161–170 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compulsory voting means that a large part of the electorate that doesn’t pay attention to politics is easily frightened by scare campaigns. An example of this is that Australia is sorely in need of tax reform, but any party that pushes for it at state or federal level is damaged at the polls, often fatally.
Then how did John Howard get the GST passed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rather doubt under-16s ever watched any news corpos and the new corpos are more than likely aware of this from their own research so I don't think fighting over viewership is a factor in this.
> I rather doubt under-16s ever watched any news corpos Well, no, because social media is a better alternative. Hence why they're getting it banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Australia they ask to see your ID but you can say you don’t have it on you. I think they mostly just ask for ID so it’s easier to look up your name with the correct spelling.
They don't. Source: Australian citizen that has voted many times.
I personally welcome this change. Anecdotally, I experienced unimpeded and unsupervised internet access throughout my younger teenage years, and was exposed to some truly horrendous material courtesy of the bigger social platforms. My parents knew I used social media. They believed it was fine because it was "just MySpace and Facebook". Meanwhile, I witnessed large amounts of open bullying between my peers, recording…
The lasting qualities I think it's given me are:
- An open mindedness and the ability to examine issues from multiple angles
- A thick skin against shocking material/online forms of bullying
- A stronger understanding of how technology interacts with society/power structures
I think the country needs to be building digitally strong youth, not trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
While I appreciate the sentiment of this legislation, removing social media access for everyone under 16 years to address the concerns of a few is a nanny state act. As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government. Additionally, I would suggest it won't address the actual issue. The named/identified social media companies will comply as required, younger internet users will s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re a nanny state, the government is just going to use it to track us
Forced voting is proof of it. Australia is by far the least free Anglo nation. I will never step foot on that god forsaken island. They have no culture, and that’s the opinion of Australians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Ugliness
If you are going to cite sources about 1960's Australian culture, back in the oppressive dark ages of 'White Australia', make sure you compare it with other 1960's cultures. Or try some sources from this millennium that have come to terms with not being part of the British Empire.
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
Many countries already tried using objective criteria to decide who gets to vote, and this always results in policy that screws nonvoters at the benefit of voters. Do you think the housing crisis all around the western world is an accident? It's not. The electorate chose this because it benefits them. Is it an accident that the last 2 US presidents are pedophiles? Probably, but that would be much less likely with a younger electorate.
A decision was made about how children's lives should function without their input. Right now do you believe that the class of parent voters votes as representatives of the interests of their children and their future? Or do you believe that all persons under 16 have no concept of time or political interests and couldn't even understand if a politician was making them a good deal through a political ad?
Children understand brand new toys better than anyone; by high school, pretty much all of them understand that they get better teachers if you pay more. Are students not interested in getting better grades for "free"?
The government is not anyone's parent, it doesn't give a lick if your kid dies tomorrow, cause kids don't vote.
1. Those in favor of identity based control over using electronic devices, attaching a real world identity to your computing use. (Including up to signed software only allowed to run on devices).
2. Those in favor of the restriction of access of the internet by a government entity (Including up to regulated speech).
This is similar to the break up Google arguments. Instead you just have to out-code it. (For the counterarguments, this applies to code-based companies, instead of infrastructure based)... If a social media is harmful, then parents can put those restrictions already on devices. But letting the government do this gives much more freedoms away than initially thought. Not just this, but if there happens to ever be a social media that is 10 times better than all existing ones, where even more real speech discussion and conversation happens, or whatever form it is, it will still be regulated and controlled using the same methods.
I usually don't comment often, but I would usually expect someone here to bring up these concerns... which is unusual to not find them. And I mean the specific two points are the argument. Those must be flipped to allow this law to be just, which is to say, most likely not.
And a third point, even in a perfect implementation, (imagine a perfect world), you end up with the first two points still being an issue. The technological ability to restrict devices by signed software, and speech to a central authority, allows the attack surface for anyone to have the ability to control the entirety of the devices on that system, in ways that would be hard to discern. Extend this technology to other devices, like VR, and see the domino...
Ahhh yes, and thumbs down button in youtube was removed to protect small creators from harm. It is funny to observe how many naive people there are in the world. Australia for years hated the idea that you can anonymously share your opinion. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/prime-minister-defend... And no, privacy is not already lost. It is a lie often said. Sure you share a lot of data about you, but you are o…
I'm not Australian and don't know the specifics if this legislation, so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter, but I think you're mistakenly conflating banning Porn is also banned for This doesn't actually remove all kids from the platform, but at least they're no longer being served legally. This will make it less ubiquitous for them. Relevant part of the article: Social media companies also won't be able…
First create a law, then require providing a button, then require debit card number, then require ID.
I am aware of slippery slope fallacy, but I think that is where this all is going to go.
Therefore it does not matter if "it is just a button" right now. Every change in that direction is not good. I worry about the trajectory more.
Let's also look at it from a different point of view. Does the button "I am over 18" protect the children? Really? Sorry, but this is not the final step in that road.