4 ms·

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

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!
  - wokwokwok 2y ago
    You’ve taken literally one word from my comment, out of context. Yes, you’re right, they rushed it through. …and that sucks. Now what? Is that really the only meaningful complaint you can come up with about it? I don’t support it because I think it’s overreach by a government that is already trying to make a nanny state. …but I’m not naive enough to think it’s not going to work. It will work. It probably has unintended consequences; that’s the problem.
    - chris_wot 2y ago
      I didn’t take you out of context. You literally say that whether the Act is good or not is up for debate. Before legislation is passed, it needs public consultation and debate. There literally was no public debate and now this is law! Things like: 1. It will be trivial to bypass the restrictions. 2. The argument given in support of this Act by the OP was that it gives parents an excuse to prevent their kids from using social media. That’s going to work out great. 3. The mechanisms for verifying ID are not defined and will be decided without public debate. Adults will be forced to get a government controlled digital ID, or alternately social media companies will need to collect your official documentation to prove your age. Neither of these are palatable. None of this has been considered. None of these concerns were allowed to be expressed by interested parties and the general public with sufficient time for comment. That more than sucks. This is a government who wants to shove badly flawed legislation onto the Australian people because they are immensely unpopular. I’m a Labor voter. Not next year.
      - ghiculescu 2y ago
        Who will you vote for instead? Everyone supported it :(
        chris_wot 2y ago
        An independent. Labor is more worried about the Greens and Independents than they are about the LNP. Albanese and Co, who I voted for and quite liked, have shown that they need to be forced into a hung parliament to prevent their worst excesses. A huge pity.

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!
- wokwokwok 2y ago
  You’ve taken literally one word from my comment, out of context. Yes, you’re right, they rushed it through. …and that sucks. Now what? Is that really the only meaningful complaint you can come up with about it? I don’t support it because I think it’s overreach by a government that is already trying to make a nanny state. …but I’m not naive enough to think it’s not going to work. It will work. It probably has unintended consequences; that’s the problem.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    I didn’t take you out of context. You literally say that whether the Act is good or not is up for debate. Before legislation is passed, it needs public consultation and debate. There literally was no public debate and now this is law! Things like: 1. It will be trivial to bypass the restrictions. 2. The argument given in support of this Act by the OP was that it gives parents an excuse to prevent their kids from using social media. That’s going to work out great. 3. The mechanisms for verifying ID are not defined and will be decided without public debate. Adults will be forced to get a government controlled digital ID, or alternately social media companies will need to collect your official documentation to prove your age. Neither of these are palatable. None of this has been considered. None of these concerns were allowed to be expressed by interested parties and the general public with sufficient time for comment. That more than sucks. This is a government who wants to shove badly flawed legislation onto the Australian people because they are immensely unpopular. I’m a Labor voter. Not next year.
    - ghiculescu 2y ago
      Who will you vote for instead? Everyone supported it :(
      - chris_wot 2y ago
        An independent. Labor is more worried about the Greens and Independents than they are about the LNP. Albanese and Co, who I voted for and quite liked, have shown that they need to be forced into a hung parliament to prevent their worst excesses. A huge pity.