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

Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 345 posts

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#121

Post by Timwi »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #27
larrysalibra wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under 16 year olds cannot vote, are not represented and have no recourse. when one group votes to make rules for another group that cannot vote, it can be called many things, but "democracy" is not one of them.

When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting" Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke

> When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting"

Is it? Last time I checked I thought that was only when parents or legal guardians do it to a small number of children in their care, not when politicians do it to all children in an entire country.

But even if I accept your premise, your comment makes me wonder if you've never heard of people who are bad at parenting, or who are downright abusive to the children in their care.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#122

Post by eimrine »

poilcn wrote: post #103
voidfunc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonizing social media is this generations version of demonizing rock and roll. It's so tiring.

Is it? You can see the actual harm caused by web sites. Doomscrolling in all age groups. Going to bed very late at night. Girls having body dysmorphia cause of instagram. Young men having porn addition and having no ambition to interact with real women

The latter is the scariest but the least binded to a social media (except of underground ones which will never have age verification anyway).

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#123

Post by eimrine »

labster wrote: post #82
kumarvvr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you protect children from the absolute devastating effects of social media on children, by banning it for adults?

I mean there has been at least one genocide planned on social media. Maybe adults were the real danger after all.

Does Ukrainian's Revolution of Dignity counts?

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#124

Post by lysp »

The "behind the scenes" of this was a repeated campaign based on News Corp's (ie. Fox News / The Murdoch's) newsrooms (TV, radio + paper).

The legislation was primarily based on their campaign - likely as an attack against TikTok and other social media companies, who are taking their viewership and advertising revenue.

I believe in the premise of the change (to protect young children), just not the motivation or interests behind this law.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#125

Post by Timwi »

123124dfasd wrote: post #68
gloosx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and s…

Just because the War on Drugs failed does not mean the argument extend on to every other fields.

And yet, the argument does extend. It applied to Prohibition, too.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#126

Post by cma »

hcfman wrote: post #60
oblio wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curing addictions is very hard and some addictions are very strong. Some addictions are also guarded by business interests leveraging close to a trillion dollars to increase this addiction. We didn't reduce smoking through personal responsibility, stop using "nanny state" tropes. In democracies the government is an imperfect representation of the will of the people and sometimes it decides individuals can't fight som…

Good point bringing up smoking. Why don’t they just make smoking illegal in every country ? Because it’s impractical. Same as this law.

I agree parents should have the choice for kids using social media, but this example of impracticality is a bit off: cigarettes are illegal for kids in nearly all developed countries.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#128

Post by throwthrow4567 »

poilcn wrote: post #103
voidfunc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonizing social media is this generations version of demonizing rock and roll. It's so tiring.

Is it? You can see the actual harm caused by web sites. Doomscrolling in all age groups. Going to bed very late at night. Girls having body dysmorphia cause of instagram. Young men having porn addition and having no ambition to interact with real women

> young men having porn addition and having no ambition to interact with real women

this made me lol so much. porn addition is not the cause, but the consequence.

do you have any idea how hard it is for males to find a willing mate nowadays? most females have men fighting over them, while most men must always do the fighting to get even one low-quality female in their entire life.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#129

Post by Timwi »

gloosx wrote: post #75
oblio wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.

Do you have data do back it up? From quickly looking at historical records online, I can't see any unfathomable amounts reduction, It's levelled on 20-30% of smokers among kids, and it remains a core challenge for child and adolescent health to the current day (according to 2020 WHO report[0]), plus they started to smoke vapes. So did the bans you sampled really work, or do they just smoke more discreetly and use tri…

I might be wrong but I read the OP’s comment as sarcastic.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#130

Post by eimrine »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #27
larrysalibra wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under 16 year olds cannot vote, are not represented and have no recourse. when one group votes to make rules for another group that cannot vote, it can be called many things, but "democracy" is not one of them.

When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting" Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke

> When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting"

Children issue is just the excuse for government to get people obey. Sadly but "kids protecting" propaganda is one of two the most effective ones, works great and there are lots of alternatively gifted persons that do not get the real attitude.

Post reply on HN