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

301–310 of 345 posts

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

#301

Post by pixxel »

liammclennan wrote: post #85
linuxandrew wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Hard disagree. We do not need an internet driver's license. Australians are supposed to have a right to interact with organisations with privacy protections under the…

Did you see the "without leaking identity" part? Your comment seems to ignore that.

You must be a child, yourself. Incredibly naïve.

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

#302

Post by abc123abc123 »

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #222
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…

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.

Pro tip! If that is how you feel, don't have children. Wanting to outsource your childs upbringing to the government because it is "annoying" or "hard work" indicates that you are not ready to have a child.

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

#303

Post by triceratops »

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 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.

You know that's actually one of the reasons they made heroin illegal? So parents wouldn't be the bad guy when they stopped their kids from shooting up /s

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

#304

Post by triceratops »

theteapot wrote: post #220
matwood wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well...yeah. How would be scrounge up enough blood to keep them fed otherwise?

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

#305

Post by bdzr »

justsee wrote: post #236
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…

It's very hard not to see the whole marketing of the legislation as an exercise in misdirection. The media campaign was led by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd (who see a commercial opportunity in cutting a demographic from their competitors audience for advertisers), and the government's marketing of it entirely focused on children being restricted, avoiding until the last weeks an admission it actually meant all adults wo…

But didn't you know that social media is causing all of the problems we have right now? Haven't you seen the graph that shows society with no problems until social media, and now we have all the problems?

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

#306

Post by trogdor »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #188
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…

My nephew is denied a smartphone due to low grades. Seems like a good enough excuse. Granted, it can work only if your country allows low grades.

What countries don’t allow low grades?

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

#307

Post by bluefirebrand »

Timwi wrote: post #121
bluefirebrand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting" Is it? Last time I checked I thought that was only when parents or legal guardians do it to a small number of children in their care, not when politicians do it to all children in an entire country. But even if I accept your premise, your comment makes me wonder if you've never heard of people who are bad at parenting, or who are downright abusive to t…

Let me ask you something: Do you support removing liquor laws banning underage people from being sold alcohol? Or removing laws that ban the sale of cigarettes to children? How about gambling or buying lotto tickets for childrenm

I think it's clear that as a society we have already decided that government has a role in establishing legal protections to prevent children from falling afoul of systems that are designed to be predatory

This is just another layer of that

Which also establishes a social norm that letting children drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or gamble is not a good thing, so people who are bad parents know at least some baseline of what they should not be doing

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

#308

Post by Izkata »

renegat0x0 wrote: post #170
ffsm8 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Australian and don't know the specifics if this legislation, so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter, but I think you're mistakenly conflating banning Porn is also banned for This doesn't actually remove all kids from the platform, but at least they're no longer being served legally. This will make it less ubiquitous for them. Relevant part of the article: Social media companies also won't be able…

Thanks for providing that last part info, but I think you misunderstand how the world works. The privacy is removed in erosion, not in one action. First create a law, then require providing a button, then require debit card number, then require ID. I am aware of slippery slope fallacy, but I think that is where this all is going to go. Therefore it does not matter if "it is just a button" right now. Every change in t…

A couple US states are in the "ID" stage for porn right now. It's why pornhub and others have started blocking those states, they don't want the liability if there's a hack/leak.

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

#309

Post by pyuser583 »

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…

The state I live in has an average of about 4 elections a year. Sometimes as many as 8.

Being required to vote in all of them would be a large burden.

Post reply on HN