Can we ban over 50s from social media as well?
No teens or boomers, sounds like a utopia to me…
5 Likes
Labor and the Coalition are preparing to take disciplinary action against Senator Lidia Thorpe, after she ripped up a motion by Pauline Hanson on the chamber floor
Tearing up a motion on the chamber floor feels like a targeted attempt to ride the viral coattails of Maori MPs.
For context, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a bill that would’ve fundamentally altered one of NZ’s founding documents guaranteeing Maori rights, and sparked a Haka in the chamber joined by fellow MPs and gallery visitors.
Any poll can give the results you seek based on how (vaguely) it’s worded. I could ask “Do you care about kids not being bullied and want something done about it?”, without thoroughly explaining how to tackle it, and Yes would obviously be an outstanding majority.
That’s an extremely poor measurement of whether something has done its job. There are plenty of laws that could be implemented to “just save one life” yet come at the cost of doing way more harm than good.
The bottom line is it’s never been about the kids, banning or restricting something under the guise of “What about the children” is nothing new. These misinformation and social ban bills have nothing at all to do with what’s best for children, it’s so 1) the government can say “Look at us, parents, we’re doing something for the kids to assist you. By the way, election coming up”, and/or 2) censorship/control of speech via some sort of ID system, which that alone is an issue that comes with significant privacy risks.
For the most part people agree there are dangers that can come with social media and social media addiction, but I don’t quite understand how you’re so willing to blindly believe politicians who lie through their teeth day in day out and refuse to understand how technology works (or do understand, but chose to act ignorant), yet are quick to dismiss several experts who have a much better understanding and can clearly detail the warnings of how this can cause more harm than good, all because it “could save one life”. Especially when there are more pressing issues causing harm to kids that are being pushed to the back burner, while this is being rushed through. Ask yourself why that is.
4 Likes
That is a very pessimistic take. I’d rather see a government doing something about the safety of children online than doing nothing. Whether that saves 1 life or 1 million. This is something and there is also room to wriggle in the legislation.
2 Likes
I wasn’t being condescending at all. I watched your video and it didn’t answer the question I asked you.
But they’re not doing anything about the safety of children, it’s a lie, and you’re believing it. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
It’s not being pessimistic, it’s being realistic.
2 Likes
It’s literally put in the legislation. If you want to have a conspiracy theory on it that’s on you. I believe what is written in legislation.
You misspelled Trojan Horse.
Both Labor and the Libs have been trying to work out how to control free speech on the internet for at least 15 years. Where have you been? It’s hardly a conspiracy theory.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me… Or at least highly exaggerated.
2 Likes
I tend to agree.
I have my doubts it will have a big impact or provide a total solution, but I kind of put it in the “worth having a crack” basket. In my view it will definitely help parents in their inevitable arguments with their kids over social media use. Saying something is illegal is a pretty good argument, as most parents will attest.
2 Likes
Trust me I agree and I am not saying its perfect legislation but it is literally something most parents have been asking for. Now it comes out they all complain about it and say they can parent on their own. It’s a bit frustrating.
1 Like
You asked me how it won’t help. I showed you a video that points out that - among other things - the legislation is limited to “accounts”. That is to say, anything that isn’t hidden behind accounts (e.g. YouTube Shorts, possibly TikTok on some devices) is not prohibited by the legislation, and therefore still open to target under-16s with harmful content.
On the flip-side, many helpful services that require accounts (e.g. Media Spy) are banned, unless explicitly excluded by the Minister, because the definitions in the Bill are so broad that it’s unclear what is actually prohibited… and yet, there is a broad brush exemption for messaging services.
So, a 15 year old can send direct messages to bully their classmates on Messenger, because it’s exempt, but that same 15 year old can’t access educational videos posted on a Facebook page.
5 Likes
Thank you fair enough. Again I’m not saying the legislation is perfect. But I don’t agree with you it won’t help to protect those under 16 at all. I think there will be a lot that can be protected under this legislation. I’m not sure if I would want it to go too strong either though. Messenger is the most used messaging service here in Australia so to cut that out risks people being able to communicate. YouTube is used in most households for education and entertainment purposes.
The problem is that kids will always find a way - and there’s a significant concern (by people much more qualified and articulate than me) that by being prohibitive or even punitive is only going to push harmful material to places parents/trusted adults don’t know about.
I don’t have the answers, but this isn’t it. And without wanting to regurgitate the same point all over again, the bill being rushed through with little scrutiny is not a good sign that this will succeed.
4 Likes
Hmmm I don’t agree. Of course everyone will find a way. And the government already admitted that. That’s not what this ban is trying to achieve. It’s holding social media companies to a higher level of account. Too often they are just getting away with exposing children to harm. There won’t be any punishment to a child or a parent if they break this law. But if social media platforms don’t comply then they will be paying huge fines. I have no issue with that.
This I do agree with. The legislation and the idea I don’t. But anyway let’s leave it there.
The problem is though, teenagers (naturally) try and push the limits on things and many will no doubt try and circumvent this law.
What this law does though is create a ‘chilling effect’ where teens that do find themselves in a difficult situation on social media will actually be less likely to reach out for help for fear of getting in trouble.
The consequence of this is that predators may prey on this fear and a situation that may have been nipped in the bud early with open communication may now escalate into something tragic.
4 Likes
But the government has already stipulated there is no fine or punishment for a teen or parent who don’t comply to this legislation.