What about Legacy idea? Can they still watch TV and read news papers? Isn't this a form of giving control to legacy media and traditionally powerful especially when in US their influence is decreasing?
Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
231–240 of 498 posts
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#232Make absolutely no mistake. The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas. These laws are designed to prevent generations from establishing a baseline sociopolitical coherency and unity. I was subject to a home firewall and computer use surveillance as a child for the exact same reason, because my cult gu…
Rising up violently to protect my child's right to scroll mindless on TikTok for hours? No. Social media today is unrecognisable to the internet that you, or I grew up with.
Children will always network, and share ideas and form community. They don't need to do it on a platform designed to exploit as much of their attention as possible as a way to sell advertisements.
I think children should be able to congregate safely online. If you think a meta-owned platform is a good place to do that, I've got bad news for you.
I think a lot of my generation owes a lot to the internet during our formative years too, but the idea that Meta offers anything other than a curated stream of addictive ragebait nowadays is for the birds. Maybe this ban will encourage teenagers to hang out in less corporately owned spaces online. I can hope.
An outright ban probably won't work, but it sends a signal that perhaps society needs to use the internet better to be a benefit.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#233Like 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, if it were ever able to actually pass. Which it won’t within reasonable time.
Time for drastic measures.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#234Every single Australian 's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk). Reminds of the 'chil…
> My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this The level of conspiracy theory about the “mainstream media” feels out of control at times. Legacy media’s control over the population is already gone (as you stated), with what leverage would they be forcing this? Occam’s Razor: voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids. As a parent I hear about these concerns a lot. That…
One thing I don't understand: if you and other parents are so concerned about this... why let your children use those sites?
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's safe to say that, in under-16s, cyberbullying and susceptibility to intentionally addictive social media algorithms are a bit more of a common problem than revolutionary activities. Any would-be Che Guevaras can put in the time arousing the working class in person until such time as they can grow facial hair.
Then we attack the systemic issues, instead of pushing through intentionally vague legislation. Some of the similar legislation being explored by multiple US states is frightening.
[deleted]
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#236Earlier 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…
> I've grown very tired of this “any regulation is bad regulation” viewpoint, it doesn’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. This is sneering , where you don't respond to a particular poster's point, but instead attack an unrelated (and even fictional) group of people based on something you don't like, or an attitude that you subjectively perceive to be common. Precisely zero people in this thread have made the…
[EDIT: removed a snarky reply, need to remind myself not to engage with off topic trolling]
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but it’s rubbish. Are you saying that all the people who were 16 and grew up without social media had no social connections? Didn’t form strong bonds with their peers? Social media is absolutely terrible for kids. Social media absolutely destroyed social skills in teens.
I personally lived in a very backwater state, surrounded by racist conservatives, and was raised hardcore Catholic by extremely abusive guardians. I owe every single ounce of my rationality to the web and the ideas and people I encountered there. Facebook, etc are definitely terrible for kids. But the wording of these laws is intentionally vague, in order for these kinds of laws to be used according to the whim of th…
Well that goes a long way to explaining your quite extreme views.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why gambling but not Facebook?
Among other things, there is solid evidence that the move toward gambling in the US has been a disaster. This is a topic that's fairly easy to study in objective terms. The evidence for social media harming people is highly disputed and, I would say, largely unconvincing. For one thing, it relies on self-reported subjective well-being.
I'm not sure how you define "harm", but I think a reduction in "self-reported subjective well-being" is one of the more robust definitions.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#239Every single Australian 's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk). Reminds of the 'chil…
> My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this The level of conspiracy theory about the “mainstream media” feels out of control at times. Legacy media’s control over the population is already gone (as you stated), with what leverage would they be forcing this? Occam’s Razor: voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids. As a parent I hear about these concerns a lot. That…
> voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids.
But where are they hearing about these effects that get them so concerned? Is it the Australian news?
Australian news is fairly concentrated and is mostly owned by one family. A family that got a law passed forcing only Google and Facebook to pay pretty much only them.
The conspiracy isn't that far fetched.
Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this The level of conspiracy theory about the “mainstream media” feels out of control at times. Legacy media’s control over the population is already gone (as you stated), with what leverage would they be forcing this? Occam’s Razor: voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids. As a parent I hear about these concerns a lot. That…
One thing I don't understand: if you and other parents are so concerned about this... why let your children use those sites?
This feels equivalent to “if you don’t like smoking, just don’t smoke”.
Like I said in my original post I don’t think this stuff is specific to kids. I think social media has an equivalent to “second hand smoke” that poisons society whether or not we individually engage with it. And yes, classrooms are full of it.