Federal Politics

It’s at a point now where I honestly am more concerned for Senator Thorpe’s mental health than anything else. She has always been vocal and outspoken, but her behaviour in recent weeks has been on another level.
I hope there are some good people around her that might be able to get her to seek some support, as her actions are now at the stage of actively harming the reconciliation process and sending race relations backwards.

I’m not sure I agree at all.

She knows exactly what she’s doing and I don’t think it’s anything at all to do with her mental health. She looks to me like she’s revelling in it all.

2 Likes

She is the radical Green or left version of Sophie Panopoulos.

Social Media Ban laws have now passed the Senate

2 Likes

I’m old enough to remember when Stephen Conroy’s infamous mandatory ISP level filter was a big topic of debate. Difference is this time the Coalition have gone along with it too and hence it’s now set to become law.

I’d applaud the bipartisanship were it not wasted on such a flawed and unenforceable policy that may very well end up causing more harm for teenagers in the long run (especially if they now fear speaking out about experiences on social media for fear of getting in trouble).

Ultimately, this is going to be a political gift for the Greens- as the largest party opposed to the legislation (along with generally being in tune with the views of young people), I can see them getting a significant bump in a few years time once this affected cohort is old enough to vote.

I presume Federal Labor saw what Mali did in SA recently and decided that ‘yep we’ll copy that’. If only they had a look at some of the policies of SA Labor that actually, you know, mattered to people. Like power bill rebate, housing stamp duty cuts, investment in cheaper renewables instead of coal, buiilding infrastructure and so on. And if they wanted to ban stuff, why don’t we start with gambling advertisements instead of social media?

2 Likes

I don’t see why parents cannot parent their own children. The government does not need to step in to parent, some children are more mature than others so you cannot lump them all in a group together. This feels like a Trojan horse for Mandatory Digital ID for everyone online.

1 Like

The worst part of this bill is that I’m going to have to give the MediaSpy mods my ID.

4 Likes

In an ideal world they should be able to. The amount of children that are victims of crime from social media has become increasingly troubling. It’s also something a lot of parents asked for governments to legislate. They wanted assistance with protecting their children online.

I actually don’t get why people are upset with this. It’s not a blanketed ban like the click bait headings make it to be.

When Elon musk says he doesn’t like it it encourages me to think this is good legislation. Just look at the age demographic he was able to influence over the last 4 years. And if those laws were passed in the US would have half of those voters had less exposure to that misinformation.

It’s just sad seeing some of the comments floating around about this bill. And you can see the real angst towards the government from them. I see comments suggesting they should be focusing on other areas. In my view I think protecting children from predators, violence and misinformation is the most important thing a government could do.

1 Like

Because it’s a dud bill that’s been rushed through with little consultation, will almost certainly lead to a high court challenge, and - the kicker - won’t do one bit to help kids.

If Labor had any scrap of integrity, they would have gone into the 2022 election campaigning on the premise they’ll:

  • fumble or fail on every bit of positive change they were proposing
  • do basically nothing for two years, only to
  • rush upwards of 25 bills through the Senate on the last sitting day of the year

God help us all when Dutton gets in next year. You can thank Labor for that.

5 Likes

Can you explain how it won’t help?

As if the Greens and the Coalition don’t have a part to play in this by holding half of them to ransom for the sake of opposition, not because they were ‘bad policies’ per se.

Look, this social media thing feels a bit extra and only popped up because of what SA was doing more than anything substantial, but I don’t think the other legislation were that bad. Sure they’re not perfect but then again had the other parties in the senate willingly negotiated then they won’t have to rush anything.

The reality is that the other parties are just as accountable for holding legislation to ransom at the expense of Australians, particularly the Coalition who have no policies apart from nuclear that isn’t even costed or viable till the mid 2030s

1 Like

Sorry Tom but no one gives a shit about what South Australia has or hasn’t done.

The job of a house of review is to do just that. Guillotining discussion and relying on Dutton’s opposition to support a number of almost certainly unconstitutional bills is not democracy in action.

If Labor has an issue getting bills through, it’s welcome to call a double dissolution. Or get rid of the Senate, which Labor parties love to do.

I’ll leave that to experts:

4 Likes

That’s not going to shore up Labor’s numbers, in fact it’s only good for the crossbench.

Sorry not buying that. If Malinauskas (and subsequently Minns) didn’t float the idea of that in their respective states, Albo’s not visionary enough to come up with a policy like that on his own. Meanwhile he’s literally stomping on the legacy of one of his own (Peta Murphy) by refusing to implement a widespread ban on gambling which is arguably more harmful.

Yeah but if there’s no negotiations then none of Labor’s bills would pass thanks to the extremists on both sides. And let’s face it, Australians are very behind when it comes to views on immigration that any concession to the Greens hands the Liberals an easy campaign on border protection which will help them win like 2013 with stop the boats. Their hands are tied because neither side would budge.

1 Like

Thanks but have you listened to it?

She doesn’t really say how it won’t be helpful like I asked. It was more like she has issues with how it was rushed through without adequate time fo submissions. Issues I am not disputing. It is still a piece of legislation 70% of parents were asking for at the last election. They wanted help to limit their children’s access online.

And even she has admitted in that video she is following breadcrumbs and has little expertise in this area.

She just seems to be critiquing definitions and issues with the legislation.

It still leads to my question why won’t this be helpful to protecting children against predators, misinformation and violent content? You made the claim it won’t help children one bit. I would love to know how. Maybe I’m missing something.

1 Like

I think there’s some thought that it will be difficult to enforce the ban and/or kids will find other ways to use social media which could encourage behaviour that is even more dangerous and predatory.

2 Likes

Exactly - the plan is AFAIK is that any enforcement of age limits, whether through some government ID or not - will be left to the same companies who don’t even properly enforce their current age restrictions - basically no point in this law if you’re not going to have proper enforcement.

2 Likes

Yep that’s my issue as well. So basically we’re going to ban it but if the big tech companies won’t do it we’ll give them a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf.

If the bill had powers to force the hands of big tech to manage it I’d probably be more inclined to think it’ll be more effective, though my preference is for a targeted approach towards sex-ting, cyberbullying, misinformation, disinformation and so forth rather than a blanket ban. Something like a Code of Conduct/Framework towards managing and legally enforcing companies to monitor this and act upon it, or risk losing their operating license in Australia.

But then again, I have a long wishlist of things I’d want (more housing for starters, stop price gouging and ban those annoying gambling ads everywhere). I’d prefer the house and senate to sit as planned early next year to get that through but who am I to decide lol.

Oh, and please find a way to punt the likes of Thorpe and Hanson from parliament permanently so they would stop being a nuisance to society thank you very much.

2 Likes

But they have said they are aware of that. That is why there won’t be any punishment for parents or children. Only punishment for those apps that haven’t set up systems to ban children.

Any law can be ignored. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have it. Even if this stops 1 child from being groomed online I say it’s done its job.

1 Like

Given it wasn’t an issue in the last election, I call bull.

And thanks for being so condescending. Fortunately, I won’t have to see your posts in future when I’m locked up for a crime I didn’t commit after the Media Spy mods sell off my ID to fund the hamsters.