4 ms·

I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chas

I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chase a perfect solution that will never exist.

brokenmachine 2y ago
Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. This has too many chilling effects. It's so far from perfect it's crazy. By the letter of the law any service even allowing only one-on-one conversations is covered. It's obvious to me that these secondary effects are by design. Open communication is the most important thing that democracy needs, and this is a clear attack on it. Also can we not recognise that social media can have good effects as well? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-01/social-media-ban-under-16s-mental-health/104662984 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-01/social-media-ban-unde... Murdoch media is losing it's power and fighting back. Why not restrict the algorithms they're permitted to use, to fight echo chambers? That might actually have a chance of helping every person, not only <16 year olds?