5 ms·

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is needed and this is what it looks like. We don't need watertight compliance, verification or enforcement - just raise the level of difficulty for kids to get on and create a culture among kids, parents and schools that social media is not allowed. This will be enough breathing room for parents to say no and kids not to feel like they're the only ones missing out.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
My nephew is denied a smartphone due to low grades. Seems like a good enough excuse. Granted, it can work only if your country allows low grades.
- trogdor 2y ago
  What countries don’t allow low grades?
71bw 2y ago
> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? They'd be addicted/bullied regardless?
noufalibrahim 2y ago
As a non Australian parent, I quite envy you. Parents are almost as addicted as children and often take dozens of photos of every tiny event and post it on IG without permission of other children who are there in the pictures. Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. I do what I can (don't give them devices till they're 18 etc.) but it's hard when the whole society around you is pushing the other way. Some kind of societal regulation like what's happened in Australia will be a good thing. It will add friction to kids getting onto these platforms and that will significantly slow down adoption.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. What kind of sociatal cast do they belong to? I'd imagine this is mainly a thing among wannabe elite, wannabe 'influencers'? Like failed pro sports parent forcing their children to go for it to.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from using social media. If it really is that bad for your kids, you have a duty to stop them regardless of what other kids (and their parents) do.
- bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
  It is definitely a parent's job to say "no" to degeneracy. Saying "no" is easier when your child isn't offered a buffet of degeneracy by the outside world.
- matwood 2y ago
  If every kid was injecting heroin we would not just expect, but demand the government step in. This is in addition to whatever parents are doing.
  - theteapot 2y ago
    So true. In addition, if every kid suddenly became a vampire, we would not just expect, but demand the government step in.
    - partomniscient 2y ago
      Not only that, at some point the vampires will form a government for vampires which will be at odds and at war with the non-government vampire and there will be individual vampires that disagree with and feel a lack of representation from their vampire government.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      Well...yeah. How would be scrounge up enough blood to keep them fed otherwise?
throwawaythekey 2y ago
Are these same parents unable to tell their children "no you can't stay out late it's a school night"
cchi_co 2y ago
This perspective highlights a key aspect often overlooked in debates about such laws: the social dynamics of parenting. You’re absolutely right that the “all the other kids are on it” pressure can make it almost impossible for individual parents to set boundaries without isolating their child
- XorNot 2y ago
  But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them? I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of these things were easily accessible, but they fulfilled a need. The situation being addressed is basically "I am taking no steps to limit my child from access to something I already disapprove of" and I don't see how this would address anything. You got them off Snapchat or TikTok but why wouldn't word of mouth just find a new service to act as a virtual third space? Social media works just fine in a web browser. Basically there's a strain of assumption which could be summarized as "children aren't smart enough to use Mastodon!" as though to do so is not just "visit this URL here's the QR code".
  - dmalik 2y ago
    The internet still exists outside of social media sites designed to keep you there. I hope kids under 16 get addicted to anything else and don't turn to social media when they're old enough.
  - neumann 2y ago
    It's a lowest energy state approach. The hope is that the hurdle will be raised high enough that enough kids will go to another outlet that is less harmful. Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. The information dense but fractured culture we are in makes it so kids will find otherways to communicate and share 'memes' (original sense of the world) and that this is whack-a-mole. But, for many kids it will be enough to at least allow the parent's some appeal to authority to minimise their kids screen time and access to social media.
chris_wot 2y ago
As an Australian parent myself, let me say this legislation is useless and you need to stop hiding behind stupid government legislation pandering to the lowest common denominator in place of your parenting. The “the government won’t let me let you use social media” is one of the most stupid and ridiculous arguments I’ve heard a mature adult make to a juvenile. Your kid is likely to see it as spineless, then go ahead and make a fake login to their favourite social media site without telling you. I have a 14 year old and a soon to be 17 year old. Just have a conversation with them about social media. Now they are just going to hide their use of it with you and you won’t be able to guide them when their use of it goes wrong.
- wokwokwok 2y ago
  I’m not for this legislation, but your argument doesn’t hold up. If people are hiding it, that in itself normalises that people are not using social media. That’s the point; taking someone’s phone away makes them an outcast. If no one at school is “allowed” to have a phone, then it’s normalised, it’s normal to not have one. It is pandering to the minority, but your argument hides behind insults to avoid facing the reality which is that it will normalise people not being on social media, which will make it easier for parents to ban their kids from using social media. This isn’t some black market crap where the kids are nipping down to the servo to buy some vapes and get a slap on the wrist if their caught; if they’re banned and they’re caught, their account will get suspended. That's instant death on SM, because of early adopter network effects. It really will do something. You don’t understand the dynamics on SM if you think otherwise. Whether you agree it’s good or not, is certainly open to debate. What it will do is open to debate; hidden group chats and an escape to platforms that are “technically not SM”, who knows… but the current landscape of SM & TikTok follower accumulation will change, dramatically.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    Except it wasn’t up for debate. It was opened for public scrutiny on the 22nd, submissions closed on the 23rd, then it was put through Committee (who asked for only 1 or 2 page submissions because they themselves didn’t have time to review it properly) and was initially put to the House on the 26th and passed on the 29th. The Act has no provisions for checking ID (that will be decided by the eSafety commissioner with no debate or discussion on the mechanisms they choose), and it doesn’t even define which social media companies will be affected. To say this was up for debate is ridiculous. There was no debate!
trhway 2y ago
>We don't need watertight compliance, verification or enforcement the law basically requires document verification, i.e. no anonymous access anymore for anybody. Just government protecting children, as usual.
justsee 2y ago
It's very hard not to see the whole marketing of the legislation as an exercise in misdirection. The media campaign was led by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd (who see a commercial opportunity in cutting a demographic from their competitors audience for advertisers), and the government's marketing of it entirely focused on children being restricted, avoiding until the last weeks an admission it actually meant all adults would have to undertake verification processes to use social media. The gulf between the practical effect of the legislation (all adults are impacted) and the claimed intent (only children under 16 are the focus), is so large the claims shouldn't really be accepted at face value. Combine that with the abuse of democratic process: what would usually be weeks of public feedback was shortened to 24 hours, and after passing the lower house the government attempted to force the legislation through in the senate with no debate, finally conceding to a brief 1 hour debate before passing it in the final hours of the last sitting day of the year. When opposition arose earlier in the week to the idea this is about a backdoor mechanism to force the government's recently rebranded myId (from myGovId), the government hastily made changes to the bill and loudly said social media companies would not be allowed to ask for government id, in physical or digital form. But that itself was misdirection. A clause was added saying this does not apply if an alternative option is also provided. But age assurance based on biometrics from webcams has poor accuracy, as one senator argued in the final debate. Fresh-faced youths will have no option but to go for the myID solution on their 16th birthday - which as that same senator pointed out is the age at which you can apply for a myID account. On the topic of digital id and myID: it was also apparent that the Government seemingly feigned ignorance that this system, designed specifically for this purpose, would be the ideal and primary solution. Yet we know just how much focus and energy has been going into designing these systems and working out how to get the public to accept them: witness this piece from 2018 [1]. It's of course fine to argue pros and cons of digital id, both philosophically, and in terms of specific implementation details, but that's not what happened here. Everything clearly indicates the legislation was designed to sidestep any substantial debates on this topic. What was also sidestepped was any reasonable discussion of specific implementation options. Instead we have vague details of an age assurance trial being run for many more months, with no specifics that help us understand how this legislation may work, or fail to work. [1] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/preventing-another-australia-card-fail https://www.aspi.org.au/report/preventing-another-australia-...
contingencies 2y ago
As an Australian parent, congratulations: you are the problem. I for one was on a public panel with politicians discussing how ridiculous this proposal was, a couple of months ago, before it passed. The government gives all children email addresses while simultaneously banning them from social media. Only a bureaucracy could do this with a straight face. IMHO as a technology-engaged parent the answer to complexity online (and in the entire world) for young people is education, not "ask the Nanny state to change the rules". Timelessly compressed: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
- thombles 2y ago
  > The government gives all children email addresses while simultaneously banning them from social media. Only a bureaucracy could do this with a straight face. If you think it's email that is causing youth mental health issues then I see why you are confused about my enthusiasm.
  - contingencies 2y ago
    Yeah sure, by that logic: what's next, ban networking for septuagenarians? Ban bingo as a dangerous gateway to online gambling? Ridiculous. Or perhaps the ultimate result: a brain license. You can comment online when you can construct a logical argument free of fallacy. Otherwise, stay in your hole. I'm sure society would be much better off with a Truman Show 'constabubble' for all, consuming rehashed and reverberated stereotypical pre-preference like spoonfed semi-souls locked in eternal preteen angst where the illiterati's pop-pinnacle of eloquence is dwelling on the artfully anticipative breathless pause before celebrating the only universally valid response: emotional offense and outrage at anyone or anything that can be construed as threatening the sacred illiterati-ignobubble. Stop being spoon-fed, grow the fork up, pick up the metaphoric knife and teach your kids to use it to pop their own bubble and dissect unfiltered reality: that's the one we actually live in. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
somishere 2y ago
As another Australian parent (with school age kids) I heartily agree. Eager to see how this plays out.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
There are some ads targeting parents running on TV in the US about special accounts for under 16-yr-olds on Instagram. It appears Big Tech has reason for concern when anyone interferes with their efforts to indoctrinate young people into their total takeover of the www. Expecting an aggressive PR counteroffensive from Big Tech in response to experiments like Australia.
bigfatkitten 2y ago
As an Australian parent, I'm concerned that there are parents out there who see it as the job of the state to do their job for them.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

My nephew is denied a smartphone due to low grades. Seems like a good enough excuse. Granted, it can work only if your country allows low grades.

trogdor 2y ago
What countries don’t allow low grades?

71bw 2y ago

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? They'd be addicted/bullied regardless?

noufalibrahim 2y ago

As a non Australian parent, I quite envy you. Parents are almost as addicted as children and often take dozens of photos of every tiny event and post it on IG without permission of other children who are there in the pictures. Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. I do what I can (don't give them devices till they're 18 etc.) but it's hard when the whole society around you is pushing the other way. Some kind of societal regulation like what's happened in Australia will be a good thing. It will add friction to kids getting onto these platforms and that will significantly slow down adoption.

rightbyte 2y ago
> Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. What kind of sociatal cast do they belong to? I'd imagine this is mainly a thing among wannabe elite, wannabe 'influencers'? Like failed pro sports parent forcing their children to go for it to.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from using social media. If it really is that bad for your kids, you have a duty to stop them regardless of what other kids (and their parents) do.

bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
It is definitely a parent's job to say "no" to degeneracy. Saying "no" is easier when your child isn't offered a buffet of degeneracy by the outside world.
matwood 2y ago
If every kid was injecting heroin we would not just expect, but demand the government step in. This is in addition to whatever parents are doing.
- theteapot 2y ago
  So true. In addition, if every kid suddenly became a vampire, we would not just expect, but demand the government step in.
  - partomniscient 2y ago
    Not only that, at some point the vampires will form a government for vampires which will be at odds and at war with the non-government vampire and there will be individual vampires that disagree with and feel a lack of representation from their vampire government.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    Well...yeah. How would be scrounge up enough blood to keep them fed otherwise?

throwawaythekey 2y ago

Are these same parents unable to tell their children "no you can't stay out late it's a school night"

cchi_co 2y ago

This perspective highlights a key aspect often overlooked in debates about such laws: the social dynamics of parenting. You’re absolutely right that the “all the other kids are on it” pressure can make it almost impossible for individual parents to set boundaries without isolating their child

XorNot 2y ago
But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them? I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of these things were easily accessible, but they fulfilled a need. The situation being addressed is basically "I am taking no steps to limit my child from access to something I already disapprove of" and I don't see how this would address anything. You got them off Snapchat or TikTok but why wouldn't word of mouth just find a new service to act as a virtual third space? Social media works just fine in a web browser. Basically there's a strain of assumption which could be summarized as "children aren't smart enough to use Mastodon!" as though to do so is not just "visit this URL here's the QR code".
- dmalik 2y ago
  The internet still exists outside of social media sites designed to keep you there. I hope kids under 16 get addicted to anything else and don't turn to social media when they're old enough.
- neumann 2y ago
  It's a lowest energy state approach. The hope is that the hurdle will be raised high enough that enough kids will go to another outlet that is less harmful. Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. The information dense but fractured culture we are in makes it so kids will find otherways to communicate and share 'memes' (original sense of the world) and that this is whack-a-mole. But, for many kids it will be enough to at least allow the parent's some appeal to authority to minimise their kids screen time and access to social media.

chris_wot 2y ago

As an Australian parent myself, let me say this legislation is useless and you need to stop hiding behind stupid government legislation pandering to the lowest common denominator in place of your parenting. The “the government won’t let me let you use social media” is one of the most stupid and ridiculous arguments I’ve heard a mature adult make to a juvenile. Your kid is likely to see it as spineless, then go ahead and make a fake login to their favourite social media site without telling you. I have a 14 year old and a soon to be 17 year old. Just have a conversation with them about social media. Now they are just going to hide their use of it with you and you won’t be able to guide them when their use of it goes wrong.

wokwokwok 2y ago
I’m not for this legislation, but your argument doesn’t hold up. If people are hiding it, that in itself normalises that people are not using social media. That’s the point; taking someone’s phone away makes them an outcast. If no one at school is “allowed” to have a phone, then it’s normalised, it’s normal to not have one. It is pandering to the minority, but your argument hides behind insults to avoid facing the reality which is that it will normalise people not being on social media, which will make it easier for parents to ban their kids from using social media. This isn’t some black market crap where the kids are nipping down to the servo to buy some vapes and get a slap on the wrist if their caught; if they’re banned and they’re caught, their account will get suspended. That's instant death on SM, because of early adopter network effects. It really will do something. You don’t understand the dynamics on SM if you think otherwise. Whether you agree it’s good or not, is certainly open to debate. What it will do is open to debate; hidden group chats and an escape to platforms that are “technically not SM”, who knows… but the current landscape of SM & TikTok follower accumulation will change, dramatically.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  Except it wasn’t up for debate. It was opened for public scrutiny on the 22nd, submissions closed on the 23rd, then it was put through Committee (who asked for only 1 or 2 page submissions because they themselves didn’t have time to review it properly) and was initially put to the House on the 26th and passed on the 29th. The Act has no provisions for checking ID (that will be decided by the eSafety commissioner with no debate or discussion on the mechanisms they choose), and it doesn’t even define which social media companies will be affected. To say this was up for debate is ridiculous. There was no debate!

trhway 2y ago

>We don't need watertight compliance, verification or enforcement the law basically requires document verification, i.e. no anonymous access anymore for anybody. Just government protecting children, as usual.

justsee 2y ago

It's very hard not to see the whole marketing of the legislation as an exercise in misdirection. The media campaign was led by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd (who see a commercial opportunity in cutting a demographic from their competitors audience for advertisers), and the government's marketing of it entirely focused on children being restricted, avoiding until the last weeks an admission it actually meant all adults would have to undertake verification processes to use social media. The gulf between the practical effect of the legislation (all adults are impacted) and the claimed intent (only children under 16 are the focus), is so large the claims shouldn't really be accepted at face value. Combine that with the abuse of democratic process: what would usually be weeks of public feedback was shortened to 24 hours, and after passing the lower house the government attempted to force the legislation through in the senate with no debate, finally conceding to a brief 1 hour debate before passing it in the final hours of the last sitting day of the year. When opposition arose earlier in the week to the idea this is about a backdoor mechanism to force the government's recently rebranded myId (from myGovId), the government hastily made changes to the bill and loudly said social media companies would not be allowed to ask for government id, in physical or digital form. But that itself was misdirection. A clause was added saying this does not apply if an alternative option is also provided. But age assurance based on biometrics from webcams has poor accuracy, as one senator argued in the final debate. Fresh-faced youths will have no option but to go for the myID solution on their 16th birthday - which as that same senator pointed out is the age at which you can apply for a myID account. On the topic of digital id and myID: it was also apparent that the Government seemingly feigned ignorance that this system, designed specifically for this purpose, would be the ideal and primary solution. Yet we know just how much focus and energy has been going into designing these systems and working out how to get the public to accept them: witness this piece from 2018 [1]. It's of course fine to argue pros and cons of digital id, both philosophically, and in terms of specific implementation details, but that's not what happened here. Everything clearly indicates the legislation was designed to sidestep any substantial debates on this topic. What was also sidestepped was any reasonable discussion of specific implementation options. Instead we have vague details of an age assurance trial being run for many more months, with no specifics that help us understand how this legislation may work, or fail to work. [1] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/preventing-another-australia-card-fail https://www.aspi.org.au/report/preventing-another-australia-...

contingencies 2y ago

As an Australian parent, congratulations: you are the problem. I for one was on a public panel with politicians discussing how ridiculous this proposal was, a couple of months ago, before it passed. The government gives all children email addresses while simultaneously banning them from social media. Only a bureaucracy could do this with a straight face. IMHO as a technology-engaged parent the answer to complexity online (and in the entire world) for young people is education, not "ask the Nanny state to change the rules". Timelessly compressed: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

thombles 2y ago
> The government gives all children email addresses while simultaneously banning them from social media. Only a bureaucracy could do this with a straight face. If you think it's email that is causing youth mental health issues then I see why you are confused about my enthusiasm.
- contingencies 2y ago
  Yeah sure, by that logic: what's next, ban networking for septuagenarians? Ban bingo as a dangerous gateway to online gambling? Ridiculous. Or perhaps the ultimate result: a brain license. You can comment online when you can construct a logical argument free of fallacy. Otherwise, stay in your hole. I'm sure society would be much better off with a Truman Show 'constabubble' for all, consuming rehashed and reverberated stereotypical pre-preference like spoonfed semi-souls locked in eternal preteen angst where the illiterati's pop-pinnacle of eloquence is dwelling on the artfully anticipative breathless pause before celebrating the only universally valid response: emotional offense and outrage at anyone or anything that can be construed as threatening the sacred illiterati-ignobubble. Stop being spoon-fed, grow the fork up, pick up the metaphoric knife and teach your kids to use it to pop their own bubble and dissect unfiltered reality: that's the one we actually live in. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

somishere 2y ago

As another Australian parent (with school age kids) I heartily agree. Eager to see how this plays out.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

There are some ads targeting parents running on TV in the US about special accounts for under 16-yr-olds on Instagram. It appears Big Tech has reason for concern when anyone interferes with their efforts to indoctrinate young people into their total takeover of the www. Expecting an aggressive PR counteroffensive from Big Tech in response to experiments like Australia.

bigfatkitten 2y ago

As an Australian parent, I'm concerned that there are parents out there who see it as the job of the state to do their job for them.