How's the ban on pornography for under-18s going?
How about the ban on various things, like gmail, for under-13s?
Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
221–230 of 345 posts
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#222As 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…
And as a parent that duty can be outsourced into legislation and policework. Everyone has a fulltime job- and its okay to limit liberties and delegate.
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#223Earlier 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.
> Why don’t they just make smoking illegal in every country ? Because it’s impractical.
Is that also the reason they don't make cocaine illegal in every country?
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 re…
Except it wasn’t up for debate. It was opened for public scrutiny on the 22nd, submissions closed on the 23rd, then it was put through Committee (who asked for only 1 or 2 page submissions because they themselves didn’t have time to review it properly) and was initially put to the House on the 26th and passed on the 29th.
The Act has no provisions for checking ID (that will be decided by the eSafety commissioner with no debate or discussion on the mechanisms they choose), and it doesn’t even define which social media companies will be affected.
To say this was up for debate is ridiculous. There was no debate!
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#225I find it absolutely wild that we've managed to ban social media for under-16s, but somehow not pornography.
And so kids can just stream hardcore, violent porn on tap, as long as they click "I am 18 or older".
I am all for limiting social media (though not necessarily in this implementation), but just utterly puzzled why what seems to be an equally damaging influence for developing minds can't be limited.
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#226Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#227As 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…
Being a parent is not easy, and fights like these are really difficult. As a human you have only so much fight in you, and if a majority of parents adhere to the same rules this becomes so much easier to enforce.
Government rules set the moral bar, yes they are not enforceable but it creates a standard that most parents will adhere to.
As a dutch parent i wish we had the same rules, my kids are young enough that its easy to ban social media, but its getting harder as they are slowly becoming teenager.
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
...in the same election? Seriously, if they don't ask for any id, how do they prevent fraud?
You get your name + address marked off the roll when you go to vote. If you get your name marked off multiple times it would indicate fraud.
So, I can save my neighbors a hassle and a $20 fine by appearing at the polls for them?
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dear god, no. This doesn't need more technology. The whole purpose of this is only to give parents a reason to say no. Often, a single kid in a class with an unrestricted iPhone is enough to poison the well. Now it's much, much simpler. Kids understand when you say it's against the law.
>Kids understand when you say it's against the law. Jesus, were you born 40? I don't know a single person who didn't willingly pirate media, games and break other laws (usual suspects like trespassing, underage + public drinking...) as kids and teens. They will not care about the law if they want to do something it limits.
I’m not called Jesus and I age normally.
Do you have children?
Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s
#230Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.
Can you elaborate what you mean? We already need identity for ISP access and mobile phones, no?