3 ms·

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

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.
      - ghiculescu 2y ago
        They’ve been shockingly bad.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  "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."

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.
    - ghiculescu 2y ago
      They’ve been shockingly bad.
chris_wot 2y ago
"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."