100
Australia’s Social Media Ban Was Pushed By Ad Agency Focused On Gambling Ads It Didn’t Want Banned (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 10 months ago (17 children)

I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good, but I'll always be an enemy to evil, which this ban clearly is.
This sort of thing is so clearly motivated by the frustration of the powers that be over having lost control of the narrative over the genocide in Gaza, and a bunch of cantankerous cretins from the Cretaceous who can't cope coexisting with kids in their communities are all too happy to sacrifice basic civil liberties over it for some reason.

This is so fucking stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    Not to mention it is counter productive in a number of ways. I have lost the ability to monitor my kids YouTube usage, the kids are just going to move to alternate platforms, and I am amongst the cohort of sensible Australians who will refuse to use social media before I provide some dodgy AI company my ID, it's going to be a lot harder to convince my kids to do the same once all their friends and peers start ratcheting up the conformity pressure after they turn 16. This whole thing isn't misguided, it's a betrayal of the majority of Australians who are too dumb to realise what they are giving away to access these services.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (12 children)

    You have opened my eyes to some important issues I had not considered before.

    This law actually hurts parents who have actively looked out for their kids. They've been nurturing them, showing them the bad things that are on social media. Teaching them about critical thinking, how to spot bias. How to be aware of algorithms leading you down a path.

    Is this the new age prohibition? We all know how that went.

    But instead of banning it for everyone, we ban it for those who are youngest, most susceptible, and most unaware of the dangers? Does this put those children who would have been mentored and instructed by good parents and guided over years and throw them to the wolves? And prevent good, active parenting ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    What a silly thing to say. This law doesn't stop parents teaching their kids they evils of social media.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    No, what it does is removes agency from parents and tells us that we aren't capable of raising our kids, the government will have to do it. My kids have been asking, for several years, to get Facebook accounts so they can use marketplace. I used that desire to have a frank discussion with them about how predatory Facebook is and how sinister it is that they have subsumed so many things that used to be independent and didn't require an account with them specifically so they can lock users in and Hoover up more data. I have told the kids that if they want Facebook accounts after they turn 18 they are welcome to open them then, but until that day I am not allowing them to give up their privacy. Do I seem disengaged as a parent?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Yes you really do seem... disengaged as a parent.

    Prior to the ban, most parents wouldn't tell their kids they couldn't use social for fear of making them pariahs - excluded from something their peers are partaking of.

    The ban provides parents with the agency to restrict their kids from using social, because at least the majority of kids won't be there.

    I dont see how the ban prevents you from having conversations with your children?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I started writing out a detailed reply going into all the nuance, but I feel that it's a waste of time. I'm not sure if you are trolling as such, but you are being deliberately obtuse. I actually feel like you understand the points that people are making to you quite clearly. This is terrible legislation, it's a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem, with very few exceptions this is almost always a bad way of enacting policy.

    The jab at my parenting because I already do the things you claim parents are too feeble to do without the government holding their hand is admittedly irritating, but I am going to choose to move past it.

    This is the brainfart of a conservative grifter, it's satanic panic, it's the war on drugs, it's another populist policy being pitched at the unintelligent to draw their attention while the business and political interests behind it are picking their pocket. You choose not to see it that way then fine, but we both know it's true.

    I am going to stop engaging with you now, feel free to have as many last says and derisive put downs as you want. I will not be reading them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    So at this point I have to ask if you have experience raising children, because I have raising five of them and the last part of the previous comment describes excellent parenting, social media law or no.

    For the record, I think this law is ineffective and I agree with the point raised in numbered form earlier of this government giving us things we don’t want or need, and ignoring the stuff we do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Which part are you referring to?

    Are you honestly suggesting that imposing a hard requirement for your children to exclude themselves from the platforms on which their peers are engaging with each other is good parenting?

    You personally may not want this ban, but it has overwhelming support from parents generally. Its not even a divisive issue, it has bipartisan support. Thats not to say you cant criticise it, merely that "we" really did ask for this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    imposing a hard requirement…

    So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? Does your whole point ride around peer ridicule, based on who applies the ban, or the ban itself?

    Yeah I am honestly suggesting, because parents are better at that, given they know their own children better than most and the situation they’re in. And that it’s their role here, not the federal governments.

    it has bipartisan support

    So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does. It’s a contributor why we’re called ‘the lucky country’.

    This policy is lucky country policy.

    ’we’ really asked for this

    No we didn’t. We asked for gambling ads to be removed and a solution to the housing crisis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to?

    I can't believe I need to spell this out but here goes.

    If kids are generally interacting with each other on social media, then excluding your own child from that will make them a pariah. You know, like the kid that can't go on the school camp because reasons.

    With the recent ban, kids are no longer "generally interacting" with each other on social media. It doesn't matter that some will inevitably circumvent the ban. This gives parents the opportunity to enforce boundaries.

    it’s their role here, not the federal governments.

    Nonsense. Federal government's impose age restrictions on all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. There are legislated ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving, et cetera.

    So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does.

    If something has bipartisan support then more or less by definition, you can't argue that "we" didn't ask for it, because everyone's representatives are asking for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    If kids…

    By my experience, that didn’t happen. To them or most of their friends. Yes, I know it didn’t, the last one just left school and they were honest with us about it.

    ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving

    Are vastly different from engaging in social networks. That’s why good parents object to this.

    I’ll ask again; do you have any experience raising children. For that matter, drinking or driving?

    if something has bipartisan support

    It doesn’t mean it’s in our interest and often means it’s lucky country politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I do have kids approaching this age, but I dont see how thats relevant.

    Even as a childless bachelor, any idiot can conclude that children spending less time on social media is good for society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    It’s relevant because a lot of us who have raised children understand where the government has gone wrong with this.

    That doesn’t mean we all agree, some parents who’ve been through this agree with the law, as you said.

    The peer pressure, if it happens, will continue; that’s something I’ll let you know now before yours get to that age. In fact it’ll be stronger because this time they’re really being a rebel; it’s not just mum and dad.

    Any idiot concluding that keeping children off social networks is a good thing, is not the same as a government introducing flawed legislation to do that, legislation which will be ineffective. As for what other problems arise from this, we have to wait and see.

    Edit: they’re for you’re, third paragraph.

    Edit 2: last paragraph for clarity

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Parental controls on most devices will allow you to monitor and regulate your kid's youtube usage, and block alternative platforms.

    Having to provide ID to access services isn't ideal, but in the context of everything else people provide to social media it doesn't seem very significant to me?

    Suggesting that this is some kind of "betrayal" is overly dramatic, sorry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    The parental controls I had? That worked just fine? That no longer work as the kids are force logged out of YouTube until they have turned 16. Or do you mean I should engage with Microsoft's virtual spyware? Sorry but we are an opt out family and I do all I can to block telemetry and surveillance as I think my kids deserve better than to be reduced to a profile on a server. What do you use to monitor your kids activity online?

    Do you not see the betrayal of our elected officials bowing to minority interests and pursuing policies that are, at very best, counterproductive, and at worst a distraction, that experts are telling them will not have the intended outcomes, to give them an excuse to avoid legislating the harder things? A deciding factor for my preferences at the last election was to minimise the creeping advance of the surveillance state that Dutton so obviously desperately wanted to push through... We are getting it anyway.

    We keep moving further and further away from privacy and security in the face of the spooky spectres of "terrorism" and "protecting the children" but once we have handed those things over they are almost impossibly hard to regain. When we look back in 10 years and realise we voluntarily handed the government and big business all the info they need to monitor our every movement online at all times and got nothing in return how do we stuff that Genie back in the bottle?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    Sorry chief this is just plain nutty.

    I cant really respond to that.

    By all means continue believing that wanting to reduce the impact of corporate profiteering on children is "evil".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent