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

211–220 of 345 posts

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

#211

Post by photonthug »

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

> Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke

Yeah this thread is wild, maybe because those speaking “on behalf” of children here are actually all children?

Age restrictions for social media are as logical and necessary as they are for driving, drinking, etc. It isn’t just a concern about self-harm. The general public has a stake in this too in the long run, and it’s a safety and security issue for them as well. (If you don’t believe this is true, just think about how much power Facebook already has over elections, and how much more they will have if literally everyone alive grows up on Facebook and doesn’t think that power is worth questioning)

Years from now we’ll all be surprised we didn’t arrive at this conclusion sooner.

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

#212

Post by neumann »

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…

Yes, but because the entire world agrees that heroin is bad (similarly to social media) governments have laws to restrict its access.

As for the job part. There is so much stuff kids don't need that other parents cave into, that unless you have the means, willpower and energy to find alternative peer groups, schools, teaching mechanisms, your kids _can_ become social pariahs if there isn't sufficient like minded parents in the community.

Of course you want your kids to internalise self-wort, a sense of confidence, and independence. Hoping they follow your mold and not a potentially damaging peer-groups. But that doesn't mean that some regulation from a body (government/school) isn't helpful. We live in communities.

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

#213

Post by matwood »

cma wrote: post #126
hcfman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Smoking is also highly regulated now. It’s almost a surprise to see someone smoking nowadays.

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

#214

Post by XorNot »

fraboniface wrote: post #98
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…

It's very hard for parent to resist the insistent demands of their children to get a smartphone when their classmates all have one, and not having one means being or feeling excluded. This is the kind of coordination problem better solved by regulation.

If you're not going to police that smartphone then how will this legislation do anything? What stops "US Mastodon" being the new place all the kids in your school are posting?

Like that is the goal here, because observably any phone with a web browser has social media access, it just can't be a company which tries to do business in Australia directly.

But 4chan has existed for years (that's not the end point, but certainly creating a selective pressure to push teenagers to less regulated, shadier social media services doesn't seem like it's quite the result people want).

The short version I'd say is, this move seems solely aimed at taking away a virtual third space for adolescents and doesn't plan to offer anything back. But people didn't go seeking it because it offered nothing.

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

#215

Post by chris_wot »

If anyone wants to know just how rushed this bill was pushed through parliament, here is the text of the public consultation announcement:

“On 21 November 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 26 November 2024.

The closing date for submissions is 22 November 2024. Due to the short timeframe of this inquiry, the committee would appreciate submissions being limited to 1-2 pages.”

How’s that for well written? They announced the bill on the 21st and closed the date for submissions on the 22nd. It then went to parliament in the 26th. It has passed on the 29th. Parliament sitting days end a few days after.

Pathetic. That’s why the Committee that scrutinises the bill asked for “1 or 2 page submissions”.

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

#216

Post by XorNot »

cma wrote: post #126
hcfman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet over half my high school year smoked, and I was absolutely peer pressured to start.

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

#217

Post by dmalik »

XorNot wrote: post #199
cchi_co wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This perspective highlights a key aspect often overlooked in debates about such laws: the social dynamics of parenting. You’re absolutely right that the “all the other kids are on it” pressure can make it almost impossible for individual parents to set boundaries without isolating their child

But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them? I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of th…

The internet still exists outside of social media sites designed to keep you there. I hope kids under 16 get addicted to anything else and don't turn to social media when they're old enough.

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

#218

Post by neumann »

XorNot wrote: post #199
cchi_co wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This perspective highlights a key aspect often overlooked in debates about such laws: the social dynamics of parenting. You’re absolutely right that the “all the other kids are on it” pressure can make it almost impossible for individual parents to set boundaries without isolating their child

But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them? I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of th…

It's a lowest energy state approach. The hope is that the hurdle will be raised high enough that enough kids will go to another outlet that is less harmful.

Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. The information dense but fractured culture we are in makes it so kids will find otherways to communicate and share 'memes' (original sense of the world) and that this is whack-a-mole.

But, for many kids it will be enough to at least allow the parent's some appeal to authority to minimise their kids screen time and access to social media.

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

#219

Post by nulld3v »

fraboniface wrote: post #98
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…

It's very hard for parent to resist the insistent demands of their children to get a smartphone when their classmates all have one, and not having one means being or feeling excluded. This is the kind of coordination problem better solved by regulation.

> It's very hard for parent to resist the insistent demands of their children to get a smartphone when their classmates all have one, and not having one means being or feeling excluded. This is the kind of coordination problem better solved by regulation.

But they banned "social media" not smartphones. If they actually banned smartphones, this regulation would be much easier to enforce.

But by just banning a select few apos, kids are just going to move onto the next app.

And not only that, it only bans kids from having an account, they can still view content while logged out.

So Im going to bet that this not be effective, not be enforcable.

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

#220

Post by theteapot »

matwood wrote: post #203
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So true. In addition, if every kid suddenly became a vampire, we would not just expect, but demand the government step in.
Post reply on HN