6 ms·

That is an argument and worth monitoring, but IMO it's not a strong enough argument to stop this. This sort of ban is the same as existing laws banning the sal

That is an argument and worth monitoring, but IMO it's not a strong enough argument to stop this. This sort of ban is the same as existing laws banning the sale and consumption of alcohol or driving until kids are of age they will (on average) have sufficient maturity to handle the responsibility. Something we accept. Kids are not banned from digital communication. My daughter can still send text messages and make phone calls. Kids are not banned from the consuming content on those platforms. They simply can't have an account to create their own content as it was too often abused. For example, my 12yo daughter was asked by a friend to message bomb and abuse a 12yo her friend had a crush on. That's mild compared to some of the stories I've heard from platforms like Facebook, and between about 10 - 16 many kids are just nasty. I believe that the line in the sand over which platforms this applies to is the ones that leverage account history to supercharge the already addictive behaviours caused by UI designs optimised to manipulate your attention and direct your purchasing power towards whoever is paying them. Something kids are particularly vulnerable to. The algorithm doesn't care if it is pushing you towards radical content as long as you are watching it for as many hours in a day as possible.

fogj094j0923j4 10mo ago
All those services are wall-gardened so without an account, you already cannot consume the contents.
- skrebbel 10mo ago
  That’s a choice made by those services. They can change it.
  - re-thc 10mo ago
    > That’s a choice made by those services. They can change it. Why do these services have to lose? That's a choice made by this country's government. They can change it.
    - skrebbel 10mo ago
      They’ll lose revenue in Australia. If more governments copy this move, they’ll lose revenue there too.
      - re-thc 10mo ago
        > If more governments copy this move, they’ll lose revenue there too. That's like saying every government should copy the new tariffs too. If only it was so simple... > They’ll lose revenue in Australia. Why is it always 1-way? Australia can also lose people and lose people's interest.
        skrebbel 10mo ago
        Lol you think people are going to leave Australia because their kids cant go on Tiktok?
        johnisgood 10mo ago
        Well, who knows what they will be doing if it is not Tiktok. Hopefully they will pick up a book, but doubtful. They need a way to communicate with their peers.
        throaway123213 10mo ago
        Families aren't going to move because their teens can't use social media.
        johnisgood 10mo ago
        I am not sure I understand how it is relevant to my comment.
        5upplied_demand 10mo ago
        I'm not seeing how this stops kids from communicating with their peers. That seems like a bad-faith argument as they can send an SMS, make phone calls, send emails, meet in-person, play video games, etc. The things many of us grew up doing with our friends.
- texuf 10mo ago
  I feel like people are either arguing in bad faith, or we’re trying to talk to fish about the water. Its so obvious to me that people are going to get their identities stolen and the internet is going to get so much worse that I can’t understand how someone would think otherwise.
- BlueTemplar 10mo ago
  No, about half of them (mostly) aren't : Reddit, YouTube, Twitch... (That's also not what «walled garden» means. You're thinking about «deep web».)
re-thc 10mo ago
> I believe that the line in the sand over which platforms this applies to is the ones that You know a law is broken when its definition is defined by random people "knowing" where and how it applies. > This sort of ban is the same as existing laws banning the sale and consumption of alcohol or driving No it's not. Is every social media platform banned? How is it defined? This is the equivalent of going into a supermarket with a "kids" alcohol section and 1 for everyone else hand-picked by whoever in charge.
- rusk 10mo ago
  Like the worlds richest man claiming to be a free speech absolutist. Because you just know the sappy fuck has your best interests at heart. > You know a law is broken when its definition is defined by random people "knowing" where and how it applies.
bigB 10mo ago
How long will it take them to ban communications ? A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying....yet a recent death in the news this week, the kid was literally bullied/sextorted via SMS....not social media. Without banning SMS and possibly calls as well, it debunks this argument
- re-thc 10mo ago
  > How long will it take them to ban communications ? Just ban Australia themselves. > A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying Oh really now? It has been going on for so many years... A big reason they've been pushing this is it impacts their own pockets i.e. the traditional media companies.
  - bigB 10mo ago
    Well I should have worded it "A big reason the say they are banning it is Cyberbullying" , I don't believe that at all, but you are 100% correct, they hate big tech as it always beats our corrupt, biased and inept traditional media.
- Swenrekcah 10mo ago
  Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Social media however allows for easier targeting especially for bad actors that are not in the kid’s friend/acquaintance group.
  - iamacyborg 10mo ago
    > Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Pretty sure the internet was a thing well before kids got dumb phones.
    - Swenrekcah 10mo ago
      That is true. The ubiquitous mobile internet and social media I should have said.
    - 10mo ago

fogj094j0923j4 10mo ago

All those services are wall-gardened so without an account, you already cannot consume the contents.

skrebbel 10mo ago
That’s a choice made by those services. They can change it.
- re-thc 10mo ago
  > That’s a choice made by those services. They can change it. Why do these services have to lose? That's a choice made by this country's government. They can change it.
  - skrebbel 10mo ago
    They’ll lose revenue in Australia. If more governments copy this move, they’ll lose revenue there too.
    - re-thc 10mo ago
      > If more governments copy this move, they’ll lose revenue there too. That's like saying every government should copy the new tariffs too. If only it was so simple... > They’ll lose revenue in Australia. Why is it always 1-way? Australia can also lose people and lose people's interest.
      - skrebbel 10mo ago
        Lol you think people are going to leave Australia because their kids cant go on Tiktok?
        johnisgood 10mo ago
        Well, who knows what they will be doing if it is not Tiktok. Hopefully they will pick up a book, but doubtful. They need a way to communicate with their peers.
        throaway123213 10mo ago
        Families aren't going to move because their teens can't use social media.
        johnisgood 10mo ago
        I am not sure I understand how it is relevant to my comment.
        5upplied_demand 10mo ago
        I'm not seeing how this stops kids from communicating with their peers. That seems like a bad-faith argument as they can send an SMS, make phone calls, send emails, meet in-person, play video games, etc. The things many of us grew up doing with our friends.
texuf 10mo ago
I feel like people are either arguing in bad faith, or we’re trying to talk to fish about the water. Its so obvious to me that people are going to get their identities stolen and the internet is going to get so much worse that I can’t understand how someone would think otherwise.
BlueTemplar 10mo ago
No, about half of them (mostly) aren't : Reddit, YouTube, Twitch... (That's also not what «walled garden» means. You're thinking about «deep web».)

re-thc 10mo ago

> I believe that the line in the sand over which platforms this applies to is the ones that You know a law is broken when its definition is defined by random people "knowing" where and how it applies. > This sort of ban is the same as existing laws banning the sale and consumption of alcohol or driving No it's not. Is every social media platform banned? How is it defined? This is the equivalent of going into a supermarket with a "kids" alcohol section and 1 for everyone else hand-picked by whoever in charge.

rusk 10mo ago
Like the worlds richest man claiming to be a free speech absolutist. Because you just know the sappy fuck has your best interests at heart. > You know a law is broken when its definition is defined by random people "knowing" where and how it applies.

bigB 10mo ago

How long will it take them to ban communications ? A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying....yet a recent death in the news this week, the kid was literally bullied/sextorted via SMS....not social media. Without banning SMS and possibly calls as well, it debunks this argument

re-thc 10mo ago
> How long will it take them to ban communications ? Just ban Australia themselves. > A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying Oh really now? It has been going on for so many years... A big reason they've been pushing this is it impacts their own pockets i.e. the traditional media companies.
- bigB 10mo ago
  Well I should have worded it "A big reason the say they are banning it is Cyberbullying" , I don't believe that at all, but you are 100% correct, they hate big tech as it always beats our corrupt, biased and inept traditional media.
Swenrekcah 10mo ago
Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Social media however allows for easier targeting especially for bad actors that are not in the kid’s friend/acquaintance group.
- iamacyborg 10mo ago
  > Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Pretty sure the internet was a thing well before kids got dumb phones.
  - Swenrekcah 10mo ago
    That is true. The ubiquitous mobile internet and social media I should have said.
  - 10mo ago