Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Recruiting Apparatus"? What do you mean by that?
[deleted]
Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
181–190 of 498 posts
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#182This is going to be an interesting experiment to watch.
Because if I know kids, they will find any creative way they can to circumvent the ban.
And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services".
My opinion on this is that it's the same as banning drugs. People want to use them, and will find any way to use them.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#183Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day…
Well when then fuck are social media companies going to take their responsibility seriously?
When it becomes an obligation.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#184My friend is a media lawyer in Australia He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad Note this was several days ago and it may have been amended in the mean time
This is a trend in lawmaking in Australia, and it's seriously damaging. It's basically written so the Government's Minister of Communications gets to decide who to directly target (or not target) with the law. Basically allows them to arbitarily apply the law to some parties and not others, with no right of appeal. That does lead to potential constitutionality concerns, but it would take years for it to be struck dow…
Its been going on for so long that its hard to cal it a trend still.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is far too pat a dismissal of something which happens regularly. You can argue that it’s not frequent enough to justify this action or would happen anyway through other means but it’s a real problem which isn’t so freakishly rare that we can dismiss it.
Discord is for people over 13 years of age in many countries, yet there are many minors there. It is not working.
I’m not saying anything about specific services, only that there is a legitimate concern which can’t simply be dismissed without reason.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#186Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day…
>Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns.
We are less likely to change behavioral pattern after that period though, like we probably won’t see someone start to smoke at 45. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible of course, but past that age it looks like brains are already on track to become old reactionaries and generate complaints about how things used to be better before.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#187If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmounta…
Parents should be more responsible. That's it. This measure is, potentially, deeply ingraining the (terrible) idea that the State is responsible instead, so when all these young kids have children, they, just as their parents, will lack the ability to take responsibility and make their children more responsible by proxy, and so on, and so forth. It's a never ending cycle that is perpetuated by not tackling the problem at its real source. And let's not forget how measures taken in the name of security are oftentimes actually made to deprive us of our privacy.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#188If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmounta…
I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so. Reports that I read on conventional media sites often summarize government reports, but they do so incorrectly. And when I go and read the government reports, they present a much more balanced picture than the summaries would suggest. In particular, for marginalized teens,…
> I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.
Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622
Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And if we should ban anything it's drugs and gambling, not tiktok You realise children can legally do neither, right? Government should be in the business of improving citizens lives. As another commenter said, left to their own devices companies would still be using leaded paint everywhere if it was 1c cheaper per gallon. I’ve grown very tired of this “any regulation is bad regulation” viewpoint, it doesn’t hold u…
Some regulations are good. Like the ones regulating drugs and gambling (that have been largely dismantled). But we don't need the government to protect people from Facebook!
Why gambling but not Facebook?
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#190Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day…
I agree with you that changing the behaviour of the networks would be better, but what actions does a state like Australia really have here?
If they just say, "change", it must be backed up by a threat -- "we will fine you" or "we will ban you" are, I think, the most obvious threats available to a state.
But fines can be tricky to exact across borders, especially with bigger states, and if Australia says "change or we'll ban you later", the networks may play chicken and deal with it later, when the threat is real.
Starting with "you're banned" means it's painful now, and it's on the networks to prove they've changed and win a way back in, if they care. They might suddenly be willing to listen to how they need to change to get back in, and get that work done.
I'm not really in favour of bans on access to information or networks of people communicating, but a(n effective) ban does seem like a potentially effective tool to motivate action, even if it lacks nuance and doesn't solve the real problems.
I say "an effective" ban there because, come on, if it's just an age verifier then teenagers will figure it out and the whole thing is toothless, not ruthless.