Social Media Ban for under 16s

just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:10
Last edited 07/11/2024 - 19:45

The Australian Government is considering implementing a blanket social media ban for under 16s. This would involve using un-tested age verification technology and could expose users of social media platforms to privacy and data breaches.

Link to ABC article.

I think that it should be up to parents to decide when using social media suits their child. It seems ridiculous that we are trying to rush through legislation when we haven't tested the technology to support it. It also seems pretty extreme that we might have to verify our ID to sign up for social media platforms, especially when age verification technology has not been successfully implemented anywhere.

Edit: Here is the list of social media platforms I found on the Guardian article: BeReal, Facebook Messenger, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Steam, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Discord, Signal, Pinterest, WhatsApp and Telegram.

The list could be more but, interestingly, Signal, Whatsapp, and Telegram are on there. These are platforms that use end-to-end encryption that the government will now have linked to your ID if these laws go through.

Do you support the social media ban?

Poll Options expired

800
Yes, I support it
382
No, I do not support it
36
Maybe, I think we should wait for more info

Internet

Comments

pegaxs on 07/11/2024 - 19:21

+153

I've seen the quality of comments over on the "tRuMp WoN!1!!! cRy hArDeR LeFtiEz!1!!" thread and seriously think the "social media ban" age limit should be lifted to about 80.
- Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 19:39
  
  +12
  
  cRy hArDeR LeFtiEz!1!!" thread
  
  Two immature comments = the whole thread??
  Got it 👍🏻
  - scooba on 08/11/2024 - 20:33
    
    +1
    
    Don't feed the trolls, I mean look at the profile picture🙄.
  - ForkSnorter on 08/11/2024 - 06:58
    
    +32
    
    Lefties: The election was stolen from Kamala Harris.
    
    Righties: Let's pretend the lefties are claiming the election was stolen so we don't look like hypocrites.
    
    ForkSnorter on 08/11/2024 - 06:58 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    - 900dollaridoos on 08/11/2024 - 08:01
      
      +2
      
      I hate to get sucked into this but I recall Hillary spending 4 years calling the 2016 election "illegitimate".
      Over on reddit I've already seen countless posts about how this election has been fraudulent too.
      
      Kinda just seems like the narrative swaps every 4 years and no one from either side can believe that voting trends are reactive and cyclical.
      - ForkSnorter on 08/11/2024 - 08:41
        
        +41
        
        @900dollaridoos: I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
        
        Russia genuinely interfered with the 2016 election. Nobody is disputing that. It was all over social media, and the evidence is still there.
        
        Furthermore, the Trump-Russia collusion investigation proved that the Trump campaign "expected to benefit" from Russian interference.
        
        It also identified multiple top-level meetings between Russian government agents and the Trump campaign. It also noted that an enormous amount of evidence mysteriously disappeared, and that several people from the Trump campaign knowingly lied and/or reversed their statements during the investigation.
        
        With all this going on, can you understand why people were interested in Trump-Russia collusion, and why there was an investigation? These things don't appear out of nowhere.
        
        Now, at no point has Hillary Clinton claimed there was voter fraud/election fraud. The voting results were accepted immediately, and leftists did not spend 4 years claiming there was voter fraud. Furthermore, Clinton conceded immediately. Keep in mind, I'm no fan of Clinton, and I think she stole the candidacy from Bernie Sanders, because Bernie Sanders actually won the primaries (the Democratic Party overruled the results).
        
        Let's compare Donald Trump in 2020:
        
        Even before the 2020 election he's claiming that if he doesn't win, it means the other side cheated and it's because of voter fraud. How on earth would he even know there is voter fraud before the election? He set the narrative up in advance, because polls showed he probably wouldn't win.
        
        As soon as it's clear that he's lost, he's claiming election fraud. On the day the election results were ratified, Trump held a rally, asked his supporters not to accept the results and to go down to the capitol building and "stop the steal" (his words) of the election.
        
        There is absolutely no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Yet, the Trump supporters go along with Trump, complaining for 4 years that the election was stolen. (Conservatives do not have a high evidence criteria for something to be true. In fact, evidence is often not required and merely saying something is true is usually enough for them, as long as that truth aligns with their preferred beliefs.)
        
        Prior to the 2024 election, Trump is again claiming that if he doesn't win, it's likely to be voter fraud and the election is going to be stolen from him.
        
        After he's won, he mysteriously is 100% silent about voter fraud.
        
        It is not possible to mathematically exaggerate or even quantify the extent to which conservatives are hypocritical. Possibly a new form of mathematics is required, which will require new breakthroughs in physics and cosmology.
        
        YTW on 08/11/2024 - 13:08
        
        +7
        
        @ForkSnorter: shhhh…you're being far too logical and leaning very heavily on facts to support your argument…this is American politics we're talking about here. Only wild theories and vague half-truths are allowed, at best.
        
        lonewolf on 08/11/2024 - 15:40
        
        +1
        
        @ForkSnorter: hilarious how brain washed some people are.
        
        greatlamp on 08/11/2024 - 16:46
        
        -4
        
        @ForkSnorter: You need to add to your list the astroturfed movement to get rid of the electoral college driven by democrat aligned think tanks, which started as soon as Trump won the 2016 election.
        
        This would disenfranchise voters outside large cities and actually harm democracy.
        
        ForkSnorter on 08/11/2024 - 17:30
        
        +10
        
        @greatlamp: Anyone with an ounce of integrity knows that the electoral college system is disenfranchising the entire nation because a candidate/party can win the popular vote but still lose the election.
        
        What this means is that even if 55% of the nation vote for Hillary Clinton, they end up with daddy's rich boy "grab 'em by the ****y" Trump. In fact, Hillary got 2.9 million votes more than Trump in the 2016 election.
        
        Or how about 2000, when Al Gore got half a million more votes than Bush, but still lost the election.
        
        Furthermore, since the US elections are always decided by a handful of battleground states (as a result of the electoral college system), it is really only a small group of people who decide the outcome of the US election, every single time.
        
        It's unfair to the American people, because the winner of the election governs the entire nation, even if the majority don't want that.
        
        Getting rid of the electoral college system would actually give rural voters nationwide more influence over election outcomes. Currently, only voters in those battleground states have the power to influence the election result.
        
        greatlamp on 08/11/2024 - 21:40
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        because a candidate/party can win the popular vote but still lose the election.
        
        Yes, this is the disingenuous argument they use. Why is that more important than a fair representation of the views in each town/city? The president makes decisions that affect everyone not only the large population centres.
        
        the US elections are always decided by a handful of battleground states
        
        And some people would rather they were decided by a handful of cities. Interesting the largest cities all vote democrat, that's just a coincidence right?
        
        Getting rid of the electoral college system would actually give rural voters nationwide more influence over election outcomes.
        
        No it would make rural votes completely irrelevant. You are seriously misinformed
        
        ForkSnorter on 09/11/2024 - 06:52
        
        +3
        
        @greatlamp: And you are seem to have difficulty understanding simple concepts. You seem to be assuming that rural voters would always vote differently from people in big cities. That actually is not the case, it varies by region in the US.
        
        Currently, under the electoral college system, if an entire town or village in California suddenly decides to turn from democrat to Republican, this will have absolutely no effect on the election result. Every single time. This people are disenfranchised.
        
        However, in a majority-rule system, if the election is extremely tight, that town could determine the outcome of the election. And this power to influence the election result would be possible nationwide.
        
        greatlamp on 09/11/2024 - 07:11
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        You seem to be assuming that rural voters would always vote differently from people in big cities. That actually is not the case, it varies by region in the US.
        
        Go look at a map of voting preferences. My argument isn't invalid because there are some exceptions. If you cannot understand that this a partisan issue than you are simply demonstrating that you are susceptible to being misled.
        
        The concerns of people that live in urban centres will always fundamentally differ from the concerns of people that live in regional areas. Rather than refusing to acknowledge this, how do you propose this is addressed under a new system?
        
        if an entire town or village in California suddenly decides to turn from democrat to Republican, this will have absolutely no effect on the election result.
        
        That occurs because the electoral college is limited by state boundaries. You could propose to get rid of state boundaries and maintain the relationship between votes and land area, but that isn't what you are arguing. You simply don't care about rural and regional voters.
        
        ForkSnorter on 09/11/2024 - 08:35
        
        +5
        
        @greatlamp:
        
        You simply don't care about rural and regional voters.
        
        That is categorically untrue, and under majority rule, rural voters would actually be able to influence elections. Currently, most rural voters do not have any impact on the election outcome. Your proposal to get rid of state boundaries is actually a decent one. Each local area could vote for their preferred candidate who will represent them in parliament. Then the final outcome could be determined based on overall votes.
        
        greatlamp on 09/11/2024 - 08:41
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        That is categorically untrue, and under majority rule, rural voters would actually be able to influence elections. Currently, most rural voters do not have any impact on the election outcome
        
        Only from the perspective that the only votes that count are in swing states. This argument is disingenuous because it implies rural voters are better off under a popular vote. Can you explain how, based on how a popular vote works - not just repeating what you would like to happen?
        
        Can you still not see how having only a popular vote means that rural voters are disenfranchised? It's very simple, 1 city is worth more than entire states.
        
        ForkSnorter on 10/11/2024 - 10:54
        
        +5
        
        @greatlamp: Your mindset is bizarre and far removed from reality.
        
        Your rural vs city dichotomy is simplistic and does not reflect reality. There is no simple split based on type of area.
        
        Even within a single area, people have entirely different views from each other, and you can see that by observing how polarizing the voting results are within individual areas.
        
        You may as well say "Western Sydney vs Eastern Sydney" or "Western Sydney vs Sydney CBD" because it is just as meaningful as saying "city vs rural". There are differences in how these areas vote, they face different issues, they have entirely different levels of wealth, and they have different levels of population density.
        
        Should Western Sydney be allocated more votes / representatives per capita than Sydney CBD?
        
        Let's face it, you are claiming that a vote from a person in a less densely populated areas should be worth 1.5 times the vote of a person in a high-density area,
        
        because
        
        you think all the people in the high-density area are going to be voting liberal and the rural areas are going to be voting conservative, but the rural population will never have a chance to win the election because the population is not large enough.
        
        This is incorrect, it is simplistic, and it is biased.
        
        Personally, I am semi-rural, and would like to be more rural. But I'm not going to claim that I should be allocated a more valuable vote in elections that a person in an inner-city region.
        
        You probably think people in large cities are pampered and spoilt compared to rural residents. On the contrary, the government (using taxpayer money) has to spend far more money per capita for any kind of service or infrastructure it provides in rural areas than in inner-city areas because of the inefficiencies of rural living. Housing is much more expensive in large cities than in rural areas, and while city residents may have much greater access to services and infrastructure, they have to share that with a much greater number of people, with all the stresses that a high-density population brings.
        
        The fact that people in different areas face different issues is the reason why there are 3 layers of government (local, state and federal).
        
        greatlamp on 10/11/2024 - 11:53
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        Your mindset is bizarre and far removed from reality.
        
        Your rural vs city dichotomy is simplistic and does not reflect reality.
        
        Again I ask you to look at a map of voting preferences. Don't tell me that I am rejecting reality when you refuse to acknowledge it. You don't understand the issue, don't understand the motivations of those who are seeking this change, and keep repeating what is essentially propaganda.
        
        But I'm not going to claim that I should be allocated a more valuable vote in elections that a person in an inner-city region.
        
        But you do have a more valuable vote, per person, than someone in an inner city area. Do you understand the current reality? Why don't you seek to understand why this this necessary for democracy?
        
        The fact that people in different areas face different issues is the reason why there are 3 layers of government (local, state and federal).
        
        They don't have equivalent responsibilities, yet you call me simplistic. Having a say at who controls your rubbish bin scheduling isn't the same as having a say about economic and foreign policy. Do you understand that your local council doesn't have any influence over whether you have access to a hospital or whether coal mining attracts a carbon tax?
        
        Why don't you go speak to people who live on the land. Ask them what they think about green policies - which add to their costs more than they do city dwellers, what their concerns are about immigration - which disrupt their communities more than city dwellers, healthcare and education - which suffers from workforce shortages which don't exist in urban areas, their perspective of youth crime, unemployment, local manufacturing - the list goes on.
        
        You might live in a semi-rural area but it's clear you have no idea what the concerns of rural voters are and why they are fundamentally different from the concerns of someone who lives in an urban area.
        
        The population of Sydney is 5.3 million, the population of NSW is 8.1 million. Do the people who live outside of Sydney deserve to have their needs and concerns reflected in politics, or should there just be a popular vote where the only concerns that matter are those of urban dwellers?
        
        How is this not obvious to you?
        
        ForkSnorter on 10/11/2024 - 14:42
        
        +4
        
        @greatlamp: Everything you wrote in this last comment has confirmed everything I wrote in the comment before it.
        
        You "city vs rural" dichotomy is simplistic because you are simplistic and biased.
        
        You completely ignored my "Western Sydney vs Eastern Sydney", or "Western Sydney vs CBD" analogy to your "city vs rural" dichotomy because you are incapable of understanding anything that is not simple. There are people all over Sydney that have roots and connections and family in the rural regions you are talking about. There are extremely progressive and extremely conservative people all over Sydney, who have entirely different issues that concern them, or entirely opinions on different matters. Similarly, you can go to a town in NSW and find it filled with both extremely progressive and extremely conservative people, who will vote entirely differently in all their elections.
        
        I recommend you read some books, travel around a bit and speak to different people (not just your crowd), or get psychological help.
        
        greatlamp on 10/11/2024 - 15:00
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter: You are still refusing to look at a map of voting preferences?
        
        I recommend you read some books, travel around a bit and speak to different people (not just your crowd), or get psychological help.
        
        I recommend you stop attributing your ignorance to others. Instead of learning something you are attacking me while you remain a fool who argues against their own self interest.
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 07:11
        
        +2
        
        @greatlamp: You still don't get it.
        
        If you look at those electoral maps, they just show you who won each electorate. They do not show the individual results within each electorate. The essence of your argument is that a bunch of inland electorates got more votes for Nationals than they did for Labor. But, some Sydney electorates also got more votes for the Liberals than they did for Labor. The point is, there are still Labor voters in those electorates. A lot of them.
        
        There are all kinds of ways of looking at voting tendencies, not just by area. You can look at voting patterns based on age, sex, background, education level, wealth level, etc. And you will always find different patterns.
        
        If you want to see something interesting, have a look at this analysis of voting patterns by age (generation):
        
        https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_depart…
        
        As you can see, we are becoming less conservative over time.The younger a person is, the less likely they are to vote conservative, and the more likely they are to vote Labor or Greens. And the political leaning of an individual tends to remain steady over time. If this pattern continues, within a decade or two, it will not be possible for Liberal or Nationals to win elections, and there will be a different mix of parties to choose from. It's possible the Greens will be in power within a decade or 2 based on the data in that analysis.
        
        On another note: the average age of city residents is significantly lower than rural residents. Rural residents are significantly older on average. And, according to the data, older people tend to vote more conservatively. So, instead of your simplistic analysis that locality determines election results, it might be more true to say that age determines election results. Or there could be a mix of factors (age, background, education level, etc.), not just locality.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 07:41
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter: The essence of my argument is that an exception doesn't disprove a trend. But you can't comprehend that so you resort to pathetic insults.
        
        I don't need to read anything else you have written since you have no interest in what I have written. You are a joke, when I ask you to engage with the topic you become offended. It's a waste of time talking to you
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 07:50
        
        +1
        
        @greatlamp: The average age of city residents is significantly lower than rural residents. Rural residents are significantly older on average. And, according to the data, older people tend to vote more conservatively. So, instead of your simplistic analysis that locality determines election results, it might be more true to say that age determines election results. Or there could be a mix of factors (age, background, education level, etc.), not just locality.
        
        If you want to see something interesting, have a look at this analysis of voting patterns by age (generation):
        
        https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_depart…
        
        As you can see, we are becoming less conservative over time. Each new generation is successively less likely to vote conservative, and more likely to vote Labor or Greens. And the political leaning of an individual tends to remain steady over time. If this pattern continues, within a decade or two, it will not be possible for Liberal or Nationals to win elections, and there will be a different mix of parties to choose from. It's possible the Greens will be in power within a decade or 2 based on the data in that analysis.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 08:04
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter: Try and disprove what I have said. Look at a map of the voting preferences in the USA over a few different elections.
        
        I'm not reading what you share since you have decided my point is whatever suits your easily offended mind.
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 08:13
        
        +2
        
        @greatlamp: I just looked up the 2022 Australian federal election results map, before I wrote my last 2 comments. https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2022/file…
        
        It was exactly what I expected.
        
        This doesn't tell you much about voting tallies within each electorate, nor what determines voting preference.
        
        You could just as easily create a map based on age or background or education level or wealth level instead of locality. And you would see trends in them.
        
        I'm also well aware of the USA voting preference map (from the last 5 or 6 elections), because it is all over the internet. I could probably draw it by memory.
        
        What would be interesting is to look at the voting preferences of different generations, different education levels, different backgrounds, different wealth levels etc.. Then compare these parameters for different regions.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 12:45
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        I'm also well aware of the USA voting preference map (from the last 5 or 6 elections), because it is all over the internet. I could probably draw it by memory.
        
        Good, then why do you refuse to discuss it? Why change the topic then decide I need 'psychological help' because you invented a different argument for me.
        
        What would be interesting is to look at the voting preferences of different generations, different education levels, different backgrounds, different wealth levels etc.. Then compare these parameters for different regions.
        
        Yes, but what I am discussing is how cities trend towards the democrat party, even in red states.
        
        Do you understand how a conversation works?
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 12:53
        
        @greatlamp:
        
        Good, then why do you refuse to discuss it?
        
        I just did.
        
        Like I said, "area" is only one way of charting/mapping voting tendencies and election results.
        
        We could also look at voting tendencies by age or a variety of other factors.
        
        You assert that people in less densely populated areas must have greater voting capacity per capita or greater representation per capita than people in more densely populated areas.
        
        I'm still confused why you think that.
        
        What about people with PhDs? This is a tiny portion of the population, spread thinly across the nation. Due to the low population of people with PhDs, do they require a more valuable vote or greater representation per capita than people without PhDs?
        
        People with PhDs may have entirely different issues that are important to them than people without PhDs.
        
        The portion of the population without PhDs will determine who governs the nation every time. It's unfair to people with PhDs.
        
        Do you see how ridiculous this argument is?
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 12:56
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        You assert that people in less densely populated areas must have greater voting capacity per capita or greater representation per capita than people in more densely populated areas.
        
        I'm still confused why you think that.
        
        You are confused??? The population/electoral college vote??
        
        Are you also confused about what the 'popular vote' measures?
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 13:06
        
        -2
        
        @greatlamp:
        
        Yes, but what I am discussing is how cities trend towards the democrat party, even in red states.
        
        Yes, and there could be (are likely to be) demonstrable correlations that explain why cities trend toward voting Democrat.
        
        The cities could have a younger population, or they may have a higher average education level. Both might be correlated with voting Democrat.
        
        And even in the rural area, people with a higher education level might tend to vote Democrat.
        
        People with a higher education level might place greater value on different issues than people with lower education level.
        
        Would you say, people with a lower average education level require greater voting power and greater representation than those with higher education level? Or vice versa? Would it depend on the population level per education level?
        
        Do you see how basing democracy on area and ignoring other factors is superficial? There all kinds of demographic trends running through society that explain voting preference, not just "area".
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 13:21
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        Yes, and there could be (are likely to be) demonstrable correlations that explain why cities trend toward voting Democrat.
        
        WHO CARES. Does the trend exist? Or are you still gaslighting me and saying I need psychological help because I believe in objective facts.
        
        What a complete waste of time. Learn how voting works before spouting an ignorant opinion.
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 15:00
        
        @greatlamp: You seem to have misunderstood me.
        
        You are claiming that people in less densely populated areas should have greater voting capacity per capita or greater representation per capita than people in more densely populated areas.
        
        Could you please explain why you believe they should?
        
        You claimed that people in rural areas care about different things than people in cities.
        
        This is my analogy, based on your argument:
        
        What about people with PhDs? They make up a tiny portion of the population, spread thinly across the nation.
        
        Due to the low population of people with PhDs, should they have greater voting power per capita or greater representation per capita than people without PhDs? Should their vote be worth more than someone without a PhD?
        
        People with PhDs may place importance on entirely different issues than people without PhDs.
        
        The portion of the population without PhDs is massively greater, so they will determine who governs the nation every time. It's unfair to people with PhDs.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 15:37
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        You are claiming that people in less densely populated areas should have greater voting capacity per capita or greater representation per capita than people in more densely populated areas.
        
        Because otherwise prospective politicians can completely ignore their concerns, as less population would equal less votes under a popular vote. I still don't understand how this isn't obvious.
        
        Are you trolling?
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 15:43
        
        @greatlamp:
        
        Are you trolling?
        
        No, I'm genuinely trying to understand.
        
        According to your argument, people with PhDs should also have greater voting power than people without PhDs.
        
        The population of people with PhDs is much smaller than the number of people without PhDs.
        
        Otherwise prospective politicians can completely ignore their concerns, as less population would equal less votes under a popular vote.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 15:52
        
        @ForkSnorter: Stop changing the subject, you are confusing yourself.
        
        Why do people in less densely populated areas have greater voting capacity per capita or greater representation per capita than people in more densely populated areas in every country that has a representative voting system?
        
        Why are you asking me for a justification and then refusing to accept it?
        
        ForkSnorter on 11/11/2024 - 16:21
        
        @greatlamp: There are not massive differences in the population of each electorate in Australia.
        
        "There are 151 lower house electorates. They average 113,000 voters. The biggest has 133,026 voters (Macarthur in Sydney’s southwest), the smallest has 71,937 (Solomon in Darwin)."
        (Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 2022)
        
        In contrast, in the US state of Vermont, a person's vote is worth more than 3 times that of a person in Texas (just as an example).
        
        But the main difference between the US and Australia, is that in the US, the party (presidential candidate) with the most votes in a state gets all delegate votes (electoral college votes) from that state. This is the main problem. This system usually favors the Republican Party in elections.
        
        The electoral college system in the US is a relic of the slavery years in the 18th and 19th century. It is a product of conflict between conservative pro-slavery states in the south and progressive anti-slavery states in the north, where the South pressured the North for a system that favors them in federal elections:
        
        "The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing the president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.
        
        The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 17:45
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        the party (presidential candidate) with the most votes in a state gets all delegate votes (electoral college votes) from that state.
        
        Thanks, if you recall before you went off the deep end and started throwing insults I suggested removing state boundaries to address this issue.
        
        in the US state of Vermont, a person's vote is worth more than 3 times that of a person in Texas (just as an example).
        
        Yes because of population differences in sparsely populated states.
        
        I'm glad you are slowly learning something
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/11/2024 - 07:05
        
        @greatlamp:
        
        Thanks, if you recall before you went off the deep end and started throwing insults I suggested removing state boundaries to address this issue.
        
        As I recall, you were initially defending the electoral college system.
        
        Your words:
        
        You need to add to your list the astroturfed movement to get rid of the electoral college driven by democrat aligned think tanks, which started as soon as Trump won the 2016 election.
        This would disenfranchise voters outside large cities and actually harm democracy.
        
        Actually, it didn't start in 2016:
        
        "More resolutions have been submitted to amend the U.S. Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution. Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress."
        
        I'm fairly sure you have revised your opinion that "removing the electoral college system would harm democracy", since you yourself have suggested abolishing it (getting rid of state boundaries in elections).
        
        Daabido on 09/11/2024 - 12:34
        
        @ForkSnorter: Fatty Beazley won the popular vote but lost the election.
        
        Zafzui on 09/11/2024 - 22:59
        
        -1
        
        @ForkSnorter: Whoever losses always cry for fraud and stolen votes. Why a winner has never complained bcz it suits him/ her.
      - Butterchurner on 08/11/2024 - 08:42
        
        +9
        
        @900dollaridoos: Only one side actually lost the plot and stormed a government building though.
- Murkymerv on 07/11/2024 - 21:49
  
  +35
  
  while the US election was on , your Australian government was/is trying to put a ban "misinformation laws" on social media through parliament . Oh' , did you mention that the government bodies are exempt from from this legislation .
  Enjoy your censorship Australia ✅
  - Charity on 08/11/2024 - 00:23
    
    +6
    
    Australians, in general, sadly don’t rate freedom highly on their needs. “Freedumb” probably can be found in these posts. With this mentality, it’s hard to not think about moving in the long term. Nothing can possibly get better when most people mock freedom. 😢
    - Gervais fanboy on 08/11/2024 - 00:32
      
      +7
      
      It’s much easier for people to attack you or what the op is saying than question the nanny state.
      Modern day people like the feeling of a big government casting a supposed safety net around them.
      - Charity on 08/11/2024 - 00:39
        
        +8
        
        @Gervais fanboy: Weirder yet, these are the sorts of people that believe Trump bad, Putin bad, China bad, Libs or Labor bad - and simultaneously think government always good and it's wrong for anyone to question them!
        
        Gervais fanboy on 08/11/2024 - 00:42
        
        +1
        
        @Charity: Yeah I agree but we don’t have to get into those unrelated topics right now.
        There’s nothing you and I can say that will change people’s minds.
        
        Seeing the overwhelming support for such a draconian policy, it’s best to just give up.
        Btw I am very impressed by the op and how he has presented his arguments.
  - EightImmortals on 08/11/2024 - 07:15
    
    +1
    
    Actually I thought they DID pass this stupid bill (in the lower house). They still have to get it through the senate (har-har as if it isn't a done deal) but just in case there is a petition going here, it's the least we can do.
    
    Never surrender.
    
    https://stopcensorship.com.au/get-active/
  - iminabrons on 08/11/2024 - 13:42
    
    +1
    
    You clearly know very little about Australian politics as you don't even mention which politcal party "was/is trying to put a ban "misinformation laws". More vague nonsense from another shit stirrer. Unfortunately there appears to be a big market out there for vague "shit stirrers" like yourself.
  - Assburg on 08/11/2024 - 14:52
    
    +4
    
    While in principle I do agree with the concerns you have… Disinformation* campaigns don't look like they did 100 years ago, it's not the odd story slipping through and getting published in a newspaper or some flyers being handed out. Modern day disinformation campaigns are pushed into your home, they're there when you catch the train, the people who push them are able to analyse data and determine how effective they are and what needs to be done to make them more convincing basically in real time. There are no publishers or editors to vet the rhetoric people want to spread. There is no way to hold people accountable for distributing falsehoods with intent to cause harm.
    
    The irony is that with so many active disinformation campaigns, the truth may not be censored but it is certainly not easy to find.
    
    I wish we valued freedom more as a people but at the very least we do have very good mechanisms for seeking legal review of wrongly exercised power, and I think the Office of the Information Commissioner is very aware to the fact that "censoring" some things will just make them more persuasive if they're already quite controversial.
- iminabrons on 08/11/2024 - 13:35
  
  +1
  
  I think you need to find more info about the demographic that write stuff like, "tRuMp WoN!1!!! cRy hArDeR LeFtiEz!1!!". I can't see oldie oldies writing that. More like something the Gen X and Milleniums would "create".
  - Daabido on 09/11/2024 - 12:37
    
    Gen X don't write like that. We are confident we are the greatest generation ever.
  - dogboy on 11/11/2024 - 14:19
    
    Gen X? I think you meant to type Gen Z.
- Murkymerv on 08/11/2024 - 14:21
  
  -1
  
  https://youtu.be/QVq8vliyEl4?si=b-vbM7MeiorV4RHt
  Watch the whole article!
- Don5252 on 09/11/2024 - 19:13
  
  At least you’d still be eligible. Over 100 you would struggle. Just.
- juki on 09/11/2024 - 20:03
  
  i was about to say, why stop at teens? in all fairness its not like media are all that reliablelately
just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:24

+92

I feel like this is just a way for the government to introduce Digital ID. It feels very weird that Australians are okay with submitting their Passport or Driver's License to use Facebook or Twitter (or X). People can disagree, but no matter how strong the security, data leaks will happen and even if they don't, we're giving the government the ability to link any social media account with a person.

On top of that saying "that's illegal" hasn't and won't stop kids from using social media. All it will teach them is how to use a VPN.
- bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:00
  
  +19
  
  I was around in the early days of the Internet, when it was normal to have your real name, work email and phone number on every post.
  It was a hell of a lot more civilised, like real life.
  
  Anonymity has its uses, but turns people into arseholes.
  
  All it will teach them is how to use a VPN.
  
  That applies to some internet censorship, including attempts to block file-sharing and porn. But big social media is different. Look at how the government was able to collect GST on online shopping. The big guys like Aliexpress and Ebay can be regulated. Same with social media - they only need to regulate the major platforms. It can be done.
  - just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:03
    
    +11
    
    Regulating GST is a bit easier than this. You are realistically sending your items to an Australian address so that can easily be checked. Even if ID verification can be done effectively (which I doubt), the question is should it be done?
    
    Do we really want an Australia where we are linking our ID to Signal or Telegram or Instagram?
    - bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:11
      
      +1
      
      It is certainly a challenge. But I don't think it is impossible. As a parent, I have had to face these issues, and it is scary. Social media can be toxic even to an old fart. Regulation does not have to be perfect. And there are plenty of examples where "linking" preserves privacy. Brilliant people have been working on this for a long time. Look at how MyGov partitions information, in a way that can be inconvenient.
      I know people who work in government healthcare IT, and they take privacy very seriously.
      - just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:14
        
        +5
        
        @bargaino: That's true but there's always the potential to create a backdoor and this will just make it easier for them to do so. It is just weird they would include things like Whatsapp or Telegram.
        
        bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:27
        
        -5
        
        @just-human: I think you are reading too much into that list from The Guardian. Obviously it is not practical to regulate messaging apps like whatsapp and Signal. Try to focus on what can be done.
        Places like Reddit, Youtube comments and Twitter can clearly be toxic, and justify regulation in the same way as tobacco or alcohol. We can't control everything, and any restrictions are very difficult. But that doesn't mean we do nothing - the stakes are too high.
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:48
        
        +9
        
        @bargaino: As a young person, I see things differently. It depends on what the cost of the control is. Regulating alcohol just means training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important. Social media on the other hand is a different story.
        
        We live our lives on the internet from simple things like keeping in touch with friends to sharing our secrets on the internet. I believe the solution isn't to take away the privacy that we very much take for granted, but to empower and educate parents. At the end of the day they will be exposed to the internet, wouldn't it be better if we taught them how to use it properly rather than banning it and putting people's privacy at risk?
        
        Ughhh on 07/11/2024 - 21:10
        
        -5
        
        @just-human:
        
        We live our lives on the internet from simple things like keeping in touch with friends to sharing our secrets on the internet.
        
        You've pretty much confirmed why social media should be banned for <16yos. You can't live a day without your phone. Don't know how to communicate in person.
        
        Many adults before you did well without social media. You'll live.
        
        I believe the solution isn't to take away the privacy that we very much take for granted
        
        Lol so worried about privacy, but fine with social media.
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:19
        
        +10
        
        @Ughhh: I am over 18+ but I was a child at one point and I did fine with social media being there.
        
        Lol so worried about privacy, but fine with social media.
        
        Privacy from the government is very different. Would you genuinely be comfortable with the government being able to instantly link any post, text, or status to an identity? Even worse, if that information was leaked, would you want a hacker to be able to make that link?
        
        Ughhh on 09/11/2024 - 10:22
        
        -1
        
        @just-human:
        
        Would you genuinely be comfortable with the government being able to instantly link any post, text, or status to an identity? Even worse, if that information was leaked, would you want a hacker to be able to make that link?
        
        Is that something that is confirmed, or something you have assumed and you're arguing against this assumption you've made?
        
        Digital ID already exist by the way.
        
        donga100 on 07/11/2024 - 23:25
        
        +2
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        You've pretty much confirmed why social media should be banned for <16yos. You can't live a day without your phone. Don't know how to communicate in person. Many adults before you did well without social media. You'll live.
        
        I know, right?! Why doesn't the government just ban the entire internet and mobile phones? Save some money on upgrading NBN to speeds that nobody needs anyway. /s
        
        Ughhh on 09/11/2024 - 10:23
        
        -2
        
        @donga100: It's always 0 or 100 hey. Some kind of balance is way too complex for humans. Better stick to skippydy toilet.
        
        blitz on 07/11/2024 - 21:14
        
        -1
        
        @just-human:
        
        training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important.
        
        Where do these IDs come from? They are stored somewhere, you know. My drivers licence is stored somewhere. My other ID cards, too.
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:20
        
        +10
        
        @blitz: The ID being there and being linked to what you do online is very different.
        
        DashCam AKA Rolts on 07/11/2024 - 21:15
        
        @just-human:
        
        Regulating alcohol just means training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important.
        
        You may be surprised that some venues will scan your ID and store them; no scan, no entry.
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:20
        
        @DashCam AKA Rolts: Personally haven't seen that myself but that is interesting. That's more of a private business's choice rather than a government mandate.
        
        Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:55
        
        -1
        
        @just-human: Who do you think made it legal , or more to the point allow it to be done?
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:56
        
        +3
        
        @Protractor: Making it legal ≠ mandating it. If the government allowed social media companies to check ID that would be one thing. Mandating it is another.
        
        Hardlyworkin on 07/11/2024 - 21:34
        
        +3
        
        @just-human: The kids that need it the most may not have parents capable of wanting to be educated. Have you met people?!
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:45
        
        +12
        
        @Hardlyworkin: Maybe, but at the end of the day, our digital privacy is very valuable. I don't see this ban as an argument of whether children under 16 should be on social media or not (I personally don't see a need for them to be). I see this as an issue of implementation. Again, EVERY social media user will need to verify their ID and link our accounts which would allow the government to effectively see every social media you have and link whatever you say to you.
        
        I think this legislation is surveillance disguised as protecting children. Even the government admits the ban will have limited effectiveness.
        
        Eeples on 08/11/2024 - 23:08
        
        @just-human: How does it allow the government?
        
        just-human on 09/11/2024 - 00:39
        
        @Eeples: Part of verification means telling the government "Hey, we at Instagram got a request to verify X person's ID to register this account".
        
        Another way, and what will likely happen, is to be asked to link our myGov ID to our social media accounts to stay verified.
        
        Eeples on 04/12/2024 - 09:54
        
        @just-human: Speculation.
        
        rezdo on 12/11/2024 - 08:11
        
        @just-human: Goodbye whistle-blowers in government, they won't risk their jobs and face the tyranny of this nanny state. (don't even start me on our road laws!!) It's bad enough now with wide sweeping laws to comply release of digital footprints for "terror" or "defamation" purposes, look at the ATO, Defence force and ASIO, all recently prosecuting employees for blowing the whistle on corruption, some seemingly anonymous, but not really thanks to our lack of privacy. If there is no anonymity whatsoever, goodbye democracy and hello draconian laws to stop protest and unrest. You wait, next will be regulating the application of VPN's. I fear many will probably disengage and seek out seedier alternates to the already regulated social media platforms or worse, return to traditional media keeping the flame of partisan misinformation alive for a bit longer.
        
        My kids started using social media at 12yrs old, and yes there were moments of wtf and learning to cope with its' challenges, but with some parenting they grew to be resilient and to challenge what they read and to be descent humans and respect others.
        
        Apart from curtailing to the hard right Christian lobbying groups for the upcoming election, I suspect this legislation's true aim is to tame future dissent and prepare for the challenges of increased inequality, food and climate uncertainty, and the dissent that follows.
        
        Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:53
        
        @just-human: "empower and educate parents."
        
        You'd need to do some serious 'un-cooking' first, but I respect your optimism.
        
        just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:55
        
        +4
        
        @Protractor: That's just one potential solution that doesn't infringe on our privacy. At the end of the day what the government is proposing is a solution that infringes on our digital anonymity without solving the actual problem.
        
        iminabrons on 08/11/2024 - 14:28
        
        @just-human: I wish "empowering" and "informing" worked but as far as the majority of society is concerned it doesn't.
        I'm utterly convinced that 70% of the population switches their minds completely off on hearing they are about to be "empowered" and "informed". At some level almost all people will recognised that they are about to be patronised.
        
        Aleigh123 on 08/11/2024 - 21:38
        
        @just-human: I feel like going from social media requiring legal documentation linked to them and having a backdoor purposely built into social media is a bit of a leap in logic. Unless of course I've misunderstood something you've said.
        
        Also, does it really matter if your ID required for WhatsApp or Telegram? Both service already require a phone number for registration, and mobile phones in Australia (and a lot of other countries) also require your identification to be linked to them. Meanwhile, things that are end-to-end encrypted are still encrypted.
        
        greatlamp on 08/11/2024 - 22:17
        
        @Aleigh123: The entire point is to control social media, not private conversations.
        
        Are you not aware of people being arrested in the UK for sharing wrongthink on facebook?
        
        Aleigh123 on 08/11/2024 - 22:53
        
        @greatlamp: If you're referring to this, that's not for thinking differently.
        
        greatlamp on 08/11/2024 - 23:06
        
        @Aleigh123: No, people were arrested before this incident.
        
        But since you brought it up, The newspaper says that people writing things on the internet causes violence so that is what you believe? You have no idea what they wrote, but you agree they deserved to be arrested?
        
        Journalists are not free thinkers or intellectuals, they get briefings from the police and write an article, they get briefings from the government and write an article, and if what they write isn't 'on brand' the editor scraps it. I find many cases of journalists getting things wrong.
        
        Even worse, writing articles that distort the truth. Just read any mainstream article about housing shortage in the financial press and they will tell you that landlords are 'essential' because they 'provide' housing, or we need more supply! More tax concessions for the building industry!
        
        Where are you supposed to get the truth if people are discouraged from sharing controversial statements online? You would just google and read actual propaganda written by 'think tanks' or 'advocacy' groups. Or you could use AI and have those articles summarised for you.
        
        The impression I get is that you have never left the bubble so you don't understand why privacy online is even necessary
        
        Aleigh123 on 10/11/2024 - 17:14
        
        @greatlamp: Interesting how many edits it took for you to arrive at your current answer, but that's beside the point.
        
        Journalists are not free thinkers or intellectuals, they get briefings from the police and write an article, they get briefings from the government and write an article, and if what they write isn't 'on brand' the editor scraps it. I find many cases of journalists getting things wrong.
        
        Yes, journalists get things wrong and often-times they may just put things in verbatim from sources that may be unreliable, they may put their own spin to things to make it inaccurate, or as you said, things might just be scrapped or modified to keep things on-brand. But that doesn't really mean that the mainstream media is inherently an unreliable form of news.
        
        Even worse, writing articles that distort the truth. Just read any mainstream article about housing shortage in the financial press and they will tell you that landlords are 'essential' because they 'provide' housing, or we need more supply! More tax concessions for the building industry
        
        Okay.
        
        Where are you supposed to get the truth if people are discouraged from sharing controversial statements online?
        
        Except those people (at least the ones I mentioned) weren't arrested for sharing simple controversial statements. The defendents Jordan Parlour and Tyler Kay were arrested for posting on social media and saying: "…set fire to all the f****** hotels…" and "Every man and their dog should be smashing [censored] out Britannia Hotel".
        
        I imagine there are certainly cases where things like things can be taken as precedent to perhaps unfairly detain people. But if they're cases like the above, I'm fine with that. If you think otherwise, then we can only agree to disagree.
        
        The impression I get is that you have never left the bubble so you don't understand why privacy online is even necessary
        
        If that is your view, okay.
        
        This will be my final response.
        
        greatlamp on 11/11/2024 - 01:09
        
        @Aleigh123: Well done, you've shown how easy it is to be misled when you lack critical thinking.
        
        More than 30 people found themselves arrested over social media posts. From what I’ve found, at least 17 of those have been charged.
        
        What's it called when people are arrested without charge? Unfairly detaining people? No that would never happen…
        
        trapper on 14/11/2024 - 19:28
        
        @just-human: Of course an app like Telegram will never comply so then it gets blocked in Australia.
        
        Will be the same for most freedom orientated social media, all blocked here.
  - trapper on 14/11/2024 - 19:03
    
    I was around in the early days of the Internet, when it was normal to have your real name, work email and phone number on every post.
    
    When was that?? In the 90's, the internet was largely anonymous with everyone using handles. You'd never put your real details anywhere.
    
    It wasn’t really until Facebook came along that people began using their actual real identities.
    - bargaino on 14/11/2024 - 19:09
      
      It all started turning to crap in 1993 :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
- Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:42
  
  -3
  
  "I feel like this is just a way for the government to introduce Digital ID"
  
  That sure would clean up the swamp (to paraphrase). Imagine the ripple effect. Maybe the govt can tax online anonymity.
  Pretty sure ppl would cough up to keep their Ninja outfits on.
- Cobalt_ on 07/11/2024 - 22:03
  
  +37
  
  This is 100% the trojan horse to force people into using Digital ID. How else can they possibly enforce the ban without everyone having to register with the government.The simple fact is we do not need the government to regulate internet use for children. Parental control systems already exist in Android, Apple OS's and MS Windows. IF parents want to stop their children from accessing certain apps and sites they can already do so.
  - ozb1ozb2ozb3 on 08/11/2024 - 16:20
    
    -5
    
    Sadly not all children are under effective control of Parents. Especially considering early teen years and rebellious nature that comes naturally with it, even the most involved Parents would struggle managing social media access of their child when their every friend talks about latest wape trick on TikTok. Agree it could be a Govt backdoor and also unfair to have a blanket ban. But society has tried managing safe social media access for children for past 15 years and safe online access for more than 30 years. If we have not had a great success till now, wouldn't history continue repeating? So peel away the layers and the ultimate Q is - As society do we accept the ongoing social media negative impact to some of our children and is harm to even 1 child is one too many?
    
    TLDR; Possibly backdoor but safe social media for children is a mirage
- ForkSnorter on 08/11/2024 - 07:01
  
  We already have digital ID. Heard of mygov?
- Morkai on 08/11/2024 - 08:56
  
  On top of that saying "that's illegal" hasn't and won't stop kids from using social media. All it will teach them is how to use a VPN.
  
  I mean the original block on torrent sites was circumvented by changing your DNS server, not even using a VPN.
- morse on 08/11/2024 - 09:09
  
  +2
  
  I thought there wasn’t going to be any ID required. It more self enforced by parents. Didn’t Albanese say it’s so parents can feel reasonable about saying no.
- Phantomsurfr on 09/11/2024 - 04:13
  
  +5
  
  I feel like people combatting digital ID have never had to do a KYC before. I don't want a company or potential employer (or even a nightclub) for that matter to have a copy of my physical ID on their records or know more than they have to.
  
  It's been very well publicized that major companies don't keep our details secure. Optus is the most recent major headliner, hell I remember seeing some guy who brought an old RSL scanner which still had images of driver's licenses on there. Can't trust mega corps or small businesses security systems or practices.
  
  If a solution that offers a digital form of credentials that doesn't transfer any personal details unless authorised by the individual is available I'm not sure why it wouldn't be heralded as a brilliant move..
  
  I've had to take to many photos of myself holding my passport to setup accounts, and many previous employers have photocopies of all my ID's that have seriously poor security systems. Hell, I experienced a stalker from one workplace because they had my phone number printed up on the whiteboard, god forbid they put my address up there too.
  - just-human on 09/11/2024 - 22:55
    
    +1
    
    As someone who works in financial services I am well aware of what KYC is, however, there are places it should be used and places it shouldn't. In banking, for example, there is little risk of using KYC in terms of individual freedoms and expression.
    
    Social media is different. The anonymity afforded by current platforms encourages people to be more expressive. One example could be whistleblowers who report on key events of national importance. This relies on the government not having an index of everyone's identity linked to all their social medias.
    
    many previous employers have photocopies of all my ID's that have seriously poor security systems
    
    Exactly, if you have experience with that, why would you want your identity linked to even more things?
    - jimbo jones on 10/11/2024 - 00:39
      
      I guess the Australian government could create something like COPPA (expect put the age at 16).
      And do some European type fine of 4% of global revenue.
      Google was fined USD$170m for tracking of minors.
      
      Who knows, maybe the Australian courts can follow the Russian courts and fine them two undecillion Ozzie roubles…
- MonkEE on 09/11/2024 - 18:56
  
  +1
  
  You are asking about one thing, and now you are implying another thing. Making these assumptions to say the government actually wants to do something else…You might as well just make things up out of thin air.
- noideaa on 11/11/2024 - 07:21
  
  The giveway is going heavy handed with everything when they could’ve just focued on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and p0rn sites.
  
  The rest is uneccessary when it’s just those 5 that are the main culprit.

Social Media Ban for under 16s

Poll Options expired

Comments

New Forum Topics