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

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#111

Post by iamnothere »

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…

> The answer is of course that they keep doing it anyhow. But hide it.

Not only hide it, but develop a (suddenly healthy) contempt for the rule of law.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#112

Post by tgv »

Skyy93 wrote: post #28
tgv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smart phone is a human right, according to you? Of course you can ban them. The addicts will have to wean off, but after that, there's no disadvantage.

I think it is a human right that I decide for myself what is good for me and what is bad for me. I have for example Instagram and Facebook, but only to look what kind of Magic the Gathering Events are at the weekend, do I look at reels and doom scroll? No. So I would not say I am addicted despite having a smartphone. Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.

That's even worse than saying: fentanyl helps me overcome pain, so it should be felt available to everyone. You're either a hardcore contrarian or a hardcore libertarian. Or living under a rock?

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#113

Post by tgv »

Cider9986 wrote: post #25
tgv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smart phone is a human right, according to you? Of course you can ban them. The addicts will have to wean off, but after that, there's no disadvantage.

Considering it's how many people engage in speech, yes.

What does that mean? The form suggests disagreement, but the content doesn't connect.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#114

Post by hydrox24 »

noduerme wrote: post #42
hydrox24 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the parent, but there is a view that this was, alongside the earlier News Media Bargaining Code in 2021, the under-16s ban legislation was at least partially motivated by an interest in benefitting the legacy or mainstream media in Australia. The Prime Minister's announcement of the policy included, unusually, a callout to one of the major news organisations (Newscorp) for their campaign (called Let Them Be…

Huh. I mean, that's interesting (that legacy media lobbied for the ban). So but Murdoch doesn't own Reddit, what's the upshot there? More links to Sky/Fox?

I am not sure why Reddit was excluded, but the implied reason for the view I outlined in my comment is not about preferential treatment for one of the mainstream media firms so much as about a tool to drive a return in advertising dollars to traditional media, and away from technology firms. There is also more explicit work being done to do this.[0]

Having said all of that, the social media ban polled well and I think that the popularity of the policy is the parsimonious explanation for why it was developed.

[0]: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-finalises-tech-gi...

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#115

Post by ranger_danger »

intothemild wrote: post #31
ranger_danger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice idea but how are you going to prevent the kids from creating their own parent accounts while preserving people's privacy and without being too invasive?

You introduce it at a really young age, which is what we did for our daughter. She doesn't get access to anything that doesn't have good parental controls. So far it's working fine, I expect that to change in the future. But it's also both the carrot and the stick at the moment. As for creating parent accounts themselves. Imagine you've got a kid, you've created an account for you and the kid.. you have stats, data,…

That's what I meant... good parenting aside, I would wager the vast majority still need a way to get blocked because the parents aren't going to do it. As a country, that's what they're struggling with, and what I was asking for a better solution for.

We're at the point now at least in the US where pre-teens already have (secured) starter credit cards they got from a joint account with their parents and can now order anything online they want. And don't forget, companies automatically assume valid credit card = over 18.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#116

Post by inigyou »

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…

What if that's the point? What if having to hide it means you do it less?

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#117

Post by inigyou »

Skyy93 wrote: post #80
grebc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to assume that if a single child still smokes or drinks, the law is a failure? That is not the case.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#118

Post by inigyou »

sermah wrote: post #96
dalemhurley wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever hear of anti smoking laws? They took decades but have been extremely effective in Australia.

These ones help people to stop or avoid smoking. If you want to smoke, you still will. As for social media, people don’t really want to stop or avoid using it

Everyone wanted to smoke. And then less people did. And the nobody did, apart from the ones who were already addicted. How do you attribute that?

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#119

Post by inigyou »

sermah wrote: post #99
croes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So banning CFCs didn’t work? What about the FDA‘s bans on food ingredients? They don’t work, companies just become more secretive?

These things you can check and penalize companies for violations. As I said in the sibling comment, I’m talking about people’s own will. You can’t say “Ban smoking” and expect that all smokers quit.

No one is expecting all the kids to quit social media. Just that less kids will use it and they'll use it less. And more kids won't use it at all.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#120

Post by inigyou »

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…

Any tax reduction on the average household will just become a rent increase, and nothing will change for the household.
Post reply on HN