Millions of Australian Teens Lose Access To Social Media As Ban Takes Effect (bbc.com) 137
Australia's world-first ban blocking under-16s from major social platforms has come into effect. The BBC is live reporting the reactions "both from within Australia and outside it." From the report: I've been speaking to 12-year-old Paloma, who lives in Sydney and says she is "sad" about the ban. She spends between 30 minutes and two hours a day on social media. "I'm upset... because I am part of several communities on Snapchat and TikTok," she tells me. "I've developed good friendships on the apps, with people in the US and New Zealand, who have common interests like gaming, and it makes me feel more connected to the world."
Paloma says she regularly talks about the ups and downs of her life with a boy of the same age in New Jersey, in the US, who she knows through gaming and TikTok. "I feel like I can explore my creativity when I am in a community online with people of similar ages," she says. Everyone Paloma knows is "a bit annoyed" about the ban. By stopping them from using social media, she says "the government is taking away a part of ourselves."
Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, backed by a rights group, are arguing at Australia's highest court that the legislation robs them of their right to free communication. The Digital Freedom Project (DFP) announced the case had been filed in the High Court late last month. After news of the case broke, Australia's Communications Minister Anika Wells told parliament the government would not be swayed. "We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm," she said.
Paloma says she regularly talks about the ups and downs of her life with a boy of the same age in New Jersey, in the US, who she knows through gaming and TikTok. "I feel like I can explore my creativity when I am in a community online with people of similar ages," she says. Everyone Paloma knows is "a bit annoyed" about the ban. By stopping them from using social media, she says "the government is taking away a part of ourselves."
Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, backed by a rights group, are arguing at Australia's highest court that the legislation robs them of their right to free communication. The Digital Freedom Project (DFP) announced the case had been filed in the High Court late last month. After news of the case broke, Australia's Communications Minister Anika Wells told parliament the government would not be swayed. "We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm," she said.
Hope that those kids (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
got good Black Friday deals on their VPN.
I am betting the people that wrote this law expect just that to happen.
Because the way they wrote the law they now have a pretense for banning VPN's as a criminal circumvention tool.
Which may have been the idea all along.
Those pitching VPN bans all along could not get traction before, but now they have both a legal justification and a "think of the children" pretense to leverage
Re: (Score:2)
And what teen wants to go where their mates are NOT
And if it needs to, just make advertising on Social Media illegal for Australian companies , the threat of money go bye bye will suddenly make everyone realise they DO know everything about everyone through all their data gathering and they CAN weed out the teens themselves.
Last thing social media wants is countries deciding enough is enough and going brute force on them.
Just remember 96% of the worlds population lives outside of the U
Re: (Score:2)
I hope these kids remember the assholes behind this when they become old enough to vote.
Re:Hope that those kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Until they come after video games. But you'll say nothing, because you aren't a gamer.
No love lost for social media, mind you, I don't even use it. If the whole industry went bankrupt tomorrow, I wouldn't be bothered. But what you're saying is that, rather than being able to have your own discretion, the government made the choice for you. One of the important parts of growing up is learning how to use your discretion.
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:2)
This also affects independent Social Media like ActivityPub too.
It also affects Forums and comment sections (like Slashdot).
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. The common consensus among psychologists appears to be that social interaction, even online, is actually a healthy thing. So things like texting, video games, or other behavior that either require or highly encourage you to be an active participant. What's considered unhealthy is being a simple observer, or just a content consumer, and having that replace your social interaction at a younger age. Especially short form video and photo sharing, i.e. tiktok, instagram, youtube shorts.
If wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I would much rather have been born in the 2010's than the 1980's. People forget how isolating it could be before mass comms - I remember especially in Winter - after school on weekends, I was alone with no contact with any of my friends at all. Unless I tried to call one on the family landline and have the whole family listening in.
Nowadays I would have been able to contact my friends at any time, arrange anything on a whim and if the weather is bad hell there is still online multiplayer with voice cha
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't shaken their hand or given them a hug, they're not a friend. They're an acquaintance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:5, Insightful)
But what you're saying is that, rather than being able to have your own discretion, the government made the choice for you. One of the important parts of growing up is learning how to use your discretion.
The government doesn't allow people under 16 to drive cars, drink alcohol or vote either.
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:2)
You're right, they belong in bubble wrap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:2)
Social media in and of itself is not. Certain forms of social media have been shown to be harmful, but this doesn't seem to make any attempt to understand or distinguish which, rather decides to perform surgery on it using a pipe wrench to the face. This is what happens when you act on a moral panic.
Either way, let Australia do Australia, I'm only giving you my take on it. They already make highly subjective things like parental ratings on games, music, and movies law, which is de-facto censorship by virtue
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't allow people under 16 to drive cars, drink alcohol or vote either.
Except nobody cares about the children. That is the false flag that this was enacted under. They want YOUR information, your identification. They will use AI to go through all of your history and come to a determination of whether or not you are a "good" citizen. If so, life continues, if not, you will find yourself getting queried deeply at every traffic stop, find it difficult to get paperwork through the government, and possibly carted off to a 'camp'. But yeah, keep arguing about whether or not children
Re: (Score:2)
Except nobody cares about the children. That is the false flag that this was enacted under. They want YOUR information, your identification. They will use AI to go through all of your history and come to a determination of whether or not you are a "good" citizen. If so, life continues, if not, you will find yourself getting queried deeply at every traffic stop, find it difficult to get paperwork through the government, and possibly carted off to a 'camp'. But yeah, keep arguing about whether or not children should have access to social media.
What? This is about children NOT having access to social media. So your hypothetical about using "AI to go through all of your history" would come up with zero results as a result of these laws.
Nobody is stopping anyone using a phone to make calls or send texts. Nobody is stopping anyone using email. Anyone can still encrypt their email if they want to.
The only parties who are losing access to "all of your history" are corporations like Meta and Twitter. This is a net benefit for Australian citizens.*
*It mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drinking age is a whole other cattle of fish, and it gas more to do with colture + tradition than anything so let's not start down that rathole
True. If we were to make the decision based on medical and scientific bases, the drinking age would be 25.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they come after video games. But you'll say nothing, because you aren't a gamer.
Australia is infamously a place which bans certain video games. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make because it certainly seems like Australian gamers don't feel very oppressed.
rather than being able to have your own discretion
Kids do not have their own discretion, period. Actually the gaming example is far worse than the social media ban as it affects adults too, and yet you didn't even know about it.
Re: Hope that those kids (Score:2)
Because you asked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Kids do not have their own discretion, period
Right, no capacity for it, or the ability to learn from their mistakes (where direction comes from) until their 16th birthday, then BAM, just like that, they instantly learn all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
We're no longer allowed to discuss gender identity or systemic inequality in US schools, so there are worse offenses when it comes to free speech rights. (A right that very few countries recognize)
Re:meanwhile in the US (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not going to find the Exorcist in schools. But what they ARE doing is removing books because there are LGBTQ+ people in them, no graphic or inappropriate material, just people who are also in our communities., or books deemed "Woke"
years ago there was outrage against Harry Potter books, before that Noddy books.
ALL of them by Christians biggest.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s as far as she made it before Board of Education Chair Wesley McCall cut her off. He reminded her of “the rules that we talked about in the beginning” of the meeting concerning the board’s policy about
Re: (Score:2)
But THAT is not what the book is about, and it's certainly one of the things kids with trauma talk about as they seek peace with themselves.
His with trauma also tend to be "easy targets" for predators because of this.
I bet you most 9 year olds already talk about i or have "heard about it" too.
No kid who reads that book will "be turned gay" or any other such nonsense.
And yet kids that age (and younger) will be using guns, being taught how it's their
Re: (Score:2)
Re:meanwhile in the US (Score:5, Informative)
K-12 is for core material kids need to either survive life post graduation or as the platform upon which a higher education is built.
Not really. One glance at a modern (post-mid-1950) curriculum will show you that.
At no point do they need to know the 6372 fake genders or about the fake inequality that isn't going on that people like you push.
I hope they can still teach students about a strawman argument.
You live in the most free and open minded era in human history and cry how you can't push your agenda on kids in your state run prison and call it oppression. Ridiculous.
Democracy and freedom isn't free. You have to fight for it every day. The religious right wants to take away my human rights and your human rights, and if you want to carry water for them then be prepared to serve underneath them on day.
I voted to have people like you shutdown in the presence of children who legally can't escape your grasp. Go fund some Google ads or something if you want to push your crap. You do not get to use my tax dollars for it.
Free forum is a free soapbox. I couldn't give two shits about your insufferable opinion of other people's opinions. But I think you already know that, other Slashdotters are certainly communicated a similar sentiment to you before.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I suspect that we will either disagree on what is or is not a human right, or whether or not people of faith are against it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of hilarious that the person you are speaking with seems to think all of that shit is being taught in K12 education. "They are putting kitty litter boxes in the classrooms!". Sure bro.
Paranoia cult (Score:3)
Everywhere you look you only see your enemies, a few people have tries to lead you to a normal mode of thinking, but I always say: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
P.S. I'm not a leftist, but thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a normal very typical American.
God help You all
No religious person has EVER infringed anything in my direction. I do not fear them at all.
The shoe will be on other foot when it's your teenage daughter wanting that abortion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:meanwhile in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I was forced for years to stand up and pray to a bath towel with stars and stripes all over it every morning in a group. I had to pray as well to an imaginary sky deity too. I was gaslighted into a belief that we were one nation, under sky god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In the educational system, I never really managed to fully understand what liberty meant, but as an adult, I have a pretty good idea and I'm almost 100% sure that it only works if you ignore things like being systematically forced to pray to a dish rag until you become a zealot who becomes offended that someone might call it a bath towel or a dish rag.
Public schools have a tremendous amount to do to compensate for the short comings of children being raised in a country where we're taught to strive for more. To want better. To improve. To anyone like myself who went looking for liberty and justice for all... and left, when I return on visits, I see a country more and more dominated by people lacking simple human values. I can't diagnose the problem, but it greatly disheartens me. I am sad that the country I remember from a different millennium doesn't exist anymore.
We were never perfect. There were always people like yourself who are willing to pay for your religion and beliefs to be forced on my children, but cry out in anger when someone else's beliefs are being forced on other children. And before you claim this isn't true, nationalism and patriotism is a religion or a cult, or whatever else you want to call it. I also take great offense by anyone who supports a two party government. And this means anyone who supports team sports of any kind. I absolutely hate schools who teach out children that we need to make ourselves feel better by dominating other people. I have no problems with kids playing a game. I do take tremendous offense that we teach children that they are better than other children because their school is better than someone else's.
American toxically forces division on the people. We have been and probably always will be forced to believe that every aspect of life is polarized. You're with us or against us. You're part of the solution or part of the problem. etc... We will be forced to choose team red or team blue. We can't like some Chinese people because 1.4 billion people are evil and horrible because we don't like a few people running the country.
American schools exist for no other reason than to teach hate.
See what I did there. I made a statement to be persuasive and to catch your attention. If I were a true American, I would let it stand. But unfortunately, I prefer to have morals and ethics.
American schools are far from perfect. And as an honest to goodness American and as your patriotic duty, you should demand that your taxes be spent to teach children perspectives you don't agree with. This is how we improve. This is how we mature. This is how we build our future. Where I live, in Norway, my civil liberties were severely violated. I was born Jewish and thankfully I've been recovering from that for some time, but my children were forced by the government to attend church and were forced to take many years of religious studies which often were "The jews believe this, the muslims believe this, but WE believe this". And at home, I would teach my children that faith is good, blind faith is wrong. That their grandmother needed religion. I tough them that they have their own choice to make. They can choose to believe in what they're learning at school, they can choose to believe what I believe, or they can choose to walk their own path.
If you don't like what is being taught in the school, this is why we have dinner tables. We can teach our children what we believe at home. We can take the time to raise them. When their friends come over for dinner, we can even share our values with them. This is absolutely our rights.
So, as long as there's forced prayer to nappies on a stick, school sports, etc... and civilized people like myself are forced to pay taxes to support that, you should give a little back. People are being forced to pay taxes to have your horrible beliefs forced children's throats, you can pay a few bucks to let someone else's horrible beliefs forced on other children as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again Slashdot's self professed smartest person again proves he is able to only make the dumbest comments.
More comedy gold from our favourite moron.
Re: (Score:2)
You live in the most free and open minded era in human history and cry how you can't push your agenda on kids in your state run prison and call it oppression. Ridiculous.
Said the conservatives pushing the anti trans agenda
Said the conservatives pushing the anti gay agenda
Said the conservatives pushing the anti black agenda
Said the conservatives pushing fear of the other to scare people into voting for them over and over and over again
It's funny how you folks are always on the wrong side of history but yet still to this day ALWAYS have minorities to fearmonger over. Just like every other time though once its clear you've lost you'll just find some new group to tell everyone
Re: meanwhile in the US (Score:2)
They can discuss religion as well. Teachers can't.
But all of this only applies while they're at the school. Outside of school, they can do like my history teacher did and wear a "real men love Jesus" shirt. Which, as an atheist, I thought was hilarious.
Ultimately, what they can or can't do on the job comes down to their employment contract with the state. Just like any other job, really.
It's a good thing the only state with such rules has a voucher system, meaning private schools, where such restrictions do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hope that those kids (Score:5, Insightful)
No free speech in Australia.
Children don't have absolute rights anywhere, not even in the US of fucking Eyh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's it sound like to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The cool kids will join an online chess club ... (Score:2)
... that has chat features.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.
I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.
I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad.
Yes it was. That's why USENET invented moderation. The unmoderated forums were pretty horrific sometimes.
The one thing about USENET, though, is that the trolls and flamers and a$$holes were actual humans, not troll farms or click-farmers or AIs.
Re: I can see the point. (Score:2)
Usenet had crazy amounts of spam/scams. Not much of a difference, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet had crazy amounts of spam/scams. Not much of a difference, really.
Was that toward the end? Like late 90s? It used to be great. But usenet is where the term "spam" originated, referring to cross-posting to multiple groups.
Re: I can see the point. (Score:2)
Which people often did when running pyramid schemes. I.e. send a dollar to the next 5 people on the list and repost, and you'll get rich! Was a thing on BBSs too, going way back. By 1995 basically nobody would put their real email address in their post header.
Re: (Score:3)
USENET was never this bad.
The audience for USENET and slashdot was about 400 times smaller than the people participating in broader social media. It was much harder for a critical mass of fringe ideas/susceptible people to coalesce into isolated circles when the population was just so tiny.
Re: (Score:3)
If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points.
Global IQ is driven mainly by two things: improved nutrition and hygiene in 3rd world increasing the average, and higher birth rates among lower IQ populations decreasing it. However on a smaller scale, you are correct. There is indeed some evidence of a "reverse Flynn effect", where children in developed countries are less intelligent on average than their parents. Social media may well contribute.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re:I can see the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, no.
Beyond the parental obligation arguments and regulating companies manipulating algorithms, you do have to question why so many places are choosing this particular approach to keeping kids safe. I mean it's not like kids can't access unregulated parts of the web and see far more heinous shit.
And much like other moral panics, I contend this has nothing to do with any concern for the yougins and everything to do with control. Any type of censorship regime always starts with those who can't vote against it as new justifications are found to remove even boarder categories of materials.
As far as the quality of the discourse, I've begun to suspect something more fundamental is at play- commercialization.
The early web didn't have vertically integrated billion dollar companies monopolizing most aspects of the web. Nor did it have influencers making multi-million dollar deals behind the scenes.
And that will be a much, much bigger problem to defang.
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd rather wait to fix the bigger social problems first before fixing smaller ones? I don't know, I think it's good to attack the smaller problems first. It makes you feel good about small victories, you gain experience with similar problems, and it prevents analysis paralysis [wikipedia.org]. It also builds momentum, everyone likes a winner.
You also have to remember that minors aren't full people, they are legal dependents and censorship is the wrong word to use in this case. It is absolutely the right and obligat
Re: (Score:2)
It was good enough for us!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance. (Score:4, Interesting)
Kids should have communities in real life, where people behave less like assholes. Under light supervision of adults. And a little bit of supervised internet on a family PC in a common room, not in their own bedrooms. My kids have dumbphones used for SMS and phone calls.
Adults need real life civilised socialisation too.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids should have communities in real life, where people behave less like assholes. Under light supervision of adults. And a little bit of supervised internet on a family PC in a common room, not in their own bedrooms. My kids have dumbphones used for SMS and phone calls.
Hard to find a proper dumbphone in Australia. The 2G and 3G networks have both been shut down, so that old Nokia in the drawer won't work. Millions of phones and plenty of other infrastructure turned into e-waste.
Re: (Score:2)
2G/3G are dead where i live but i found 4G dumbphones on Amazon. On top of my head there were nokia and panasonic ones.
Re: (Score:2)
2G/3G are dead where i live but i found 4G dumbphones on Amazon. On top of my head there were nokia and panasonic ones.
The ones I have seen (e.g Nokia 2720) had access to the KaiOS app store, and also have apps pre-installed, including Google Voice Assistant and Whatsapp. I had to root my 2720 to get rid of that crap.
I guess it depends on one's definition of a "dumbphone," even the old Nokias had games on them :-) I like having a 4G hotspot so I can use the phone to give internet access to a real computer, and I can see how the shitty built-in camera is useful e.g in the event of an accident etc.
The predictive text also SUC
Re: (Score:2)
Kids should have communities in real life
Real life communities are not always possible, or appropriate, for every child.
where people behave less like assholes
Eh...not really. The types of assholery just shift.
Under light supervision of adults
Can't supervise them 100% of the time, nor should they be.
And a little bit of supervised internet on a family PC in a common room
Overkill. And bypassable.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should just ignore the minority that this actively hurts? In favor of a government that doesn't give two shits about children either way? Because this isn't the action you take if you actually care about the children.
And in a few years... (Score:3)
Australia's youth emerge as the smartest and most together in the world....
Remember kids, government is not your friend. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about that. It seems the government in this case are the only ones in the world who have the interests of the kids in their heart. God know parents are fucking useless raising TikTok zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're posting from the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no unfriendly government to vex you.
Or maybe, it's a little more nuanced.
If Social is bad - outlaw it. Or regulate it. (Score:5, Interesting)
But age based rules have three issues:
1) They are easier to get around than a ban of bad content.
2) They require anyone above the age to prove their age, thereby destroying their privacy which does far MORE damage than the supposed bad content. When it comes to censorship the government is always the bad guy, not the hero. Just look at the US currently.
3) They allow the bad content to continue to exist and affect the people they claim are old enough to deal with it. But people are not uniform. What some learn by 16, others do not until 18. Some never learn it. Worst of all, they never offer classes to teach people how to recognize the issues and deal with it. That would be far more effective than a temporary ban.
We need a Modern Home Economics class. It should talk about dealing with the police, dealing with taxes, dealing with the internet, how to recognize fraud/scams, how to recognize when a company is offering you a horrible deal (especially how your email/phone etc. is valuable and not a 'free' thing you give the company), sexual consent, how to ask someone out, basic medical care (do not remove the knife), and of course basic scientific method / logic.
Re:If Social is bad - outlaw it. Or regulate it. (Score:4, Informative)
1) They are easier to get around than a ban of bad content.
My understanding is that the law was written by people cognisant of the reality that there would be many people who could get around it. The point is that a lot of people wouldn't, and that in turn means that if parents want to not have their kids on social media, they can do that without isolating them from their entire peer group.
2) They require anyone above the age to prove their age, thereby destroying their privacy which does far MORE damage than the supposed bad content.
Meta knows everything about you, and you don't have to prove your age. They know when you were born. They sold your private information to Cambridge Analytica to swing elections, and foment coups.
3) They allow the bad content to continue to exist and affect the people they claim are old enough to deal with it. But people are not uniform. What some learn by 16, others do not until 18. Some never learn it. Worst of all, they never offer classes to teach people how to recognize the issues and deal with it. That would be far more effective than a temporary ban.
Are you guessing, or has there been a study showing that educating kids reduces their capacity to be manipulated by social media disinformation and bullying?
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that no such study exists, as it doesn't appear that there is any relationship between education and resistance to manipulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that a lot of people wouldn't, and that in turn means that if parents want to not have their kids on social media, they can do that without isolating them from their entire peer group.
LOL, one of the kids in the peer group will figure a way around the ban and then share it with their peer group... and now, it will be impossible for the parents to monitor it. You clearly didn't think this through... but authoritarians never think things through. They assume that what they say is true and real, but, reality is far more complex than they give it credit for, so they, and you, are blind.
Meta knows everything about you, and you don't have to prove your age. They know when you were born. They sold your private information to Cambridge Analytica to swing elections, and foment coups.
If I understand your argument correctly, what you are saying is that since Meta already thinks it knows eve
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand your argument correctly, what you are saying is that since Meta already thinks it knows everything about you, then you should be forced to validate that information?
No, that age verification doesn't destroy privacy. It was already destroyed.
I mean, if you tell someone about a trick that you are about to perform on them, do you REALLY think they would then fall for the trick after being informed?
The challenge is that frequent social media use is strongly associated with lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and other mental health challenges in children. [nih.gov] It's not quite analogous to playing a trick on someone.
Re: (Score:2)
You have ZERO privacy on the internet. They do fingerprinting of your browser, use cookies, use tracking pixels, etc etc etc etc etc all to zero in on who you are. And they know exactly where you live.
Social media has been proven to worsen the mental health of children/teens. It is also proven that it is addictive to these age groups.
Bu
Won't work but needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet the EU is watching closely.
This is tackling a complex problem with a hammer. There are workarounds, there will be collateral damage. Sure. But businesses are there to make money, not look after people and societies. We know they'll happily do any amount of social, environmental and personal harm in the interests of profit. So governments have to protect their citizens, however imperfectly that turns out to be. If a government / regulatory system is any good, you don't allow a pesticide factory to be built beside a school, but you do allow the factory to be built somewhere.
So, I think it's also completely reasonable. Governments have got to do something, and this is a starting point. The idea that you can come up with a perfect solution to a complex problem is childish. So is the idea that because of this you don't even try. You have a go and refine and keep chasing a moving target, and it's never all that good but it's better than doing nothing.
It all has to start with recognising that something needs to be done, and with not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. (Or is not good, better.)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the EU is watching closely.
This is tackling a complex problem with a hammer. There are workarounds, there will be collateral damage. Sure. But businesses are there to make money, not look after people and societies. We know they'll happily do any amount of social, environmental and personal harm in the interests of profit. So governments have to protect their citizens, however imperfectly that turns out to be. If a government / regulatory system is any good, you don't allow a pesticide factory to be built beside a school, but you do allow the factory to be built somewhere.
So, I think it's also completely reasonable. Governments have got to do something, and this is a starting point. The idea that you can come up with a perfect solution to a complex problem is childish. So is the idea that because of this you don't even try. You have a go and refine and keep chasing a moving target, and it's never all that good but it's better than doing nothing.
It all has to start with recognising that something needs to be done, and with not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. (Or is not good, better.)
I've already posted on here so I can't mod you up.
And yes, Europe is watching closely: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
LATE-NIGHT CURFEW?!
If Europe isn't careful, they're going to teach a generation of kids that it's ok to do their FTPing during business hours.
Re: (Score:2)
This is tackling a complex problem with a hammer.
Perhaps that's what's needed? It's a hard problem to solve, and as of right now, the companies involved have no financial incentive to solve it, just to keep the profits for themselves and push the problems onto everyone else.
Governments aren't good at and cannot be good at moving targets, because they need to rule ultimately by political consensus which is slow moving. Sometimes the threat of a big hammer is what's needed to keep the worst aspects of society
Re: (Score:2)
Governments have got to do something
Do they? Government does need to provide infrastructure and a coherent ruleset that we can ALL abide by, but does it REALLY need to control the social affairs of its citizens? If so, why? Make sure to include how it affects/effects the concept of Freedom... or is Freedom an antiquated concept and we should all sacrifice our individuality for the Greater Good?
am i missing something (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
are phone calls and texts counted as social media therefore also banned?
You could be missing a brain, or just spent too much time on Instagram.
Re: (Score:2)
are phone calls and texts counted as social media therefore also banned?
No, the phone still works as a phone. Emails still work. Kids are not being "silenced" or "censored."
Any legislation that annoys Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg at the same time is probably a good idea. While I disagree with many, many things the .au government has done, I think this is in general a positive step.
Re: am i missing something (Score:2)
And little of value was lost (Score:2)
Yes, there are a few useful corners of social media.
And you could watch symphonies on TV too. And educational stuff. But kids didn't, did they? Or those who did were a rounding error.
And then of course there's the fact that social media is a million times worse than TV ever was. You wouldn't let your kids wander down every dark alley of every city on earth, so why would you let them wander every corner of the internet?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there are a few useful corners of social media.
And you could watch symphonies on TV too. And educational stuff. But kids didn't, did they? Or those who did were a rounding error.
And then of course there's the fact that social media is a million times worse than TV ever was. You wouldn't let your kids wander down every dark alley of every city on earth, so why would you let them wander every corner of the internet?
Social media is a sewer. Sometimes gold gets flushed in there, but if you go looking for the gold you'll be up to your neck in shit.
Age verification for grownups (Score:2)
Here are my current Australian-hosted ActivityPub IDs for the hosts to prove that I am over 16.
I donâ(TM)t think a 16 year old would have a 4-digit slashdot account.
@Salvo@aussie.zone
@Salvo@aus.social
How about the unbanned? (Score:3)
Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon. Who cares what their experiences are.
But seriously, what about the not-kids? Australian adults, are you having to show your ID when you get a DHCP lease? Do a lot of websites who didn't have mandatory logins, now have 'em?
How does it work, and what has changed for you?
Re:How about the unbanned? (Score:4, Insightful)
They also have age restrictions on alcohol, driving, gun ownership , adult content, marriage, etc etc etc too.
Nothing is perfect, but doing nothing is a 100% way to fail.
Do you know what you need for the home internet account...a CONTRACT, and these can only be signed by an ADULT, someone over the age of 18.
Australia also has free and fair elections, not the bastardised BS that the USA has.
Australia also ranks higher than the USA for free speech, Freedom of the press, Education, Healthcare, women's rights, Food quality, etc etc etc The USA is higher in corruption, crime, violent crime, prison population. And if it wasn't for the shootings we would not actually know the US had an education system....but they are doing their best to shut that down, guess that's one way to protect US kids...
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but which of those things came with the new law? A lot of what you're describing (I suspect all of it) was already in place. What changed for non-banned users?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon.
I care about the kids, and I don't think this is treading on them, I think it's pushing them to have IRL relationships, and that's a good thing. I say that as a nerd who had few friends when I was a teen (in the 80s), but even normal, social kids today have far fewer real friendships and many of the geeky kids like I was now have none at all.
We're a social species, we need and crave socialization, but social media is to real relationships like drugs are to the normal joys of life; a false but massively-a
Should not be necessary (Score:2)
my generation grew up with AOL chat rooms, and anonymous web forum, and all the toxicity and grooming that entails. We lived through the rise of porn from text, to stills, to grainy video, up through to the 4k fire hose that is internet porn today.
anyone letting their kid on social media, or onto the internet in general without guide rails in place, needs to have their head exami
Re: (Score:2)
+4/
Re:Vpns will be criminalized next (Score:4, Interesting)
Will that stop everyone, no, it will stop the majority, and the lack of friends to chat too will also reduce the numbers, because all those kids will be elsewhere doing something better and that will become the new "in thing"
US media, social media, etc etc etc are so bolloxed , brought , controlled, etc that its 100% pointless, and social media is NOT a solution, that's just making the problem bigger.
The rest of the world should follow Australia. Doing something is ALWAYS way more effective than doing nothing.