

And it also does not stop underage drinking or smoking, despite having the law. I understand why we have this law as it has a physical impact and literaly no upsides.

However, smartphone usage and also the use of social media can have positive impact and is not inheritly damaging. Which is why I argue that a ban seems like the wrong direction.

Post reply on HN