Australia Proposes Ban On Social Media For Those Under 16 (reuters.com) 17
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday the government would legislate for a ban on social media for children under 16, a policy the government says is world-leading. "Social media is doing harm to our kids and I'm calling time on it," Albanese told a news conference. Legislation will be introduced into parliament this year, with the laws coming into effect 12 months after it is ratified by lawmakers, he added. There will be no exemptions for users who have parental consent.
"The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access," Albanese said. "The onus won't be on parents or young people." Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said platforms impacted would include Meta Platforms' Instagram and Facebook, as well as Bytedance's TikTok and Elon Musk's X. Alphabet's YouTube would likely also fall within the scope of the legislation, she added.
"The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access," Albanese said. "The onus won't be on parents or young people." Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said platforms impacted would include Meta Platforms' Instagram and Facebook, as well as Bytedance's TikTok and Elon Musk's X. Alphabet's YouTube would likely also fall within the scope of the legislation, she added.
You know what else did harm to our kids? (Score:3)
Social media is the new moral panic for the post-boomer generations.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's damnably few (basically none) studies even attempting to find causation versus correlation, and many of those aren't finding that being on social media harms kids, but that harmed kids flock to social media as their only available avenue to find others when those in the guardian roles fail them.
And yes, I'm being specific in choosing my words to be as general as I meant to be, please don't try to waffle these rice-cooker pancakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is not all that great for most adults - it's 'keeping up with the Joneses' except on crack and 24/7.
While I'm happy to look at studies to confirm or refute my suspicion, that suspicion is that it's worse for kids than adults as the kids have less experience and self-confidence when dealing with something that is designed to trigger your worst instincts in order to keep you engaged for the social media supplier's purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
While I'm happy to look at studies to confirm or refute my suspicion, that suspicion is that it's worse for kids
Perhaps you're correct. But laws should not be based on "suspicions".
The burden of proof is on those proposing laws to control private behavior to show that the problem exists and is serious enough to warrant a legal remedy.
I am very skeptical.
Kids socialize. It's what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Kids socialize. It's what they do.
This would not prevent kids from socializing. Perhaps the question is not whether kids are harmed by social media but whether they get anything of value from them for the time and attention they take. You don't need a study to see that they take up kids time and attention. You don't need some sort of theoretical proof to pass legislation if you think there is harm. If you disagree, find a study that shows kids benefit from spending hours on social media. That it doesn't prevent them from engaging in other m
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really didn't. Especially not the Beatles and Elvis. That was a silly moral panic. Nobody ever produced clear evidence that any of those things you mentioned harmed developing teenagers.
Social media, on the other hand...
Is Slashdot social media? (Score:1)
What is social media? When is a site not social media? I imagine calling Reddit social media is reasonable. What's the difference between Slashdot and Reddit, besides the number of users?
Would a 16 year old be allowed to view Reddit to research topics but not be allowed to create an account or login?
Re: (Score:2)
When is a site not social media?
4Chan. Antisocial media.
It won't work, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it will give parents a reason to not give kids access to social media platforms for a bit longer and that doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
It puts it right up there with beer and driving and such, which is a good idea. Given what happens when kids turn 21 and get beer and cars at the same time, we can anticipate some issues at that bottleneck. However, the idea is that, lacking the wonders [cough] of social media in their earliest developmental years, they will have been (in-persn-IRL-as-a-living-breathing-human) socialized enough by the time they reach adulthood, that their brains will be able to better handle social media.
The nerds reading S
Social Media always has a legal agreement. (Score:2)
Social media isn't the problem... (Score:2)
Social media isn't the problem, the content on it is. Get the bad content off social media so kids (and adults) aren't exposed to it and it won't be a problem that kids are on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media isn't the problem, the content on it is.
Some of the content is exactly the same as it would be in person in "real life". For example, gossiping about your peers (schoolmates for the most part). However, something qualitatively different happens when it is multi-media, and the dissemination speed (instantenous) and network size is wider, than humanly possible. And it is constantly in your pocket, beeping for your attention like a slot machine. Aside from pornographic (*personally* pornographic) and other objectionable matrial, hurtful messages are