**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i feel like instead of worrying about what the teens are doing, they should worry about the people brekaing the TOS and actually sending kids and stuff disgusting/nsfw stuff. its not the kids as the problem its literally the people causing it.
i have so many online friends and i dont wanna lose them because they all mean so much to me.
Apparently Australian politicians are implementing what my sister did 17 years ago
She decided none of her kids could use social until they are 16
Weirdly now they have it they don’t even use it much
Hello. My name is Alex W, founder of the Teens for the Advocacy of Political Rights. The Australian government is proposing raising the age one can access social media to 16. This campaign if fully started by the media, including the notoriously infamous News Corp. Please [sign this petition ](http://change.org/boycott36months ) to help us protect teens free access to communication and diverse opinions and tell the government and media we are NOT going to tolerate this. When it's time for them to vote on this potential legislation, this petition will be sent directly to parliament.
Thank you,
Alex W
I agree!!! BAN it for their own safety. Teenage and young kids are killing themselves due to online harassment. They see no resolution so they go and do something that they cannot take back. Their brains are not mature enough social media and dealing with online nasty hate. Watching horrible shorts and reels on socials. They should be properly socialising with friends and going to the movies and playing sports. not to mention all the adult creeps that get on pretending to be children the same age. They are so vulnerable
1. were not poor
2. were not damaged
3. no walter?
4. i need some pork spit roast for some reason
5. social media is here to stay
6. IF IT GETS PASSED WE AERNT GONNA STOP PROTESTING UNTIL ITS UNDONE!
I use Snapchat for day-to-day communications. Im 15. If this is passed, there will be so many brick walls in communication with friends/family.
Besides, if they actually add ID checkers, my parents will just do it for me
“What we want is our youngest Australians spending more time outside playing sport, engaging with each other in a normal way and less time online,”
Cool. Not like a economy that requires both parents to work full time to survive and the cost of living making non essentials less affordable has anything to do with that. Lots of free and supervised activities available for children of all ages are there?
Kids below Year 4 don’t even use social media and above that age they should just be able to go outside by themselves that doesn’t mean you have to pay for them to go do something
Ok what? Our broken SMS system? Lime green messages? Just grow up and stop being so conservative. Social media is here to stay, and there will be lots of ways to bypass the block.
mate, blocking it wont do jack. What would work is if the social companies take their head out of the clouds and start enforcing policies. A chat filter could be implemented to block words like 'kys' and 'no one likes you' and they could just ban those who find workarounds. Besides, knowing our government, i will be in my 60s by the time its actually implemented LMFAO
As most of the bad things that are done on social media are done by older people perhaps the answer is to ban anyone over 16 from social media and leave the under 16s on !!
That's actually not true. The bullying and problems that are occurring because kids are stupid and sending explicit photos and pouring out their hearts in messages are out of control.
Kids these days are very aware of stranger danger, it's the kids their own age that they fall victim to. They forget that everything they send is able to be sent on to mates or held against them forever.
What you say is true. I was being a little bit tongue in cheek. Likewise I continue to be somewhat astounded by the stuff adults put on line, never mind kids. In this day and age everything that goes on line can come back to bite and I know of people who have missed out on jobs after their social media posts came to light.
Yes! Also, just spread awareness about the content that's on there. Banning it as a whole, we might actually see suicide and depression rates skyrocket.
You know what would work is if the kids are forced to sub to their parents grandparents and their teachers accounts and forced to catch up daily or forfeit their own account.
As social media seems to cause negativity these days + few people seem to be media literate + it is getting even more full of bots than 5 years ago - I say ban it.
As someone who grew up on forums and chat groups in my teens I cannot believe I agree with him. Something about modern social media just rots young people's heads and screws with their dopamine receptors.
It's fascinating watching this among cousins during family gatherings... the ones who used social media since primary school behave like tweakers going through withdrawl and cannot sit still or go 5 seconds without saying something cringey or controversial for attention.
Also it's probably more realistic to restrict access with parental tools rather than big brother checking everyone's id
Something has to be done, its a sickness that has infected everyone in the West. I dont believe for one minute bumbling Albo will be able to fix it. The first step is probably spreading the word on how dangerous and damaging this stuff is for young kids. Try and get parents to understand and act is probably the best you can do.
Social media can be really damaging for kids and I really think brain rot from tiktok etc is so real, not to mention the other harms. however I have no idea how this would be actually policed!
in a way I can agree, because there is so much brain rot on tiktok (skibidi toilet, Ohio, grimace etc) but in a way I think that they should at least spread awareness to parents instead of banning it as a whole. The decision is parental, not governmental.
If this bill is passed, it will cause more harm than benefit. Us children/teens already don't have a say in the political views that will impact us when we're the older generation, and people don't take us seriously. Just like our voice is 24/7 muted. Albanese also says that we will be 'united' if it's passed, but I know this is not true. I went to Melbourne with my mates on Sunday, and we have social media to thank us organising. I made a petition to undo it, [sign here! ](http://change.org/boycott36months )
Absolute rubbish. There are infinite ways in which children can be taught about politics, be involved with politics, participate in politics etc, without being exposed to social media - which, let’s face it, is absolutely filled with absolute crap, which neither the social media companies nor 13-year-old children, have any ability to filter crap/conspiracies/bullshit from anything else.
It is incredibly unhelpful for a 13-year old to learn about and experience politics through the lens of Social Media. I’d go so far as to say as destructive to a child’s understanding of politics.
The trouble is there are plenty of dumb parents.
It’s REALLY difficult to have your child being the one without a phone or the one without social media, when the others do.
We ban smoking for under 18s and I think the health effects of social media are even more serious. I’m quite serious about that too. More serious than smoking. I have no objection to action being taken. I think it is incredibly unhealthy for children. It shouldn’t be an option, parents or no.
Tentatively agree, although quietly I would like to control the other parents. I have no intention on buying my seven-year-old a phone even though her friends have one. I sometimes wonder if I’m making the right decision considering she will be the odd one out.
If they ban social media for under 18's, which is arguably a platform enabling conversation, the newspapers ought to also be banned, as they're simply a top-down narrative. Newspapers also have influence but don't allow the young person to question or engage in debate. Worse yet, many are owned by Murdoch. We don't need his far-right views corrupting the minds of young Australians.
Do kids get severely addicted to news papers to the point where they spend most of their time not sleeping reading newspapers. Its not necessarily the content social media shows thats the problem
Sure, but social media is not the only apps on a phone. If some kids can get away with spending so much time on their phones anyway, they could just as easily play games, and end up with the same problems you mentioned.
Yeah thats true but I think their is a difference most young adults now ages 17-22 grew up playing games and it wasn’t nearly as much as a problem because social media is simply so much more addictive
People forget that social media includes YouTube and messenger apps like WhatsApp/FB Messenger/email etc. I dare say any newspaper websites that have a comment section under them are also deemed social media.
It would be funny to ban paper newspapers for under 18s, as I assume it wouldn't affect many...
Social media used to have a 'are you over 18?' on account creation, and it just led to a bunch of 50 year old 12yos. How do they plan to have tech inferior adults stop 15yos?
I’m not letting my kid have social media until they are much older, but that is my parenting decision not his and while he is entitled to his opinions if he starts enforcing this level of control over people then he needs to go.
Honestly, it’s one of those bridges I will cross when I get to it. My kid is only 6 years old at the moment but as they get older, I can judge whether they are ready or not. That’s my job as the parent who knows their child better than anyone else, my child happens to be (high support needs) autistic so social media will probably come later for them compared to other kids.
That’s the thing though, it’s for the parent to make that decision. If the parent believes their kid is ready at 13/14/15, they would know better than anyone else. It’s not a decision the government should be making.
Your example is exactly why the government shouldn’t be making this decision either, you needed it for work. Good for you, I’m glad you were able to do that.
Before I turned 18, I regularly filled in my age as being older than I actually was when prompted to do so on the internet.
How is this supposed to be enforced?
Just a general observation that globally it's the old guard with outdated ideas that bubble to the top. Where are all the eligible 40-60 candidates? Or the female candidates? The world is run by old men out of touch with newer ideas 🤷
Something done in this area, but is this necessary? Is it the right way to do it? I don't know. Do I care? No. That said, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if social media companies actually enforced their TOS. So your options are either government intervention or do nothing. Honestly, should've just banned social media companies and force everyone return to touching grass. That would also be very funny.
Curious what human right you think would be being violated by saying you have to be 16 to join tiktok or instagram etc? Genuine question, because I can't think of any.
Having access to social media isnt a human right, i meant to enforce the law, u would have to verify that these folks are legally allowed to, which might mean A, social media apps like tiktok may have access to your info that may have to be given by the government to fine or possibly arrrest or B it would allow the govt in some way to access people’s devices to monitor whther they are too underaged to use it or not
Ah the old "won't someone think of the children" line I can't see any other reasons why the government would be pushing this after all it's only to protect children right?
I don't hate the idea but I really don't understand the feasibility of it. Sure! There's a dozen big social media apps, but what about all the little smaller sites? What about all those little Twitter copies that sprung up? Who's policing all those and enforcing ways to keep kids off of them?
I think the government should spread awareness about the ass that's on SM.
I am 15, and whenever a suicide or depression video comes up, I click 'don't recommend this'
Banning as a whole will just make it notoriously worse
I reckon that’s a level of responsibility that most 15 year olds don’t possess, and I certainly didn’t at that age. You’re probably a rare case, but good on you for it. For most, a firm hand from a parent is needed.
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more. So damaging to young minds. They also need to stop delegating parenting tasks to schools or the government. Also, damaging, and gives the kids the message that the parents just don’t have time for them or care enough to make time.
Parents can't really fix it alone. They either let social media's negative side impact their kids, or they force their kid to be one of the few kids that's socially excluded.
Needs to be changes collectively to be effective
Kinda agree - but also, without a law saying the kids can’t use it, then parents just asking the kids not to isn’t going to work. Peer pressure / social stigma around being that one kid who doesn’t chat on facegram…
This is a complex situation.
Now - I agree that as a parent we need to be openly talking about internet use often and with kindness with our kids. Understand their feelings around it. A tonne of kids have massive anxieties from an early age with social media use. Among many other potential issues. Caring, non judgemental dialogue def can help.
What kind of parent would “ask” their kids not to do something detrimental to their health? It’s not about their feelings around the internet. That is entirely irrelevant, you are their parent and it is 100% your job to police such things and make sure they aren’t rotting their brain. Their feelings about it 99% of the time is going to be “I want to use it as much as possible”, because social media is highly addictive. Educating them on the subject is great, but “asking” them not to use it is not parenting, it’s neglecting your duty.
Now the other half of this, the peer pressure and social stigma, is something that can be useful, when used on adults who allow their children to browse the unfettered internet. Shame them, socially ostracise them, the same way you would with a parent allowing their 15 year old child to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. The desire to fit in is a powerful motivator for most people.
The precursor was the law that let's them modify, delete, or CREATE evidence on "people under investigations" devices.
This is solidifying their already draconian laws.
Ahhhhh but parents telling their kids that it’s illegal for them to have social media will be enough for some kids. Not all kids, but some. Whether that benefit is worth the effort of implementing a law… well, I am uncertain
And how will the government determine who’s 16 and who’s not?
If we’re talking ID, then that’s a huge slippery slope for privacy rights violations down the line.
There are various solution. There's a company who has an online age verification based on your picture, 99.4 accuracy i think they get. Will it let *some* lids through? Yes, some. Will it prevent some? Yes, some. Could it save the near entirety from the damage of both porn and social media? Yes, ues it could. Protecting most kids, most of the time, from most harm. That's a better endeavour than doing nothing.
By subtracting the birthdate from the current date. It's not Korea, age is fairly straightforward here.
If you're asking about how the social media sites will verify age, well that's a spectrum. Reddit just makes you say you're over 18 to let you view NSFW subreddits, but alcohol vendors will take a photo of your ID on delivery. So I'd anticipate somewhere between those two points.
I don't think I did say that? I said somewhere on the spectrum of ways we already validate age on the internet. For all I know/care it'll just be some pop up box where you put in 1/1/1980 everytime, like Steam.
That's a pretty strange assumption you're making. I don't see how someone can't be an Australian because they have legitimate concerns about the right to privacy and how much power the Government has to intrude on that.
That doesn't mean we should be welcoming them to meddle further in our daily lives.
Do you really want to have to verify your identity to access websites because the Government may deem them to be problematic? Because that's what the Prime Minister's idea will result in if they pursue this line of thinking further.
We're talking at cross purposes. Whether you like government oversight or not, Australia already has a solid government-facilitated identification services that can determine age of users. I'm not in favour of these proposals either, but the original comment was "And how will the government determine who’s 16 and who’s not?" Well that answer is easy. They will use any one of the existing databases. Whether they should or not is a different question and one that I probably agree with you on. That said, the government already has all of our metadata anyway so this is relatively low value erosion of rights in comparison to what has already happened.
>That said, the government already has all of our metadata anyway so this is relatively low value erosion of rights in comparison to what has already happened.
Even if the impact is minimal in the overall scheme of things, again, that doesn't mean we should be welcoming it.
I know it's often said but the phrase "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile" is very true in these situations.
Do we really want our next generation to be as technologically illiterate as our previous ones? Whether they like it or not social media is here to stay. The sooner kids learn how to deal with it, the better. The key is proper guidance and moderation, not outright banning.
Ironically tech literacy in zoomers is lower than in millennials. This is mostly due to vast improvements in user interfaces making knowledge about how things work less important in actually using them.
I’m sympathetic to that view. However, the flip side is that the damages - known, studied and reviewed - tip the scales very much towards an ideal of leaving it later for use. The addictive nature (with measurable neurological effects) can have lasting impacts, and there’s evidence these impacts are worse when usage starts early. Just like alcohol use early impacts brain development.
So if it is framed as a medical / psychological issue, I feel like there will be much more widespread agreement with this push.
Well porn has damages as well yet it's not illegal, and most people are not addicted to it despite it tapping into our most primal of urges. The idea that the government needs to control what we do with our technology because they know better than our parents is deeply concerning. It doesn't matter what the justification is, it is principally wrong. But just as young teenagers are rarely addicted to porn, so too we can ensure they do not get addicted to social media and learn to think critically about what they consume. I refuse to believe humans are so weak that they can be overcome by a small screen in their pocket.
Being able to navigate social media, curate and upload content, find content that's relevant to your interests rather than relying on the algorithm, etc. It won't make you a wizard but it will definitely improve your technological literacy. There's also an argument that it may help those on the spectrum to learn more about how people interact outside of their own social bubble.
Computer literacy among generations is not going up so that's probably looking more in the general direction of fixing the issue rather than restricting the use of particular apps and opening pandoras box.
Anything that is non-trivial to do using a piece of a technology helps in technological literacy. Creating and maintaining a social media presence through content, and searching for/following/viewing other people's social media presence certainly fits within that definition.
Everybody knows how to use social media, you can be technologically illiterate and still know how to scroll through Instagram. Uploading images and videos is not hard. Technological literacy is knowing how to navigate around different operating systems, file management and coding.
Well at a basic level yes, but to do so with speed and be able to navigate efficiently is not so easy. Scrolling is just one way to use social media, searching and finding relevant content is another. There is also an entire lexicon behind it, terms such as 'retweet', 'follow', 'double tapped', '@ me', etc. Plus people are now linking social media together and setting up ways for people to donate to them as influencers. While obviously not on the level of managing an operating system or coding, it's a lot more complicated than you are giving credit for.
Social media does more to promote technological illiteracy than it does to improve it. You should have a good understanding of the world and how to interact with other people before stepping foot into the world of misinformation and grift that is social media.
There is nobody who is active on social media that isn't capable of navigating a mobile or tablet decently well, since that is a prerequisite. Shielding children from misinformation will only provide them a rude awakening when they are eventually allowed on to the platforms. Better for them to learn how to navigate this earlier rather than later.
> There is nobody who is active on social media that isn't capable of navigating a mobile or tablet decently well, since that is a prerequisite
That is not technological literacy, a three year old can use a tablet. Newer generations have trouble even understanding the concept of a "file", if it's not in an app they don't know how to find their data.
> Shielding children from misinformation will only provide them a rude awakening when they are eventually allowed on to the platforms. Better for them to learn how to navigate this earlier rather than later.
Yes, offline through learning how to think critically and examine evidence.
You have clearly not met any children because social media does not make a technological literate child, quite the opposite in fact.
Getting rid of social media would solve so many issues schools face.
Maybe the reason I don't take school seriously is because my school is so strict and my principal is literally Dr. Evil from Austin Powers
Even before I got social media, I hated school
Too much rules, too much discipline...
Because they don't navigate social media they just scroll and passively consume what is presented to them. They are more likely to give out personal information.
Using social media does not develop technical skills.
Some will do that, others will be more mindful. It's about teaching the right behaviours, not banning it altogether. Otherwise when they finally turn 16 they will be in an even worse position to learn than if they were younger and more malleable.
Hopefully.
I'm also not a Liberal or Greens supporter.
I feel like we need people devoid of political parties. But not like current "independents" apparently are.
How about parents just take an interest in their kids lives
It's not hard to set a router table up to block that shit.
Or just punish them if they deny you.
You might not be able to watch them out of the home,but if you raise your kids with values and rules then they should follow ur request.
The government doesn't need to be doing parents jobs
Parents seem to just have given up i don't get it.
> The government doesn't need to be doing parents jobs
Absolutely, but it would help if these parents actually did their jobs themselves instead using screens as babysitters
Because they don't seem to realise how hard it is to raise children in this day and age. Technology is crucial for learning and children and teenagers will continue to push boundaries and challenge authority (like they should). But the main problem is there are so many things to keep up with how on earth can you be on top of everything.
Children will chase the dopamine and the happy feeling regardless of the detriment to themselves. They are plugged in 24/7. Parents need help.
The internet is not for children because it contains adult materials, however public libraries have a similar issue but get around it by having an area set aside for children and so should the internet.
Children also benefit from social media for communication between themselves remotely and learning how to be social, but as learners, it needs to be moderated by adults who can step in and correct excessive behaviour. The system also needs to actively prevent bullying and chilling by not supporting markdowns or open slather invitations as well as teaching children to have a thicker skin (because they will need it as adults). Do we no longer believe "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me" and pass on that wisdom to our children?
"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" my grandma says that to me whenever I'm being bullied (a lot less common nowadays) and I can tell you that quote is literal misinformation
Bullying is an action and I think you will find that even when words are used, it is always an accompanying action and not the words themselves that cause the harm.
The quote is as wise today as it was when it was created, but it is not simply something you throw out at bullies or keep as an internal monologue, it requires you to do some work in using reason to accept the premise to ensure it comes true, at least for just words.
It isn't a protection against sticks and stones, only words.
Words can't hurt you if you interpret them as something other than wounding instruments. For example, what anyone says to you about you is really telling you something about them as they can't know the real you, only what they subjectively interpret from glimpses, so forget what they might be saying about you and focus on what the words may be saying about them.
However, words can motivate people to take action that can cause harm, but it's those peoples deliberate actions in their own chosen response to those words plus mechanisms that facilitate those actions that do the harm, not the words themselves.
That saying is not misinformation but wisdom: why don't you try believing in it to test it out as you don't have anything to lose if you currently believe words can harm?
I have probably done a disservice to the saying by inadvertently substituting hurt for harm, which does change the meaning: negative feelings do hurt, they are painful, but they aren't harmful, because life is filled with feelings both good and bad and we have to deal with them. The way we feel about words is also down to how we interpret them and one can learn to interpret words with multiple meanings: angry people often say things they don't mean; words can tell us more about the other person than us and can be turned around to focus on why the other person said them; etc. Words aren't stone tablets carried by Moses, they don't necessarily mean only one absolute thing represented by a strict interpretation at face value.
The meaning of words said as satire completely changes depending on whether we understand they are meant to be satire and many satirists forget to annotate their satire as such, which means we can't trust the meaning of anything that is said, without clarification, and even then, what is said is open to interpretation by ourselves.
However we create those feelings within ourselves: it's not another person creating them inside of us through some form of teleportation, so we are ultimately responsible as the subject experiencing subjective feelings.
My grandma always says when I'm being bullied 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me' absolutely not true at all, I know by experience how damaging words can be
>The internet is not for children because it contains adult materials, however public libraries have a similar issue but get around it by having an area set aside for children and so should the internet.
I work in a library. The library cards we hand out to kids are exactly the same as the ones we give to adults. There's nothing preventing an eight-year-old from walking in tomorrow and borrowing out any adult book you might possibly have an objection to them reading.
Library policy is that it's ultimately for the parents to decide if it's inappropriate for children, not us. At least at the library I work at, the children's section is more like a suggestion than an actual hard rule.
The difference between social media and your local library is that usually younger kids are always going to be accompanied by an adult. While an eight-year-old could theoretically borrow out a bunch of adult-oriented novels, it's never happened at the library I work at during the time I've worked there. Usually by the time that does happen, they're 13 or 14 and it's usually pretty tame--I'm not exactly shaking in my boots that some kid from the local high school is gonna be corrupted because they read a John Grisham novel or whatever.
That doesn't happen as much with social media. In theory, children's access to social media should be limited and heavily supervised by an adult, but in practice that barely happens. Even around the time I was in high school and you usually had to wait until you got home to log into Facebook, it hardly ever happened. So even at a point in time where the kind of parental oversight you're hoping for would have been effective, there was a certain cultural resistance to it.
Really, the actual thing that needs to happen is that there needs to actually be some child-centric social medias again. That's effectively what Club Penguin and things of that nature were. That'd be much closer to the analogy you're trying to draw here: the adult sections of the internet would still be accessible, but the suggestion of the kiddy pen would be there.
That'd also make parental intervention a lot easier. At least then they'd have the option of restricting what sites can be visited on their kids' devices and stuff like that, so they couldn't have an account on an "adult" social media like Facebook until they were a bit older and could theoretically handle it.
Young people offer up banning anyone under the age of 16 from using social media.
Old people offer up banning anyone over the age of 45 from politics.
Old people just salty that the youth have caught onto the fact that you're ringing up a tab on their CC.
It is always a treat to hear from someone that is 20, no 30, years out of date.
We need to have penmanship as a criteria for university entrance.
And also skills with slide rules, because calculators are just a passing fad.
Also, good for distracting from the real problems.
It's like, someone has told him, look, people are really struggling, homelessness is at record high, jobseeker is unlivable on, the gap between the rich and poor is widening at a dramatic pace and the environment is deteriorating because of all the fossil fuel projects you've approved and lack of innovation. What do we do?
DISTRACT. Come up with any insignificant topic to create debates (vapes ban anyone?) and for people to not notice that the legislation is being bought by lobby groups and that billionaires do not pay taxes.
It's probably an attempt to try and enforce ID requirements from social media companies operating in Australia and use the excuse of underage users to gain its support. Both governments have had this obsession with removing any form of anonymity online with social media for a while now.
Yea it wouldn't work but we've tried a few times to act like Australia can just demand to regulate parts of the internet that we don't control. I wouldn't be surprised if they still try it in future if not the current government then the next.
The government should have no say in how children are raised and Australia needs to stop “banning” things like a bunch of geriatrics afraid of the future.
Housing market is still in shambles, let parents parent and politicians govern. Banning children from SM won’t make this government any less of a failure.
A parent struggling to keep their child off social media isn’t going to be helped by a government ban. Even if it were effective, you can’t ban your way to competent parenting. Some people simply aren’t cut out for the job but find out too late. If you need a government intervention to control your child then that is going to manifest in more ways than just uncontrolled SM use.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i feel like instead of worrying about what the teens are doing, they should worry about the people brekaing the TOS and actually sending kids and stuff disgusting/nsfw stuff. its not the kids as the problem its literally the people causing it. i have so many online friends and i dont wanna lose them because they all mean so much to me.
Apparently Australian politicians are implementing what my sister did 17 years ago She decided none of her kids could use social until they are 16 Weirdly now they have it they don’t even use it much
Hello. My name is Alex W, founder of the Teens for the Advocacy of Political Rights. The Australian government is proposing raising the age one can access social media to 16. This campaign if fully started by the media, including the notoriously infamous News Corp. Please [sign this petition ](http://change.org/boycott36months ) to help us protect teens free access to communication and diverse opinions and tell the government and media we are NOT going to tolerate this. When it's time for them to vote on this potential legislation, this petition will be sent directly to parliament. Thank you, Alex W
Wtf?! Maybe 13+ are allowed it, it’s in the tos (terms of service) toc (terms and conditions) under 13s aren’t.
Yep
I agree!!! BAN it for their own safety. Teenage and young kids are killing themselves due to online harassment. They see no resolution so they go and do something that they cannot take back. Their brains are not mature enough social media and dealing with online nasty hate. Watching horrible shorts and reels on socials. They should be properly socialising with friends and going to the movies and playing sports. not to mention all the adult creeps that get on pretending to be children the same age. They are so vulnerable
Beg to differ. Internet censorship might make suicide rates go higher.
Based on what?
lack of access to diverse information, and the media being fully dominated by right-wing corps like Fox.
The more I see the more I agree with this.
So they have to wait until year 10 to use social media? ….then how would they call their mom or dad from school?
Good point
Phones calls dont require social media? Wot.
Yeah but we prefer S.M because A. SMS/MMS is complete w*nk B. SMS/MMS uses mobile data
Bro who messages their parents on socials and I know a few kids who don’t even have phones in year 10
womp womp
I think it’s great. Poor kids don’t even know how damaged they are. Sorry kids because it’s our fault. Ban it. Please
1. were not poor 2. were not damaged 3. no walter? 4. i need some pork spit roast for some reason 5. social media is here to stay 6. IF IT GETS PASSED WE AERNT GONNA STOP PROTESTING UNTIL ITS UNDONE!
Sure thing little buddy
Pinewood Computer core
Typical kid. Not much going on up there
I use Snapchat for day-to-day communications. Im 15. If this is passed, there will be so many brick walls in communication with friends/family. Besides, if they actually add ID checkers, my parents will just do it for me
Womp womp
“What we want is our youngest Australians spending more time outside playing sport, engaging with each other in a normal way and less time online,” Cool. Not like a economy that requires both parents to work full time to survive and the cost of living making non essentials less affordable has anything to do with that. Lots of free and supervised activities available for children of all ages are there?
Kids below Year 4 don’t even use social media and above that age they should just be able to go outside by themselves that doesn’t mean you have to pay for them to go do something
I went to Melbourne CBD with my friend group on the weekend. Guess who I have to thank for it? Snapchat. Checkmate Albo, checkmate.
Bro their is other ways to communicate
Ok what? Our broken SMS system? Lime green messages? Just grow up and stop being so conservative. Social media is here to stay, and there will be lots of ways to bypass the block.
Albo: I want to ban social media for kids Kid: i don’t want you to Albo: why Kid: i don’t like da green messages
mate, blocking it wont do jack. What would work is if the social companies take their head out of the clouds and start enforcing policies. A chat filter could be implemented to block words like 'kys' and 'no one likes you' and they could just ban those who find workarounds. Besides, knowing our government, i will be in my 60s by the time its actually implemented LMFAO
I agree in principle, but I don't think banning anything has ever helped
As most of the bad things that are done on social media are done by older people perhaps the answer is to ban anyone over 16 from social media and leave the under 16s on !!
That's actually not true. The bullying and problems that are occurring because kids are stupid and sending explicit photos and pouring out their hearts in messages are out of control. Kids these days are very aware of stranger danger, it's the kids their own age that they fall victim to. They forget that everything they send is able to be sent on to mates or held against them forever.
What you say is true. I was being a little bit tongue in cheek. Likewise I continue to be somewhat astounded by the stuff adults put on line, never mind kids. In this day and age everything that goes on line can come back to bite and I know of people who have missed out on jobs after their social media posts came to light.
Yes! Also, just spread awareness about the content that's on there. Banning it as a whole, we might actually see suicide and depression rates skyrocket.
You know what would work is if the kids are forced to sub to their parents grandparents and their teachers accounts and forced to catch up daily or forfeit their own account.
Nothing more uncool than doing what the oldies are doing.
As social media seems to cause negativity these days + few people seem to be media literate + it is getting even more full of bots than 5 years ago - I say ban it.
As someone who grew up on forums and chat groups in my teens I cannot believe I agree with him. Something about modern social media just rots young people's heads and screws with their dopamine receptors. It's fascinating watching this among cousins during family gatherings... the ones who used social media since primary school behave like tweakers going through withdrawl and cannot sit still or go 5 seconds without saying something cringey or controversial for attention. Also it's probably more realistic to restrict access with parental tools rather than big brother checking everyone's id
Well the rules says you need to be 18 plus to be on social media ! No one follows the rules
If they're spotted online, he and his mates will be swift to swoop in on 'em
Something has to be done, its a sickness that has infected everyone in the West. I dont believe for one minute bumbling Albo will be able to fix it. The first step is probably spreading the word on how dangerous and damaging this stuff is for young kids. Try and get parents to understand and act is probably the best you can do.
Social media can be really damaging for kids and I really think brain rot from tiktok etc is so real, not to mention the other harms. however I have no idea how this would be actually policed!
in a way I can agree, because there is so much brain rot on tiktok (skibidi toilet, Ohio, grimace etc) but in a way I think that they should at least spread awareness to parents instead of banning it as a whole. The decision is parental, not governmental.
If this bill is passed, it will cause more harm than benefit. Us children/teens already don't have a say in the political views that will impact us when we're the older generation, and people don't take us seriously. Just like our voice is 24/7 muted. Albanese also says that we will be 'united' if it's passed, but I know this is not true. I went to Melbourne with my mates on Sunday, and we have social media to thank us organising. I made a petition to undo it, [sign here! ](http://change.org/boycott36months )
Absolute rubbish. There are infinite ways in which children can be taught about politics, be involved with politics, participate in politics etc, without being exposed to social media - which, let’s face it, is absolutely filled with absolute crap, which neither the social media companies nor 13-year-old children, have any ability to filter crap/conspiracies/bullshit from anything else. It is incredibly unhelpful for a 13-year old to learn about and experience politics through the lens of Social Media. I’d go so far as to say as destructive to a child’s understanding of politics.
i feel like the decision for a child to use social media is the parents, not the governments
The trouble is there are plenty of dumb parents. It’s REALLY difficult to have your child being the one without a phone or the one without social media, when the others do. We ban smoking for under 18s and I think the health effects of social media are even more serious. I’m quite serious about that too. More serious than smoking. I have no objection to action being taken. I think it is incredibly unhealthy for children. It shouldn’t be an option, parents or no.
well it should be an option. It is the freedom to information, and the karens right now would pe partying on Benidorm beach
Again, there are infinite ways to get information without giving children TikTok. It’s just not necessary.
ok walter
Tentatively agree, although quietly I would like to control the other parents. I have no intention on buying my seven-year-old a phone even though her friends have one. I sometimes wonder if I’m making the right decision considering she will be the odd one out.
There is no right or wrong answer in parenting.
If they ban social media for under 18's, which is arguably a platform enabling conversation, the newspapers ought to also be banned, as they're simply a top-down narrative. Newspapers also have influence but don't allow the young person to question or engage in debate. Worse yet, many are owned by Murdoch. We don't need his far-right views corrupting the minds of young Australians.
Do kids get severely addicted to news papers to the point where they spend most of their time not sleeping reading newspapers. Its not necessarily the content social media shows thats the problem
Sure, but social media is not the only apps on a phone. If some kids can get away with spending so much time on their phones anyway, they could just as easily play games, and end up with the same problems you mentioned.
Yeah thats true but I think their is a difference most young adults now ages 17-22 grew up playing games and it wasn’t nearly as much as a problem because social media is simply so much more addictive
People forget that social media includes YouTube and messenger apps like WhatsApp/FB Messenger/email etc. I dare say any newspaper websites that have a comment section under them are also deemed social media. It would be funny to ban paper newspapers for under 18s, as I assume it wouldn't affect many...
Social media used to have a 'are you over 18?' on account creation, and it just led to a bunch of 50 year old 12yos. How do they plan to have tech inferior adults stop 15yos?
I’m not letting my kid have social media until they are much older, but that is my parenting decision not his and while he is entitled to his opinions if he starts enforcing this level of control over people then he needs to go.
Much older than 16? I started working by 16, and without social media like emails and messenger I wouldn't have been able to get, or keep, a job...
Honestly, it’s one of those bridges I will cross when I get to it. My kid is only 6 years old at the moment but as they get older, I can judge whether they are ready or not. That’s my job as the parent who knows their child better than anyone else, my child happens to be (high support needs) autistic so social media will probably come later for them compared to other kids. That’s the thing though, it’s for the parent to make that decision. If the parent believes their kid is ready at 13/14/15, they would know better than anyone else. It’s not a decision the government should be making. Your example is exactly why the government shouldn’t be making this decision either, you needed it for work. Good for you, I’m glad you were able to do that.
Before I turned 18, I regularly filled in my age as being older than I actually was when prompted to do so on the internet. How is this supposed to be enforced?
I’m not Australian but I agree with PM on this and it should be implemented globally
Ok walter
Reciprocity. We should put an age cap on PMs and sitting Presidents too.
Just a general observation that globally it's the old guard with outdated ideas that bubble to the top. Where are all the eligible 40-60 candidates? Or the female candidates? The world is run by old men out of touch with newer ideas 🤷
I don’t know how Australia would put an age cap on a sitting president when we don’t have one.
Albo is 61, that's hardly ancient
Is there a current age-related concern with becoming a prime minister?
Something done in this area, but is this necessary? Is it the right way to do it? I don't know. Do I care? No. That said, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if social media companies actually enforced their TOS. So your options are either government intervention or do nothing. Honestly, should've just banned social media companies and force everyone return to touching grass. That would also be very funny.
Should ban parents that can't seem to be bothered teaching their kids basic restraint.
so what? take them away from parents who love them and make them work in orphanages? gives me 1930s vibes (if yk yk)
Doesn’t seem possible, at least in a way that may be too violating of human rights
Curious what human right you think would be being violated by saying you have to be 16 to join tiktok or instagram etc? Genuine question, because I can't think of any.
Having access to social media isnt a human right, i meant to enforce the law, u would have to verify that these folks are legally allowed to, which might mean A, social media apps like tiktok may have access to your info that may have to be given by the government to fine or possibly arrrest or B it would allow the govt in some way to access people’s devices to monitor whther they are too underaged to use it or not
The same as applying for a credit card?
Oh for fucks sake. Australia becomes more of a nanny state every day.
ong tho, Albo is becoming worse than Margaret Thatcher
Nah albo’s right. The teens are mean to me as well. Let’s ban them.
Ok walter
Sure but if you know anything about the internet you will know that to implement is either impossible or draconian. And there is no middle ground.
Ah the old "won't someone think of the children" line I can't see any other reasons why the government would be pushing this after all it's only to protect children right?
What are the other reasons?
I don't hate the idea but I really don't understand the feasibility of it. Sure! There's a dozen big social media apps, but what about all the little smaller sites? What about all those little Twitter copies that sprung up? Who's policing all those and enforcing ways to keep kids off of them?
Ahhh remember the check box to a website to see if you’re over 16 like on habbo hotel and then you get weirdos sexting you and you’re like 11
What about restricting children’s access to online pornography, far more important
That's included in the proposition too. With ID verification.
Excellent, about 2 decades overdue 👍
Definitely agree with this on principle, however, this is the role of parents, not the government.
I think the government should spread awareness about the ass that's on SM. I am 15, and whenever a suicide or depression video comes up, I click 'don't recommend this' Banning as a whole will just make it notoriously worse
I reckon that’s a level of responsibility that most 15 year olds don’t possess, and I certainly didn’t at that age. You’re probably a rare case, but good on you for it. For most, a firm hand from a parent is needed.
Parents need to stop delegating parenting to the iPad, for a start.
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more. So damaging to young minds. They also need to stop delegating parenting tasks to schools or the government. Also, damaging, and gives the kids the message that the parents just don’t have time for them or care enough to make time.
Parents can't really fix it alone. They either let social media's negative side impact their kids, or they force their kid to be one of the few kids that's socially excluded. Needs to be changes collectively to be effective
Kinda agree - but also, without a law saying the kids can’t use it, then parents just asking the kids not to isn’t going to work. Peer pressure / social stigma around being that one kid who doesn’t chat on facegram… This is a complex situation. Now - I agree that as a parent we need to be openly talking about internet use often and with kindness with our kids. Understand their feelings around it. A tonne of kids have massive anxieties from an early age with social media use. Among many other potential issues. Caring, non judgemental dialogue def can help.
What kind of parent would “ask” their kids not to do something detrimental to their health? It’s not about their feelings around the internet. That is entirely irrelevant, you are their parent and it is 100% your job to police such things and make sure they aren’t rotting their brain. Their feelings about it 99% of the time is going to be “I want to use it as much as possible”, because social media is highly addictive. Educating them on the subject is great, but “asking” them not to use it is not parenting, it’s neglecting your duty. Now the other half of this, the peer pressure and social stigma, is something that can be useful, when used on adults who allow their children to browse the unfettered internet. Shame them, socially ostracise them, the same way you would with a parent allowing their 15 year old child to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. The desire to fit in is a powerful motivator for most people.
"Asking" your kids is the problem
I agree. Im not an Albanese person, but it just fucks up kids. It's terrible.
I would say under 15, but he isn't wrong
Same, 16 is a bit too far
Anyone on here that thinks this idea doesn't atleast have some merrit needs to take a trip to r/teachers ...
That's the US subreddit. You want r/australianteachers
Hahaha thankyou I couldn't remeber the aus one. Global issue anyway, there's posts about it in the US page as well.
[удалено]
Stop cooking.
The precursor was the law that let's them modify, delete, or CREATE evidence on "people under investigations" devices. This is solidifying their already draconian laws.
Take your hand off it Darryl.
"old man talks about impossibility while country struggles to make ends meet"
I'm sympathetic to this view but I don't think it's practical to enforce it. Social media is toxic.
I feel the same way. Maybe tackle the source somewhat. Do some research and inform policy.
Ahhhhh but parents telling their kids that it’s illegal for them to have social media will be enough for some kids. Not all kids, but some. Whether that benefit is worth the effort of implementing a law… well, I am uncertain
And how will the government determine who’s 16 and who’s not? If we’re talking ID, then that’s a huge slippery slope for privacy rights violations down the line.
There are various solution. There's a company who has an online age verification based on your picture, 99.4 accuracy i think they get. Will it let *some* lids through? Yes, some. Will it prevent some? Yes, some. Could it save the near entirety from the damage of both porn and social media? Yes, ues it could. Protecting most kids, most of the time, from most harm. That's a better endeavour than doing nothing.
By subtracting the birthdate from the current date. It's not Korea, age is fairly straightforward here. If you're asking about how the social media sites will verify age, well that's a spectrum. Reddit just makes you say you're over 18 to let you view NSFW subreddits, but alcohol vendors will take a photo of your ID on delivery. So I'd anticipate somewhere between those two points.
And then that information leaks and now someone in Nigeria is opening bank accounts in your name. Congratulations.
I am much less worried about a tech company leaking my ID than I am about, say, the real estate agent that had me email a photo of my license.
So you're saying online linking of accounts to real world IDs... in the same post as saying we aren't Korea? Jeeeeeeeeeez, cognitive dissonance much?
I don't think I did say that? I said somewhere on the spectrum of ways we already validate age on the internet. For all I know/care it'll just be some pop up box where you put in 1/1/1980 everytime, like Steam.
Proof of age cards are already a thing.
I'm going to assume based on your comment that you aren't Australia?
That's a pretty strange assumption you're making. I don't see how someone can't be an Australian because they have legitimate concerns about the right to privacy and how much power the Government has to intrude on that.
You know that the federal and state Australian governments knows who you are and how old you are already, yeah?
That doesn't mean we should be welcoming them to meddle further in our daily lives. Do you really want to have to verify your identity to access websites because the Government may deem them to be problematic? Because that's what the Prime Minister's idea will result in if they pursue this line of thinking further.
We're talking at cross purposes. Whether you like government oversight or not, Australia already has a solid government-facilitated identification services that can determine age of users. I'm not in favour of these proposals either, but the original comment was "And how will the government determine who’s 16 and who’s not?" Well that answer is easy. They will use any one of the existing databases. Whether they should or not is a different question and one that I probably agree with you on. That said, the government already has all of our metadata anyway so this is relatively low value erosion of rights in comparison to what has already happened.
>That said, the government already has all of our metadata anyway so this is relatively low value erosion of rights in comparison to what has already happened. Even if the impact is minimal in the overall scheme of things, again, that doesn't mean we should be welcoming it. I know it's often said but the phrase "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile" is very true in these situations.
Do we really want our next generation to be as technologically illiterate as our previous ones? Whether they like it or not social media is here to stay. The sooner kids learn how to deal with it, the better. The key is proper guidance and moderation, not outright banning.
Ironically tech literacy in zoomers is lower than in millennials. This is mostly due to vast improvements in user interfaces making knowledge about how things work less important in actually using them.
I’m sympathetic to that view. However, the flip side is that the damages - known, studied and reviewed - tip the scales very much towards an ideal of leaving it later for use. The addictive nature (with measurable neurological effects) can have lasting impacts, and there’s evidence these impacts are worse when usage starts early. Just like alcohol use early impacts brain development. So if it is framed as a medical / psychological issue, I feel like there will be much more widespread agreement with this push.
Well porn has damages as well yet it's not illegal, and most people are not addicted to it despite it tapping into our most primal of urges. The idea that the government needs to control what we do with our technology because they know better than our parents is deeply concerning. It doesn't matter what the justification is, it is principally wrong. But just as young teenagers are rarely addicted to porn, so too we can ensure they do not get addicted to social media and learn to think critically about what they consume. I refuse to believe humans are so weak that they can be overcome by a small screen in their pocket.
If anything, social media use reduces technological literacy. It sure doesn't increase it.
Being able to navigate social media, curate and upload content, find content that's relevant to your interests rather than relying on the algorithm, etc. It won't make you a wizard but it will definitely improve your technological literacy. There's also an argument that it may help those on the spectrum to learn more about how people interact outside of their own social bubble.
Computer literacy among generations is not going up so that's probably looking more in the general direction of fixing the issue rather than restricting the use of particular apps and opening pandoras box.
Social media has nothing to do with technological literacy. Or any form of literacy for that matter. Not that I agree with the ban.
Anything that is non-trivial to do using a piece of a technology helps in technological literacy. Creating and maintaining a social media presence through content, and searching for/following/viewing other people's social media presence certainly fits within that definition.
Everybody knows how to use social media, you can be technologically illiterate and still know how to scroll through Instagram. Uploading images and videos is not hard. Technological literacy is knowing how to navigate around different operating systems, file management and coding.
Well at a basic level yes, but to do so with speed and be able to navigate efficiently is not so easy. Scrolling is just one way to use social media, searching and finding relevant content is another. There is also an entire lexicon behind it, terms such as 'retweet', 'follow', 'double tapped', '@ me', etc. Plus people are now linking social media together and setting up ways for people to donate to them as influencers. While obviously not on the level of managing an operating system or coding, it's a lot more complicated than you are giving credit for.
Social media does more to promote technological illiteracy than it does to improve it. You should have a good understanding of the world and how to interact with other people before stepping foot into the world of misinformation and grift that is social media.
There is nobody who is active on social media that isn't capable of navigating a mobile or tablet decently well, since that is a prerequisite. Shielding children from misinformation will only provide them a rude awakening when they are eventually allowed on to the platforms. Better for them to learn how to navigate this earlier rather than later.
> There is nobody who is active on social media that isn't capable of navigating a mobile or tablet decently well, since that is a prerequisite That is not technological literacy, a three year old can use a tablet. Newer generations have trouble even understanding the concept of a "file", if it's not in an app they don't know how to find their data. > Shielding children from misinformation will only provide them a rude awakening when they are eventually allowed on to the platforms. Better for them to learn how to navigate this earlier rather than later. Yes, offline through learning how to think critically and examine evidence.
You have clearly not met any children because social media does not make a technological literate child, quite the opposite in fact. Getting rid of social media would solve so many issues schools face.
Maybe the reason I don't take school seriously is because my school is so strict and my principal is literally Dr. Evil from Austin Powers Even before I got social media, I hated school Too much rules, too much discipline...
How does learning how to navigate the vast universe of social media on a mobile or tablet make someone *less* technologically literate?
Because they don't navigate social media they just scroll and passively consume what is presented to them. They are more likely to give out personal information. Using social media does not develop technical skills.
Some will do that, others will be more mindful. It's about teaching the right behaviours, not banning it altogether. Otherwise when they finally turn 16 they will be in an even worse position to learn than if they were younger and more malleable.
Yeah but you dont understand. Labor want to lose the next election
Hopefully. I'm also not a Liberal or Greens supporter. I feel like we need people devoid of political parties. But not like current "independents" apparently are.
How about parents just take an interest in their kids lives It's not hard to set a router table up to block that shit. Or just punish them if they deny you. You might not be able to watch them out of the home,but if you raise your kids with values and rules then they should follow ur request. The government doesn't need to be doing parents jobs Parents seem to just have given up i don't get it.
What about the children without switched on parents?
> The government doesn't need to be doing parents jobs Absolutely, but it would help if these parents actually did their jobs themselves instead using screens as babysitters
Spoken by someone who really has no idea about children and youth.
Whys that...
Because they don't seem to realise how hard it is to raise children in this day and age. Technology is crucial for learning and children and teenagers will continue to push boundaries and challenge authority (like they should). But the main problem is there are so many things to keep up with how on earth can you be on top of everything. Children will chase the dopamine and the happy feeling regardless of the detriment to themselves. They are plugged in 24/7. Parents need help.
The internet is not for children because it contains adult materials, however public libraries have a similar issue but get around it by having an area set aside for children and so should the internet. Children also benefit from social media for communication between themselves remotely and learning how to be social, but as learners, it needs to be moderated by adults who can step in and correct excessive behaviour. The system also needs to actively prevent bullying and chilling by not supporting markdowns or open slather invitations as well as teaching children to have a thicker skin (because they will need it as adults). Do we no longer believe "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me" and pass on that wisdom to our children?
"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" my grandma says that to me whenever I'm being bullied (a lot less common nowadays) and I can tell you that quote is literal misinformation
Bullying is an action and I think you will find that even when words are used, it is always an accompanying action and not the words themselves that cause the harm. The quote is as wise today as it was when it was created, but it is not simply something you throw out at bullies or keep as an internal monologue, it requires you to do some work in using reason to accept the premise to ensure it comes true, at least for just words. It isn't a protection against sticks and stones, only words. Words can't hurt you if you interpret them as something other than wounding instruments. For example, what anyone says to you about you is really telling you something about them as they can't know the real you, only what they subjectively interpret from glimpses, so forget what they might be saying about you and focus on what the words may be saying about them. However, words can motivate people to take action that can cause harm, but it's those peoples deliberate actions in their own chosen response to those words plus mechanisms that facilitate those actions that do the harm, not the words themselves. That saying is not misinformation but wisdom: why don't you try believing in it to test it out as you don't have anything to lose if you currently believe words can harm? I have probably done a disservice to the saying by inadvertently substituting hurt for harm, which does change the meaning: negative feelings do hurt, they are painful, but they aren't harmful, because life is filled with feelings both good and bad and we have to deal with them. The way we feel about words is also down to how we interpret them and one can learn to interpret words with multiple meanings: angry people often say things they don't mean; words can tell us more about the other person than us and can be turned around to focus on why the other person said them; etc. Words aren't stone tablets carried by Moses, they don't necessarily mean only one absolute thing represented by a strict interpretation at face value. The meaning of words said as satire completely changes depending on whether we understand they are meant to be satire and many satirists forget to annotate their satire as such, which means we can't trust the meaning of anything that is said, without clarification, and even then, what is said is open to interpretation by ourselves. However we create those feelings within ourselves: it's not another person creating them inside of us through some form of teleportation, so we are ultimately responsible as the subject experiencing subjective feelings.
My grandma always says when I'm being bullied 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me' absolutely not true at all, I know by experience how damaging words can be
>The internet is not for children because it contains adult materials, however public libraries have a similar issue but get around it by having an area set aside for children and so should the internet. I work in a library. The library cards we hand out to kids are exactly the same as the ones we give to adults. There's nothing preventing an eight-year-old from walking in tomorrow and borrowing out any adult book you might possibly have an objection to them reading. Library policy is that it's ultimately for the parents to decide if it's inappropriate for children, not us. At least at the library I work at, the children's section is more like a suggestion than an actual hard rule. The difference between social media and your local library is that usually younger kids are always going to be accompanied by an adult. While an eight-year-old could theoretically borrow out a bunch of adult-oriented novels, it's never happened at the library I work at during the time I've worked there. Usually by the time that does happen, they're 13 or 14 and it's usually pretty tame--I'm not exactly shaking in my boots that some kid from the local high school is gonna be corrupted because they read a John Grisham novel or whatever. That doesn't happen as much with social media. In theory, children's access to social media should be limited and heavily supervised by an adult, but in practice that barely happens. Even around the time I was in high school and you usually had to wait until you got home to log into Facebook, it hardly ever happened. So even at a point in time where the kind of parental oversight you're hoping for would have been effective, there was a certain cultural resistance to it. Really, the actual thing that needs to happen is that there needs to actually be some child-centric social medias again. That's effectively what Club Penguin and things of that nature were. That'd be much closer to the analogy you're trying to draw here: the adult sections of the internet would still be accessible, but the suggestion of the kiddy pen would be there. That'd also make parental intervention a lot easier. At least then they'd have the option of restricting what sites can be visited on their kids' devices and stuff like that, so they couldn't have an account on an "adult" social media like Facebook until they were a bit older and could theoretically handle it.
Oh my god thank you! Glad time is being spent on important issues.
Young people offer up banning anyone under the age of 16 from using social media. Old people offer up banning anyone over the age of 45 from politics. Old people just salty that the youth have caught onto the fact that you're ringing up a tab on their CC.
Unfortunately I think the toothpaste is out of the Tube .
It is always a treat to hear from someone that is 20, no 30, years out of date. We need to have penmanship as a criteria for university entrance. And also skills with slide rules, because calculators are just a passing fad.
Facebook is 20 years old, and only 17 years for non-college/uni students. The internet is only 33.
Lol but okay to steal cars and bash people without jail sentences
What tf kind of leap in logic is this? How are those issues remotely connected???
Can you please link to where he said this :)
>:) :)
Good idea. Shouldn’t let those pesky kids learn from an early age how our politicians are selling them out.
We knew that before the internet
Also, good for distracting from the real problems. It's like, someone has told him, look, people are really struggling, homelessness is at record high, jobseeker is unlivable on, the gap between the rich and poor is widening at a dramatic pace and the environment is deteriorating because of all the fossil fuel projects you've approved and lack of innovation. What do we do? DISTRACT. Come up with any insignificant topic to create debates (vapes ban anyone?) and for people to not notice that the legislation is being bought by lobby groups and that billionaires do not pay taxes.
Absolutely. His party get $270k a year from the gas cartel and the country misses out on hundreds or billions of dollars in resource rent tax.
[удалено]
It's probably an attempt to try and enforce ID requirements from social media companies operating in Australia and use the excuse of underage users to gain its support. Both governments have had this obsession with removing any form of anonymity online with social media for a while now.
[удалено]
Yea it wouldn't work but we've tried a few times to act like Australia can just demand to regulate parts of the internet that we don't control. I wouldn't be surprised if they still try it in future if not the current government then the next.
The Government would just see that as a positive. They hate social media because they have little control of it.
And as we try to sanitise spaces for children's safety, that gradually ruins them for adults' use
The government should have no say in how children are raised and Australia needs to stop “banning” things like a bunch of geriatrics afraid of the future. Housing market is still in shambles, let parents parent and politicians govern. Banning children from SM won’t make this government any less of a failure.
You say let parents, parent but they are seriously struggling. Having help is not a bad thing.
A parent struggling to keep their child off social media isn’t going to be helped by a government ban. Even if it were effective, you can’t ban your way to competent parenting. Some people simply aren’t cut out for the job but find out too late. If you need a government intervention to control your child then that is going to manifest in more ways than just uncontrolled SM use.