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

201–210 of 345 posts

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

#201

Post by null0pointer »

pyuser583 wrote: post #181
arlattimore wrote: post #10

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…

“Nanny state” is fine when you’re talking about children.

Did you even read the parent comment?

> As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government.

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

#202

Post by ruthmarx »

linuxandrew wrote: post #76
Der_Einzige wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ha! We have compulsory voting but unlike many Anglo countries we don't require voter ID, vote registration etc. In fact you do not need to provide any ID to vote, because voting fraud is so statistically low (see https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voting-fraud-negli... ). We simply provide a name and address and fill out the ballot. We have so many issues, but compulsory voting is not one of them, in my opinio…

Stopping people suppressing votes should not be solved by taking away freedoms.

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

#203

Post by matwood »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182
thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

If every kid was injecting heroin we would not just expect, but demand the government step in. This is in addition to whatever parents are doing.

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

#204

Post by HPsquared »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #119
globalnode wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5y in jail if you refuse to give a password and power to covertly access devices and conceal that fact if they desire. Yikes, they don't mess around.

By far the most bootlicking country in the Anglo world. Disgusting, and their political system should be shattered into the wind

Nature or nurture? Australia did start off as a penal colony in the early days.

And the USA started, in large part, as a destination for religious extremists. Funny how these things keep coming up again and again!

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

#205

Post by bigstrat2003 »

pimeys wrote: post #148
ENGNR wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re a nanny state, the government is just going to use it to track us

Nanny state is a term coined by tobacco industry in their lobbying against tobacco laws. Is it really a term you want to use here? https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/countering-industry-a...

Who cares? Whether or not it applies in this particular case, it's a useful term. Rejecting ideas because of who they come from is the very antithesis of intellectual maturity.

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

#207

Post by tene80i »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182
thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

The point is clearly that you are causing other serious harms by doing so, unlike with the heroin example. You can’t tear kids away from a huge part of their social lives without serious consequences. Coordinated action means it’s not a choice between two terrible options.

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

#208

Post by trhway »

thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

>We don't need watertight compliance, verification or enforcement

the law basically requires document verification, i.e. no anonymous access anymore for anybody. Just government protecting children, as usual.

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

#209

Post by wokwokwok »

chris_wot wrote: post #189
thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

As an Australian parent myself, let me say this legislation is useless and you need to stop hiding behind stupid government legislation pandering to the lowest common denominator in place of your parenting. The “the government won’t let me let you use social media” is one of the most stupid and ridiculous arguments I’ve heard a mature adult make to a juvenile. Your kid is likely to see it as spineless, then go ahead…

I’m not for this legislation, but your argument doesn’t hold up.

If people are hiding it, that in itself normalises that people are not using social media.

That’s the point; taking someone’s phone away makes them an outcast. If no one at school is “allowed” to have a phone, then it’s normalised, it’s normal to not have one.

It is pandering to the minority, but your argument hides behind insults to avoid facing the reality which is that it will normalise people not being on social media, which will make it easier for parents to ban their kids from using social media.

This isn’t some black market crap where the kids are nipping down to the servo to buy some vapes and get a slap on the wrist if their caught; if they’re banned and they’re caught, their account will get suspended.

That's instant death on SM, because of early adopter network effects.

It really will do something. You don’t understand the dynamics on SM if you think otherwise.

Whether you agree it’s good or not, is certainly open to debate. What it will do is open to debate; hidden group chats and an escape to platforms that are “technically not SM”, who knows… but the current landscape of SM & TikTok follower accumulation will change, dramatically.

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

#210

Post by pulse7 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182
thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

As a parent I literally support bans of social media for under-16s AND I also do my job as a parent: my kids get a smart phone at 16, until then they have a feature/dummy phone (which they hide from peers because they are ashamed to show it).
Post reply on HN